Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 174

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 170 ← Archive 172 Archive 173 Archive 174 Archive 175 Archive 176 → Archive 180

Policy on malformed RfAs

I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BROOXXDEBEAST 3 is malformed because it doesn't use the RfA template, the username shouldn't be capitalized and it is not his 3rd RfA. Should this RfA be fixed, or should it be deleted? (Creating the RfA was that user's first edit, so it wouldn't pass anyway). SUL 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not transcluded to WP:RFA, which makes it more or less a moot question, I'd say. We can watchlist it and then nominate it as something like WP:CSD#G6 or WP:CSD#G2 if nothing more is done with it.  Frank  |  talk  18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted several hundred of that type as G6, very non-controversial as long as there are no !votes. MBisanz talk 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I dropped off a welcome and a note on his talk page - don't know if any of you folks want to offer anything or not. Might be nice to let him know if you're going to delete it, ya know .. bite and all. — Ched :  ?  20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it is good to wait a week or so till deleting it. Given it was his first edit, I highly doubt he will be back. MBisanz talk 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit counts

In my opinion, edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value and faithfulness of an editor. But many people think that they do and often vote oppose because of that reason. South Bay (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely true - discussed here many times over and likely to come up after this ad infinitum. Edit counts, while not necessarily of the utmost importance, do provide a framework to start from. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Also some editors may copyedit a whole article and only use a single edit, while others may edit different sections or sub-sections with each edit and therefore rack them up. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Different people say this in different ways: has the candidate gotten far enough on their wiki-journey so that if things are going to go wrong, they would have gone wrong already? The answer may be "no" if they have few edits, or if their edits are predominantly mindless or corrections and tweaks, or if they haven't spent enough time listening, or taking responsibility, or talking about difficult things ... everyone's list is a little different, and people look for different things in different candidates. - Dank (push to talk) 12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Various tools are more likely to "rack" up the edit counts, but I have agree with Dank, while a lot of edits don't show any proficeincy, a lack in certain areas can show a lack of experience. Eg a lot of edits doesn't mean somebody knows what they are doing, but a few edits can be a huge warning sign that the person hasn't been around the block yet.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, but I think that scenario applies more to the project space than article space. As mentioned above, editors will sometimes spend quite a bit of time researching and then making large sweeping changes to an article as opposed to small successive edits - or they temporarily create a draft in userspace. In the project space (or the "admin areas" as we all refer to them), a pittance of edits likely indicates lack of experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A novice was once curious about the nature of the Edit Count. He approached the Zen master and asked, "Zen master, what is the nature of the Edit Count?"

"The Edit Count is as a road," replied the Zen master. "You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has traveled to reach you."

And the novice was Enlightened. (source) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put. Another way to say it may be found at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival: "we Wikipedians abhor the idea that the amount of time spent working on this website is any sort of indication of how well one can write an encyclopedia article. Indeed, we distinguish ourselves by our ability to write good articles, which is what really matters. We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect." Kingturtle (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely my last posting here

This will very likely be the last posting I ever make in this stew-pit, so let me leave you with this thought.

The fundamental problem with RfA is that it's the candidate who asks the community for the job, not the community who asks the candidate to accept the job. Please don't bother to howl me down, 'cos I shan't be listening. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've believed for a long while that crats should simply quietly promote those who they think are suitable, without discussion. This only works, of course, if they have the ability to undo it when they recognize a mistake. If there must be dramatics (read: discussion), save them for the "should we desysop?" question, where they're probably unavoidable. But, this idea can never fly because nothing can overcome the objection of "We can't do that- it's different than what we're already doing!" Friday (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly you're right. We live in the best of all possible wikiworlds and ought to be grateful. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times have we had the "this is my last posting here" thread on this page? My guess, just as with the "what's wrong with RfA" and "here's my groundbreaking idea for how to fix RfA" and "Ban (ENTER NAME HERE) from RfA" and "Ban (ENTER NAME HERE) for suggesting we ban (ENTER NAME HERE) from RfA" and "No... YOU'RE Stupid", is that this won't be the last time we have this thread either.... Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfB standards

Disclaimers: I have no plans to run for anything, I'm not encouraging anyone else to run for anything, and if I did run for something, I would wait until I expected it to be drama-free. We've had exactly 2 promotions to crat in the last 8 months, and RfA has changed a lot in 8 months; has RfB changed? What are the expectations? I can think of 6 or 7 people who I think would make great crats and are likely to get support, but FUD about the process might put them off from running. Looking over past successful nominations, it seems to me people are looking for roughly 18 months of admin-quality work (not necessarily as an admin), and roughly the edit count that you'd expect from that (not counting "quick" gains ... there's nothing wrong with quick gains and relatively mindless editing, we need it, but edits that involve taking responsibility for making things work and engaging people count a lot more). Is that about right? What specific skills are we looking for at RfB these days, other than what we're already looking for at RfA? - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bibliomaniac15/A_history_of_RFA#RFB makes for some interesting reading. It seems the standards for RfB have become slightly less strict over the past several months. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
RfB is more of a popularity contest than RfA. At RfA many of the people who !vote for you don't know you. When you run for RfB, virtually everybody who votes knows you. Thus, it is less about "does he know the policies" and more about "do I like/trust" the guy. Some people have standards, but like all standards, those are subject to whom you are dealin with. The only general standard requirements are that you have to have been an admin for at least a year and have experience at all or most of the 'crat areas.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the unwritten one-year rule is less-strictly enforced than it once was; for example, very few of the opposes at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/X! brought it up. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Adminship is just some extra buttons. All I'm interested in is when someone started acting like an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, we definitely need more Bureaucrats, so some nominations would be nice. Kingturtle (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of two who have asked me for pre-rfb reviews... but both were thinking about the end of summer...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I divide my time between disagreeing with consensus at RFA and disagreeing with consensus at CSD. As a politician, I'm an idiot. But one of these years, I'll probably settle down, stop making waves, and then I might run for something. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Cover? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on that Kingturtle? I've seen it written quite often that there is no great need. An insider's perspective could be quite instructive. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that we've lost 4 crats since December, and only promoted 1.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Where's the problem? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
We've promoted two. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not an official rule, so I ask, has there ever been a successful promotion to bureaucrat on a user who was not an administrator? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to do technically, as OverlordQ found out when a crat clicked the wrong button at his RFA, but no, no user who was not already an administrator has been directly promoted to bureaucrat. MBisanz talk 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No - in the very, very early days the old crats were given the "extra bit" from a developer - they were already admins. There used to be a link to one such conversation on someones talk knocking around. Technically still possible to "go straight to 'crat - do not pass Go" but unlikely. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
For a while there was a user who was a bureaucrat but not an administrator: User:RobH. He was a developer, and as far as I know, gave himself bureaucrat right for some technical reason. That said, MBisanz is right, no user has ever been promoted to bureaucrat before being an administrator. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, here are the RobH log entries [1]. MBisanz talk 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also interested as to why Kingturtle states we need more 'crats. I was under the impression the crat backlog had diminished (specifically usernames though I know bot flagging has some hold ups at times)? I guess my fault for making assumptions - when a 'crat makes that kind of statement then surely we need to listen (note - not me - I'd fail RFA let alone RFB but I can think of some who might pass if the appetite is there)Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked the numbers for kicks. RFB candidates currently have a better pass/fail ratio than we've had in five years. In the last twelve months (June '08 - May '09), RFBs have been 6 successful, 6 unsuccessful. The four twelve month periods before that were: 4-21, 2-17, 6-17, and 7-10, respectively. The only other time there has been a 50%+ pass ratio was the pre- 6/2004 period when the bureaucrat position was new. Does this mean that it has become easier to become a bureaucrat? And/or does it mean there have been fewer unqualified individuals submitting RFBs? I also note that it was once common for several editors to RFB in a single month, but there have not been 3+ RFBs in a calendar month in nearly a year and a half. My assessment is that the number of nominations has dropped dramatically. Can/should this be rectified? That seems debatable. Useight (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We could always use more 'crats, so the ones we have don't get burnt out (bureaucratship is an extention of adminship, and while not necessarily a challenging job, doing a ton of renames/bot flags over and over again can still wear away ones patience). I'll never buy the argument that we don't need any more 'crats - if somebody is qualified for the position then they should be allowed it, regardless of the circumstances not pertinent to the candidates themselves. Just as a side note; Pedro, I'm curious why you feel you lack the community's confidence should you ever run for bureaucratship. I can't speak for everybody, of course, but were I personally to see you applying for the position, I would support you as having the experience, aptitude, and knowledge to be an effective 'crat. You're one of the first people to come to mind when I think of editors who would be good for that role. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Generous indded, but "rude to the point of breaching CIVIL", "curt", "doesn't edit the main space even vaguely enough", "opinionated", "tempramental" and "process driven" would be six good arguments against me. Thank you for the kind words though! Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I definitely see what you mean in those arguments. You aren't afraid to speak your mind and you call a spade a spade. Mainspace editing isn't exactly your biggest foray on Wikipedia, process is. People like you are pivotal to the functioning of Wikipedia, regardless of what anybody thinks of policy-focused admins. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
My personal take is that RFB is often seen as "hat collecting" - I seem to recall that one major wikipedia (.es ?) has all admins as crats anyway - probably unworkable here I guess. I think the issue is that some members of the community view crats as "above" admins on the basis that admins are "above" editors. Pretty distasteful, IMHO, but it is what it is. Many admins close contentious AFD's and are expected to divine consensus - yet RFA is 97% pressing a button. Bot flagging is based on technical advice and renaming / usurption simply following a process. Frankly the +crat flag is way less of a "big deal" than +sysop yet some people [who?] seem to think it's a holy grail and accordingly set their standards very, very high. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Bureaucratship is nothing more than a few extra buttons, so I've never understood the nearly unattainable standards that RfB candidates are held to. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I agree with what you've said to a very large extent - I've always thought the +crat flag is seen by many as a badge certifying a very high level of clue. In fact it is (or ideally should be) an add-on to adminship for those who want to do extra work in the area. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean those stupid enough to put themselves through a week of abuse just to do more work... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh. Good point. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It perhaps isn't justified by the toolset, but Master&Expert does have it right I think - over time, the bureaucrat position has become something of a badge for particularly sensible, diplomatic, and clueful admins. Obviously there are plenty of admins that I greatly respect that have never, and maybe will never, run for crat - but without exception the crats we have promoted in the last few years are editors I wholly respect the judgment of. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing at all - we don't need all that many bureaucrats, and we may as well be picky about it. Unlike the administrator position (where, within reason, there are always enough backlogs to warrant promoting another one) there aren't that many crat jobs. Sure, we could probably use a few more right now, but I doubt the number required for optimal running is more than another five or so. ~ mazca t|c 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
On the topic of being "above" others, the phrase that I consider most relevant to bureaucrats is primus inter pares. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I have to agree that the promotion from admin to bureaucrat is considerably less significant than the promotion from normal user to admin - there's not much damage a bad bureaucrat could do that they couldn't already do as an admin, and if a user's trusted enough to use the admin tools, gaining the crat tools as well shouldn't be a seriously arduous achievement. The question, then, is: why do we set the bar for passing RFB so high? As far as I'm aware, it's 90%, compared to the mere 70%-ish that we require from prospective adminstrators (despite the fact that being a good bureaucrat is arguably easier than being a good admin). This, more than anything else, is probably the main reason so few people volunteer for RFB. I understand the logic behind the pass requirement for RFB being higher than it is for RFA, but does it need to be so much higher? Would reducing it to say, 80%, really bring about the end of Wikipedia, or would it simply gain us a few extra crats who otherwise might not have been willing to put themselves forward? Robofish (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Afterthought: at the very least, the pass requirement for RFB should be lowered for candidates who are already admins (i.e., pretty much all of them). I'm OK with it remaining at 90% for the hypothetical candidate going straight from ordinary user to bureaucrat. Robofish (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Assuming you mean 'why am I suggesting this?': because I agree that we have had a lack of users running for bureaucrat, and I think the high level of support - unjustifiably high, in my view - required to pass at RFB might be part of the reason for that. I could be wrong; it could be that we could lower the pass boundary and still no one would put themselves forward. But in that case, no harm done. If it's true that we should have more bureaucrats, what's wrong with this proposal as a way of resolving the problem? Robofish (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My question was why should the pass mark be lower for admins than non-admins. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the reason for that is simply that admins, having passed RFA, have already proved they are trusted by the community. I think that granting the bureaucrat tools to an admin is a considerably lesser step than granting them to a non-admin user. Robofish (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the passing standard for RfB is already 80%. Nathan T 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps I somehow missed a huge discussion, but I am under the impression that the RFB standard is ~90%. There have been multiple 80%+ RFBs that have ended in no consensus and, if I'm not mistaken, a single sub-90% RFB to pass. Useight (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You missed a huge discussion! See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RfB_bar. A poll with ~160 participants, with about 75% supporting a lower bar than 90%. Seemingly most, but not all, bureaucrats interpreted that outcome to indicate that the bar for a passing RfB had been lowered. There were a number of discussions on other pages about this at the time, and at least one or two crat chats that dealt with it directly. Nathan T 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't miss that one, I commented in there that I thought the discretionary range should be moved from 85-90% to 80-85%. However, I didn't think any signifant lowering had actually occurred. The bottom of WP:RFA still states the window is 85-90%. But from what I gather on that talk page, which I hadn't read yet, bureaucrats may now be a little more lenient, if that is the right word, when/if an RFB is on the lower end of that scale. Useight (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The standard needs to be very high because 'crats must be trusted to do very unpopular things from time to time. Dlohcierekim 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. No doubt you won't be surprised if I say that I think you're completely misguided in that view. As non-administrators never stand at RfB, and would stand no chance if they did, it's difficult to see your suggestion as anything other than a backdoor attempt to lower the RfB pass mark. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, just saying. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Nod, taking a stance on a controversial AFD is one thing, but at the end of the day, most people won't really care. A controversial RfA is a completely different beast---you are talking real emotions and real people.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Still, admins are expected and tasked to make such decisions as well. A controversial RFA close might make feelings run high but the question we ask in that case is not whether people will agree with that close (if it's controversial, a high number of users will not no matter the result) but whether the crat manages to outline their reasoning in a way that both sides will agree to be acceptable. We task crats, like admins, to make their decisions in an unbiased and neutral way. In the end, crats should just be admins where the community has decided that they excel at making their decisions in such a way - not those who manage to make everyone happy (because noone can make everyone happy). Regards SoWhy 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and some do a better job than others. Some get the admin bit and you loose confidence in their ability to put their personal emotions aside.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Very true. But there are those where you don't loose the confidence and who continue to put their personal emotions aside. Most of them would make great crats and there are imho many such candidates but most are unwilling to stand, mostly because of aforementioned exaggerated standards and personality contest issues. Unfortunately, I cannot think of how to change these problems. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
RfB has become too much of an "IDONTLIKEIT" or "ILIKEIT" IMHO. It is too much of a popularity contest, and unfortunately with all of the little cliques on WP, most people don't want to engage in that.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Rather similar to RfA in that respect then. The only difference I see between RfA and RfB is that most successful RfA candidates haven't been around long enough to step on too many toes. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(←) True. We have somehow turned crat status from the mere possibility of having 3 more buttons to some sort of wiki-demigod with requirements of being almost perfect in every way and well-liked by almost any influential group of editors (and many who oppose "no need" or similar weak "arguments" in RFAs will start using exactly those reasonings when !voting in a RFB). Now we find ourselves with a few crats on pedestals we created for them and wonder why noone is willing to run for that job. Even the most self-confident admins do not dare to try it as failing will tell them that they are "not worthy" of joining such "elite" ranks and as such, they will not even consider trying it, losing us scores of potentially great crats. We have noone to blame but ourselves yet we will continue using these standards on whoever is brave enough to subject themselves to such a "torture". Regards SoWhy 13:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- I'm talking about passing RfB without passing RfA. J.delanoygabsadds 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I think I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't really make much sense. Of course technically the bureaucrats make the edit that transforms an admin into a bureaucrat, but who decides that they should? The lowly peons who took the trouble to express an opinion. It's not necessary for the clerk at the counter where you go to have your driving licence upgraded from provisional to full once you've passed your test to be able to drive herself, for instance, she's just following the rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

My concern about the limited number of active Bureaucrats is this...true, there are no backlogs these days - but the number of active Bureaucrats is diminishing, and there's little room for flexibility of our schedules. Over summer months and other holiday seasons there maybe some backlogs because of our overlapping time away. If some of us have extensive offline things to attend to (planned or unplanned), we may find ourselves in great need for new Bureaucrats - but considering how high the standards are to pass RfB, we might not be able to get new Bureaucrats quickly when we suddenly need them. So, I think it is better to address this issue before it becomes an issue, and start now to find some more Bureaucrats.

The other idea I have is to get the active-editing/inactive-cratting Bureaucrats back into cratting action, since they already have the bits and don't need to go through a process to get them. Kingturtle (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is not that we do not have dozens of really good candidates, it's that none of them are willing to try it because we created those standards for this job and they will not try running if they already know they will fail. For example, we promoted some very respected admins in the second half of 2008 (as well as people like me^^), but while those admins have quickly made a name for themselves, none of them will try RFB at the moment because a fair number of people will oppose anyone who has been an admin for less than a year, no matter how qualified (some require even longer periods of adminship). But as adminship is something that does in fact burn out most editors pretty quickly, the amount of admins willing to do more tasks from pre-2008 is virtually nil. Those who are, have usually made enough enemies that they know they will fail for other reasons. While I agree that we need more crats (I think we should promote at least another 2-3 dozen admins to cratship), noone has yet explained how we will make people want to face the request procedure. This unwillingness is the main crux of the matter and all our discussions here have not yet found a solution to that. Regards SoWhy 21:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think part of the issue (as brought up by others here and elsewhere) is that, for some reason, the standards for becoming a bureaucrat are so much higher than for becoming an admin even though an admin can actually cause far more damage with the additional tools they receive than a bureaucrat could with the few extra buttons they receive. The current request procedure is quite brutal, so I'm not really surprised more people don't want to go through the wringer. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I would contest that admin tools can be more damaging than crat tools. A single admin running havoc with those tools can be stopped relatively easy. A single crat running a script that gives adminship to hundreds of editors (maybe a group of meatpuppets) can cause a hundred times as much damage than a single havoc-running admin can. Yes, it's unlikely to happen but the potential is there. Regards SoWhy 11:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is that, but (again) the odds of that happening are extremely low. The 'crats who've had the bits removed (there aren't too many of them) have tended to not be the damage-causing type. I suspect that a 'crat running such a script would be stopped fairly quickly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious to me. The community standards to let someone pass RFA are extraordinarily high, generally allowing only the elite to pass RFA...so the elite of the elite admins....we have 1,660 admins but only 31 bureuacrats, 1.86% of the admin community...with even less of those crats active. And people say we don't need more crats.... Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been contact by 5 different users who intend to (or are thinking about) running sometime this summer wanting a pre crat review. So there are people out there... 4 of the people who have contacted I have positive impressions of, but would be surprised if we promoted more than two of the five.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 12:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ageism

Note: I've now moved it to the Wikipedia space with the short cut WP:ageism---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on one of our eternal debates here ageism... looking for thoughts/feedback/criticism/suggestions.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seem like a very nice piece, I made a couple of fixes (typo stuff), please check they were all correct :). My main complaint would be that much of it is related to maturity levels, and only at the end does it talk about the possibility that the "teenager reading" may be an "exception". But maybe you think that's a better way to lay it out *shrug*. Like I said, good piece - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I always appreciate people catching my gaffs.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Not what I expected when I saw the heading, but IMHO very good. On the other hand I haven't seen 18 in quite a while so take it for what it's worth. One sugestion though, you need to pipe this link in the proper spot.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Amen. Great essay. Tan | 39 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You motivated me a bit to add a question to my batch of RFA questions: "Are you over or under the age of majority?"? rootology (C)(T) 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally find that question inappropriate. I would encourage a minor (or adult) not to answer that.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
What is inappropriate about that question? As we only know a person's nation if they choose to disclose it, and they can say whatever they want in any event, it gives nothing away unless they choose to. If they don't answer, that is their prerogative, of course. rootology (C)(T) 18:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I look at it as a question where it might be self incriminating and don't feel that people should be put in that position.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You must not like some of my other questions then, especially the current fourth and fifth ones. rootology (C)(T) 18:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking an RfA candidate's age is as inappropriate as asking the candidate's ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs or sexual preference. Candidates should be judged on their Wikipedia experience and actions, their understanding of policies and procedures, their ability to stay cool, and their ability to resolve conflicts. Kingturtle (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't asked it, yet. I do wonder though about the potential situations of access to deleted content in some situations where age of majority and legal liability may come into play, and if it has any relevance. Is opposing or supporting based on previously disclosed age appropriate? rootology (C)(T) 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
see ageism... ---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the idea that a candidate might feel obliged to answer a question on their age. Having said that, if that information is known, then there should be no prohibition on considering it as a factor. As I've said before: Ignoring a candidate's age is crazy; judging them based on age alone is insane. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly my thinking; that's why I also didn't formulate the question as "What is your age?", which would be wrong like Kingturtle said as saying "A/S/L?" for a question. In some countries, 'majority' is 25 years old, in some it's 14 years old. It's a simple binary yes/no question that is open ended. I tried to open-end all my questions like that; it's up to the candidates to do with them what they will. Can they think on their feet like admins have to? rootology (C)(T) 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you over or under the age of majority?

Even if I had some brilliant argument for why whites deserve more respect than blacks, I'd have more sense that to go argue it in front of Clarence Thomas. We have at least one crat under 16, and I wouldn't be surprised even a little bit if we promote two more this year. What do you suppose their reaction will be to this line of thinking in an RFA in a crat chat? - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan, you should at least be aware that some people who are victims of actual discrimination find comparing that discrimination to "ageism" very offensive and ignorant. White people were not all born black and after twenty years became white. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if someone were to imply that I was ignorant, offensive or racist, I would invite them to talk with me about my 26 years of service to the black community of North Carolina through donations of time and money to the ACLU. Our relatively small organization has done as much as any to redress legal, legislative and social inequalities. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have absolutely no doubt that you're a wonderful person in real life. I nonetheless think it's important to remind people not to compare ageism to racism because the comparison is one to which, rightly or wrongly, some people take offense. Some people don't care if other people get offended by their words, because of whatever mitigating factors, and that's certainly one's prerogative. But even the best of people can inadvertently be insensitive, and often welcome the reminder because they certainly don't intend to be. --JayHenry (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure of what your point was in the original post here. I think you were saying people should pick their battles, but I'm not sure... but I do agree with Jay that your analogy came up short.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nicely done Spartacus! .. commented on talk page. — Ched :  ?  19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Y'know, I've been ponderng this for a while. There seems to be a perenial "kiddie admin" thing going on, both here and at Wikipedia Review and how this is the death knell of civilisation - yet every time we have these threads I see yet more editors mentioning that they've got six kids, just celebrated their tenth wedding anniversary, remember the Boer war etc. etc. etc. The thought is slowly occuring that perhaps a lot of editors on this site are not in fact under 18 or even 21 - (I refer to chronoligcal age of course..!). Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Train the kids to edit Wikipedia ........... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
... must be easier than programming bots ... Agathoclea (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Which raises the old question... given an infinite number of monkeys sitting behind an infinite number of keyboards, how long would it take them to rewrite Wikipedia?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See counter-argument. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the most mature, civilized discussion of ageism I've ever seen on this page. It's quite refreshing and enlightening. And, Spartacus!, I found the essay to be very well written. Useight (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My goal is to have an essay that A) explains why debating the issue is futile B) why Ageism is a valid argument C) why the proper recourse to the ageism debate is to focus on the individual. If the debate centers around the use of age, then it is one that IMO will be lost. Too much scientific/historical/cultural evidence stands against it. BUT if the debate is brought down to the indivdiual, it changes the parameters. Don't worry about the META debate, focus on the individual.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Heavens! Whatever would happen to the fate of Wikipedia (or the entire internet for that matter) if not for the precocious teenagers? Cribananda (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, we'd have far fewer lulz to deal with. ;) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Precisely! You say that like it's a good thing... :-) Cribananda (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Guess it depends on how lulz-happy you are, I guess. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I can get a headache from the self-facepalms due to the lulz - but it is a nice break in the action. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Half the action I see on RFA makes me say rootology (C)(T) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm (X! · talk)  · @165  ·  02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Posting twelve questions to someone's RfA directly before supporting them makes me facepalm myself. Tan | 39 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, this was a relatively benign discussion... people actually seemed to agree.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Applying

If you want to apply, do you just add yourself to the list of candidates? --154.20.99.160 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you'll have to get a Wikipedia account. You may either submit your own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Best of luck, Kingturtle (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And it's a rather long journey I would add. - Mailer Diablo 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK

This is definitely not in regards to any particular candidate but what is this giant emphasis on DYK with RFAs? I'm not getting the importance. Is it just an area people like to work on? I've never seen it as particularly important. Drawn Some (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea, I think, is that DYKs offer some evidence of content building. In some cases they do, but in many case they don't, as there's no quality control at DYK. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There is some... it has to be at least 1500 characters and written in the past few days...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not quality, it's volume, written rather too rapidly to have time for a spellcheck. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) And one thing that DYK is supposed to verify - your "hook" is supposed to referenced with a WP:RS. It at least shows an understanding of the fundamental concept that we are an encyclopedia rather than a blog. Although .. I've seen a few articles ...;) — Ched :  ?  22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you say Ched. I suggest that you read a few of them though, before firming up your opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Read em? .. ahh hell, I'd rather write em. No, seriously Mall, I think I understand what you're saying, and I agree - a DYK is far from being our top notch stuff. In a sense it's audited content - I mean, someone can't just submit a DYK, and then approve it themselves - another editor is supposed to review it. I admit, I've read through a few DYK articles, and some have really made me scratch my head in regards to quality. But that's what we have FAC and GAC for, it's kind of a beginners ride for editors. — Ched :  ?  22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you do understand what I'm saying. DYKs are in no sense "audited", and are often as a consequence an embarrassment. Just take a look at this advertorial featured on today's main page for instance, The Cheese Store of Beverly Hills. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
DYKs are at least slightly "audited". Before they make it onto the main page, at least a handful of other editors look at them, and once they make it on the main page, they tend to get at least 1k views. This is a lot more attention and "auditing" than your average article gets. Sure, the average DYK isn't great (and some are truly abominable), but I'd say that your average DYK is still better than your average article. Try hitting the "Random article" link a few times, and you get an awful lot of one sentence stubs. You at least don't get that at DYK. Cool3 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You use the word "audited" in a sense that I don't understand. Does this "audit" involve actually reading the article? All of it? Or just enough of it to verify the hook? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, some articles from DYK get deleted after their main page appearance, so someone must read them. Gimmetrow 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
At least personally, I never verify a hook without reading the whole article. It's possible that other reviewers don't even do that, but I'm fairly certain that just about all DYKs have at least been read by an experienced editor. Sure some DYKs look like this, but others look like this. Cool3 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
So you're quite relaxed at seeing stuff like this on the main page? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Other than the enormous unsourced list of customers, I don't see a big problem with that, but yes of course some bad things make it onto the main page via DYK, but if we're talking about this in the context of RfA, I don't see a problem. I think it's a big plus for a candidate to have some involvement with good DYKs. Naturally, if someone who regularly submits garbage to DYK is at RfA that's another issue entirely. The mere fact that some DYK articles are bad doesn't mean that others aren't good. Cool3 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, we'll have to agree to disagree then, 'cos that article is a clear advertorial. I suggest thst you take a critical look at today's DYKs and see if you find any basic spelling or grammar errors. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely better than average. A lot of very basic articles can make it, but click on random page.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK has its issues, like plagiarism, poor writing quality, and incomplete research, but it's better than nothing. At the very least, they usually don't have that ugly stub tag... –Juliancolton | Talk 04:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, given the issues you've enumerated, I'd say that DYK isn't better than nothing. :) Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can safely say that DYK is one area of Wikipedia that I care absolutely nothing about, and consequently, it would never impact my decision at RfA. In fact, I typically ignore it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we all ought to care about it, as it occupies a very significant amount of the main page. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, good point. I agree with Wisdom, and dislike DYK - most of the hooks are trivia at best. Uninteresting trivia, at that. I would rather simply see a "newest articles" section. However, I don't feel that strongly about this, and I seem to remember previous discussions that ended in hung juries. In the end, I just tolerate it without comment and disregard any support/oppose mentions of DYK (although sometimes it's a useful indicator of article creation/building, which I will then review further). Tan | 39 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Disagreed; something can be important but still not be cared about by every individual editor. Everyone has their focus, which is important to them but likely unimportant to everyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You appear to have either misread or misunderstood the point being made here. As a matter of interest, which was the last DYK hook you read that made you think other than "Who gives a shit?" --Malleus Fatuorum 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You could say that about 99% of wiki content as a whole. In fact, I could say it about almost all the featured FA's, because I almost never feel interested enough to click on the link and read the article.
An encyclopedia is not a magazine, aimed at getting the maximum number of people to buy. It's an information source, and naturally most of the information contained in an encyclopedia will be of little interest to the average reader.
For the record however, I constantly see interesting DYK hooks, although many of them - such as the regular building hooks for example, are of no interest to me. And I still remember the time I complained about the intrinsically boring nature of articles about roads and highways - which instantly drew a bunch of responses from people who like reading about highway routes. People have different interests, and there is no accounting for taste. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That sentence could have ended after "hook you read". ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You dissing my goose-propelled washtub? – iridescent 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting away from the point originally made in this section, which seems to be that DYK is overemphasised in RfA (possibly because there's an element of metric to it; some quantifiable somewhat-standardised output). Apposite questions would be (a) how prominent is it (b) is that too prominent, given factors such as quality control and how many prospective admins get involved with it. Comparing DYKs with articles turned up by the Random Article button seems a very long way from this RfA issue. Rd232 talk 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see, oppose not enough DYK's.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • DYKs only matter to me when people express interest either in working at DYK or they mention it and I want to see if what they have done actually matches what they claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two reasons why DYK is relevant. Firstly, admins are needed to move hooks from unprotected pages at DYK to protected pages, and also to edit the protected pages, and secondly, because participation at DYK shows a community-minded editor who is willing to help other people get their stuff featured. Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone think it's possible that this emphasis on DYK is actually contributing to poor quality? If someone gets into DYK because it's on some checklist of things to do before leveling up, they're probably not the best person for working on DYK, right? Wouldn't we rather see DYK populated by people who care about getting it right, rather than people who care about ticking off an item on a list? Friday (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You could say the same about any process though. If someone is seeking adminship as a trophy, they are going to start participating in areas that will get them some attention, whether it is at DYK or somewhere else. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, this thread turned out to have a lot more thoughtful responses and discussion than I would have hoped for. I still think it is over-emphasized, but now I understand why. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

From today's front page: "DYK... that the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct was disbanded in 1999 despite only having started work in April 1991?" This is a perfect illustration of why DYK is useless and serves to depress Wikipedia's credibility. Tan | 39 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tan - check out the Wikipedia entry on Earth - you'll be amazed to discover that America doesn't comprise the whole of it. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Pedro, I know that somewhere along the way you lost your respect for me - and believe you me, the feeling is completely mutual - but this could happen in any country and I'd feel the same. I could have Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee in my den, and it still doesn't make it interesting or significant that the committee was around for eight years. Who cares. Keep your ill-founded insinuations to yourself, please. Tan | 39 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I should have put a smiley at the end of my comment (or indeed not made it at all) - it was a playful knee in the ribs Tan and sorry it came across any other way. FWIW I've no issue with you at all and sorry to hear you have with me. Still, this is not the venue so best dropped. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a mistake to categorically assert the quality of DYKs. I know more than a few that went on to become FAs maybe two or three weeks later. I know more than a few that didn't amount to anything much at all. DYKs are like all new articles: very varied. So to make catchall judgements is like making catchall judgements on all of WP's new articles – which is quite a meaningless thing to do. And, for the record, quality control there has improved drastically over the past year. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Where was the discussion about RfB's needing 90% to pass?

Anybody have a link to it? I'd like to read the discussion.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's this, but for further combined reading, perhaps also try User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Bureaucrats (but that's an incomplete work in progress). Useight (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, that's stuff from over 3-5 years ago. Are there any recent discussions about it? I find that 90% for a few extra buttons is over-the-top. 80% seems reasonable to me, not 90%.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 17:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That discussion could not possibly have resulted in an increased support percentage requirement to be promoted to a bureaucrat. I really hope there has been a more recent discussion that resulted in an actual consensus to raise the bar for RfBs. Timmeh!(review me) 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's see, this was semi-recent. I'll see what else I can find. Useight (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats over a year ago, and from that it looks like the consensus was leaning on 80% ...  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, from the archives it looks like the 90% was from several years ago and all of the more recent discussions related to that have been attempts to lower that bar. Useight (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there must be something somewhere if it's still 90%.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If the decision was 90% in year 200X, and then in 200Y and 200Z there were failed discussions to lower the bar, the 90% is still implied; no need for a further discussion to reconfirm the 90%. Useight (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't kept up on the most recent RfB standards, but I remember in March 2008, 85%+ seemed to be the minimum. Jamie☆S93 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You are also correct, the 70-75% for RFA is roughly translated to 85-90% for RFB. However, if I recall correctly, the lowest passing percentage for an RFB is 86.7%. Useight (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

←I always thought it was because, when you're picking someone to make an occasional call on who gets to be a crat or an admin, it's not enough for them to be good at it, people have to be willing to accept their judgment. But I don't see why that would apply to CHU or turning on bots, or other potential crat-tasks, such as appointing people to Flagged Revisions tasks (Brion will get a test going by August, supposedly) or handing out abusefilter rights. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The links above are from over a year ago. There have been a few threads lately about needing new 'crats. More volunteers might appear if the percentage needed to pass went down to 80 or 85%. Recently, the bar is set at 90% to pass.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IMatt, you're changing colors ... camouflage? - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha, it's in my signature script-thingy. :)  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 18:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If there are new ideas on new crat-tasks, and if we can get any consensus on that, then it would become easier to talk about whether the RFA/RFB skill set is a completely different skill set, and if we could get consensus on that, then it would be easier to tackle the question of whether the percentage for getting one ought to be lower than the other. tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The links are from a year ago, but that doesn't mean the consensus in them is automatically invalid. In fact it's more like the last demonstration of consensus is the best thing to go with unless a change is demonstrated. Previously the 90% bar had been traditional. After a number of discussions a substantial number of people felt that the bar should be somewhat lower without a specific number being agreed on. I would say that's the best guideline we have for the current consensus. I think that answers what you were looking for, but if you want the literal meaning of your question, where the actual discussion around the 90% guideline was, you'd have to do some serious reading to find that. It certainly wasn't a big poll or anything, it just kind of solidified in various places and discussions. But given the most current discussions, I think that's mostly irrelevant anyway. - Taxman Talk 19:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current consensus is 90%. As you seen from the RfB bar discussion linked above, compared to lower measures the 90% level had only minority support. What leads you (iMatthew) to conclude that 90% is the current level despite the outcome of that poll? Nathan T 19:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been talking to many people on IRC, they all said it was 90%.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Strange, saying as I had it in my head that the "magic number" (if we were restricted to such things) was 80%. Bureaucrat cabal > IRC cabal, 'natch! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have not seen any consensus to put the threshold at 90%, yet it is at that. In RfBs, the community automatically holds candidates to higher standards than RfA candidates. Therefore, there is no need for a higher "threshold for consensus" number than RfAs. It just limits the number of good candidates that are promoted. This 90% number really should be lowered to a sort of baseline, the RfA level, as it doesn't seem justified. Then, the community needs to come up with a threshold number through actual consensus. My guess is it would be lower than 90%. Timmeh!(review me) 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can get a solid community consensus to lower it, we can lower it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the fact is that we have a solid consensus for lowering the percentage. It's frustrating that people seem to have completely forgotten the outcome of the RfB Bar discussion, especially bureaucrats. We may not have had consensus on the specific percentage it should be lowered to, but certainly we had consensus that 90% was too high. That does not mean we're stuck at 90%, it means the percentage is lower and just how much lower is left to the crats (to interpret the poll outcome). Nathan T 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The results of rfa bar were spread all over the place, that's not a consensus. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse, can you confirm that you have read this section, and specifically this comment left by Kingturtle: "This poll is closed. We have over 170 editors voice their opinions on this issue. Depending on how you interpret the data, 75.5% support lower the bar; 65% of the supports support "80%" as the new bar. The average of the opinions is 82.9%. "80%" is the median. I am interpreting this poll as an indication that Bureaucrats should use 80% as the new bar. Once a new policy is agreed on, I think we should re-assess the policy in one year. Kingturtle (talk) 3:02 pm, 16 March 2008, Sunday" I'm interested in whether you disagree with this interpretation, or if you were just unaware of it. Thanks, Nathan T 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

←I can think of some things that might go wrong if we just lowered the discretionary range to 80-85 and made no other changes, although I think separating RFA/RFB-enabled crats from regular crats would avoid these problems. For one thing, you'd have a lot of admins running for cratship. Either a lot of them would fail, wasting time and burning morale, or a lot of them would pass. So far, people haven't "revolted" against crat-reign (which is a good thing); even for the people who don't like RFA, they still accept that they have to live with the system we've got (or not). What would happen if we had 50 crats, many without much experience at RFA, apparently deciding who was promoted? I suspect people would lose faith in the basic workability of the system. If the RfB voters reacted to this by requiring high participation at RFA/RFB of all candidates, then RFA/RFB would fill up with people with crat aspirations. I actually think RFA is reasonably functional, given the alternatives, but for people who think RFA is a cesspit ... just wait until it fills up with people who are there to pad their resume/CV for a crat run. Yikes. I like the 85%-90% discretionary range, for people making the call at RFA and RFB, because the system won't work unless just about everyone buys into it, so you really need very wide support for crats. Again, I see no problem with lowering the passing percentage for crats who will be doing the other crat tasks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

↑ What he said. The average RFB gets about 100 votes; if 15 people think there's something seriously wrong with you, you can guarantee there'll be needless drama down the line. It's not as if the current crats are rushed off their feet dealing with the average one or two RFA closures and bot requests per day and at most half-a-dozen renames they're needed for. – iridescent 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Those are good points you two made. Nevertheless, consensus was not to have the threshold at 90%, and that really disturbs me. Timmeh!(review me) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, as someone who participated in that discussion, I agree with Timmeh that consensus was to have the threshold below 90%, and that should be followed. hmwithτ 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty easy to figure out where consensus is today

You know, it would be pretty easy to sort out, since it's all just basic math. Start a discussion asking everyone's opinion very simply on what their low-end range is for the discretionary range. Very simple; it's a number, it's subjective. RFA is what--75%-79% usually? There have only been a tiny handful of 80% RFAs that never passed. Everyone call out their preferred minimum, and then a simple poll based on the discussion's responses--there can only be so many responses, realistically, since the range is not up to the crats themselves, and we're done. Since it's an actual numerical value (not a policy/procedure--that already exists, it's RFB itself) we're after, once we see what the average low end is, it's a simple advertised poll and we're done. Discussion -> lock in consensus. For example:

  • Everyone say their preference and why, etc.
  • "What should the discretionary range for RFB be?"
  • 75%-80%
  • 80%-85%
  • 85%-90%
  • 90%-95%

Realisticaly, it'd be a pretty vanilla discussion/vote, since it's not like we're swimming in options here. It just needs formalizing. Since what the discretionary range is isn't something the crats themselves decide upon, we just need enough people (a very healthy sample) to say what their preference is, and whatever is the overwhelming favorite or the mathematical average of their selections is it--simple.

This doesn't exactly come up often, so it's not like we need a big to-do. Discuss, pick possible options, pick the best of the options, go do some article work. rootology (C)(T) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point that it isn't usually this simple, so we can be more optimistic than usual. Tell me if I'm pushing a new-ish idea too hard, but I really think the discussion about potential crat tasks should come before the vote on the discretionary range, so that people will know what they're voting on. Abusefilter permissions is brand-new, and probably needs very skilled hands with wide community approval, and ... I hate to open up the can of Flagged Revisions, except to say that whatever it morphs into, again, skilled hands, wide community approval. And CHU may not take that much time, but getting it exactly right is really hard, and the skill set is very close to the skill set for UAA; if the discretionary range were lowered just a little, the RfB voters would have more candidates to choose from, and they could pick hard-working, competent crats to spend more time overseeing both areas. Likewise, bot flagging has been trivial ... but it doesn't have to be; with a bigger candidate pool, RfB voters could pick a candidate that has broad support at BAG and could use their bot-flagging power as license to say "Tell me how this works again?" - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)insufficient support for this idea at this time - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd support 80–85%, but I fully agree with Dank in that we'd need to reconfirm the role of bureaucrats. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 85%-90% discretionary. Any higher and you let the few cranks that you invariably piss off derail the process; any lower and any controversial call is open to challenge. As I say above, it's not like we're suffering a desperate shortage of crats; we got on perfectly well last year when at one point we only had two active. – iridescent 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 80%-90% works for me. Also replying to the above comment: We got on perfectly well, but the two active 'crats must have felt a lot of pressure put on them.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 80%-85%. What we have now is too high, but I don't think we need to go as low as what's used for RfAs. Also, two active crats is a very small amount, and I'm sure they did feel a lot of pressure. There aren't many processes requiring bureaucratic action, but I think there are enough that they would require more than two active crats to run smoothly. Timmeh!(review me) 01:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. Rootology, have you seen Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RfB_bar? It is precisely what you describe above. If you think the results of that identical poll need to be updated, fine, but your comment seems to imply that there are no original results. Nathan T 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my own vote remains unchanged since then: "Trust the bureaucrats" (no fixed percentage range of discretion). I do seem to remember that a lot of votes in that poll were cast after the semi-controversial closing of an RFB as unsuccessful (85.8% support). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat_discussion. Due to possible additional motivation by some of the candidate's 237 supporters to pitch in at the time (myself included), the poll might well be systemically biased. (The bureaucrats' discussion says the lowest passing percentage was 85.3%, by the way). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Quadell's RFB was unsuccessful. Useight (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Bedtime. Thanks for pointing out that error. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not dead-set against 80%, but before I could agree, I'd need to hear how we plan to anticipate and deal with the potential problems I mentioned. If the problems can't be avoided, then I'd favor a new role, maybe "technocrat", meaning bureaucrat permissions minus RFA/RFB. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, a bit more context is that Riana's RfB (and a number of others around the same time) were prefaced by a fair amount of discussion on how more 'crats were needed. That discussion and the sudden proliferation of RfBs probably have a lot more to do with the poll participation and its outcome than any single RfB. Even if the presence of a live RfB biased the outcome in some way, a poll without a similar high profile draw is unlikely to involve nearly the same number of editors. Nathan T 03:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point. People normally don't care that much. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

←Although I agree with Rootology that we want to keep the vote simple, let's lay some groundwork first here and on talk pages. The vote tends to be split between 80-85% and 85-90%, and I'm not happy with just trying to get "consensus" on this, I think we want a super-consensus, otherwise someone might wind up being or feeling disenfranchised at RFA. I made an argument for 85-90% above, here's the counterargument:

  • We could instruct the crats to use 80-85% as a discretionary range and go slow. The worst that could happen would be that it doesn't work and we go back to 85-90%.
  • At RFA, when we say the discretionary range is 70-75%, crats have always taken that to mean that they can easily push the discretionary range to 80% if something "special" (such as canvassing) is going on, so we could say the range is 80-85% with the same understanding.
  • We could add to the instructions: even if a candidate gets 85%, we still feel you should not promote if the rationales from the 15% suggest that some group will wind up being disenfranchised and feeling alienated from the RFA process.
  • We need to be vigilant at RFA to make sure people aren't trying to make a name for themselves to help with crat runs. It shouldn't be hard to stop (just speak up if someone is saying something foolish, which usually happens anyway), and if someone talks a lot of nonsense at RFA and then runs for RFB, tell them about it at the RFB. People will probably figure out what will and won't work over time.
  • If the crats would be a little bit more open about who participates in crat chats, and If the crats would state that they understand that crats who haven't been involved much in RFA shouldn't be making contentious calls solo ... and I think the record shows plainly that they do understand this ... then I think that would help people be less nervous about promoting crat candidates, especially candidates who aren't currently active at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
We should talk with each other publicly and privately first to see if there's any position that can gain a super-consensus, then have the poll. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

nathan, the quote of mine you refer to was the beginning of a discussion, not the end of one. the general agreement of that discussion supported the following wording: "Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment." I thought it was pretty clear that this was the current thinking. Kingturtle (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know, and I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression - the two comments don't conflict, really, because both statements give 80% as the cut-off. The benefit of your initial comment is that it also sums up the outcome. Nathan T 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It's already been done, with the final statement quoted above by Kingturtle. And please lets not put up a false dichotomy with discretionary ranges of 5% that will inevitably fail to take into account the significant community opinion that there are other options (wider ranges, not using strict percentages, going more on the stength of the arguments, etc.) - Taxman Talk 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now I see what you're saying, I didn't see the point clearly on my talk page. (Btw, people, I suggest some calm discussion on the very real concerns before the poll, for reasons that old hands will all understand already. I left talkback notices with everyone who commented in this section to discuss this stuff on my talk page, and my subjective impression is that we've only covered about half of the things that are potentially worrying people so far; more discussion would be very welcome.) I completely support your idea, Taxman, that we want to send a very clear message that shifting the range from 80-90 (or whatever it is) to 80-85 will not "solve" anything; it's only the very start of a series of changes and discussions that's likely to take a long time. I would welcome discussion on your other questions, but only if we can get a clear vote that a different presumed discretionary range is desirable. Think how long RFA has taken to evolve, and that's with more than 10 times the amount of regular discussion. Rootology's point, which I support, is that when tackling a question that might get mired down, it's important to start with the most trivial, yes/no part first. If you can't get anywhere with that, then you know it's pointless to proceed with the more important but more subtle questions. And btw, when I say "proceed", it seems to me that what's happened in individual RFAs has had at least 10 times more impact on the RFA process than discussions about RFA here and other places; that doesn't mean we're wasting our time, it just means that the best use of time is to focus on one candidate and one question at a time, and I suspect that's true for RfB as well. Finally, on your point that we just discussed this 15 months ago ... how much overlap is there between the people who participated at RFA/RFB 15 months ago vs. now? And how much has changed at RFA? This isn't a question of "consensus can change", this is a question of "we know consensus has changed, now what does that mean for RfB?" - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are more active bureaucrats than people think. For instance, were I to find that there were no other bureaucrats available to do promotions, I would be able to do pretty much every single one myself by simply noting when they close and remembering when to come online. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that it should be 80-80%. People have higher standards when voting for crats, so there's no need to also compensate with a very high percentage. hmwithτ 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_174"