Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 50

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 45 ← Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 → Archive 55

Negative campaigning

Just this day we have a very bad example of the negative campaigning on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi. Somebody posted notes to the talk pages of one hundred different editors (having Turkish as their native language) asking them (in Turkish) to vote against the RfA. Not a single diff proving the Khoikhoi's alleged POV pushing was shown but 20 users voted against the RfA and certainly more were about to come. I know Khoikhoi's as a rounded-up editor who loves to mediate and solve difficult national conflicts, who would benefit greatly if given some sort of an authority. I certainly did not saw all of his 15K edits, so lets talk about an abstract situation:

We have large national communities on the English wikipedia. If somebody would send notes to a hundred users asking to vote against a candidate for the benefit of the motherland, he would probably get ~30 oppose votes (and maybe 10..20 support votes), also he would get many oppose and neutral votes from the unrelated voters, because the candidate would appear too controversial. With the system of one oppose vote equal to four support, the candidate would needed 150..200 support votes that are impossible to obtain without wide camapaigning (that is an evil by itself). Thus, one nationalist could ruin all the RfAs from the national group he dislikes without showing any diffs or demonstrating any wrongdoings. I think it is very evil. Maybe we should consider a Jury-style voting, when everybody can present their evidence and opinions, but voting itself is performed by some sort of a jury ( a fixed group of people randomly chosen from the pool of people willing to evaluate RfAs)? abakharev 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the appearance of interest groups on English Wikipedia who seem willing to carry on proxy wars for their groups in RfA. Nevertheless, there would need to be a lot of discussion and indications of community sentiment in order to change the system. -- Cecropia 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So let's see. He (User:Metb82) spammed a mass of talk pages, wrote the message in Turkish presumably to obfoscate the meaning to the rest of us, and used an external link so that his posting didn't show up in "What links here". As far as I am concerned this is acting in very bad faith indeed and deserves at the very least a stern warning. --kingboyk 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This should not be tolerated; would an arbitration case do any good? Conscious 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. This irks me like no other. Imagine the reaction of the "Oh so holier than thou" if someone did this to an Islamic editor.--Looper5920 09:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would be wanting to take it that far (although I understand why others might). A strong warning or if rules have been broken a short ban would be more my way of thinking. Move discussion to Admins Noticeboard? --kingboyk 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The best defense against any sort of campaign to garner votes on either side of an issue is publicity. When you expose the campaign, all the people not paying attention will look into it and make the right decision, offsetting any benefit the campaigners may have had. Remember Jason Gastrich and the AfD vote stacking of some 3 months ago. Publicity solved the problem. No need to complain about it, just announce it on WP:AN or some other appropriate forum (in this case right here), and let regular wiki editors make their rational decisions on the issue. Works every time. NoSeptember talk 12:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm aghast at the vote stacking, especially the use of non English (this is the English wikipedia last I checked, and English is our working language here) to obscure intent, and would support some sort of censure to the editor involved. But I have a question... So how did these users get found? Pernicious advocacy userboxes with categories? Project membership? No, I bet it was Babel boxes showing language, wasn't it? Guess what I am concluding here, anyone? (and take your guess somewhere else, I'm just saying...). To the suggestion that publicity will fix this, not sure I agree. Unless the closing 'crats discount this, there are potentially a LOT of votes to overcome... so many that even wide publicity might not generate enough supports (or negs in other situations) to overcome them (and some of us might not vote support after investigating, after all) ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a WikiProject or noticeboard. More block votes and POV gangs tend to come from those than from userboxes from what I've seen (please don't make me find examples!) :) --kingboyk 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with a sanctions-type resolution is that people will disagree on what sanctions are appropriate and which votes are legitimate and which are not. Can you say "Wheel War?" ;-) If you let a few hundred people know what is going on, and a few dozen come over and read the RfA or AfD at issue, you will get a bunch of votes from disinterested third parties that will ensure the right decision is made. A decision by the community is better than that of a single admin or bureaucrat, because admins and bureaucrats disagree all the time, as I'm sure many of you have noticed. NoSeptember talk 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the comment that the solution here is public exposure when issues like these arise. If I had known this was happening I would have voted in support of the proposed admin (in order to counter the negative vote rigging). In this case the editor withdrew their RfA but in the future if this happens I think there should be a notice of the event posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This will allow neutral admins and others to come weigh in on the issue.--Alabamaboy 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What can be done in a constructive fashion now? First, we should inform Metb82 that his actions have been disclosed. As Khoikhoi has withdrawn his nomination, I think there's no need to take any further action now (except maybe for encouraging him to try again in a while). Should a similar situation happen again... well, let's rely on our bureaucrats to handle it properly. Conscious 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The thought occurred to me too that it's a matter for the bureaucrats which is why I went silent on the issue. I see that no warning has been issued though; I'm not sure how it should be worded but I think he should be warned. --kingboyk 13:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note at User talk:Metb82. Conscious 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this page by coincidence, and thought you might be interested in a smiliar case, where I am accused of violating a proposed policy, Wikipedia:Vote_Stacking by informing people about an AfD. You can see the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Vote_Stacking_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTurkish_Kurdistan Bertilvidet 15:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a translation of Metb82's message? Conscious 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This may sound controversial, but I say it be made policy that English, and only English, may be used on the English Wikipedia. This should include talk pages as well, except in the cases where fresh user needs proper direction in their langauge. Other than that, it is becoming obvious that comments in other languages are being passed as a means of collusion and wrongdoing. It is only fair that users like Khoikhoi are given an equal chance. And as you reply in fury in English, remember this: what if it was your RfA? I hope instances like this never happen again. --Jay(Reply) 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, although Khoikhoi had a good record to be an admin, the apparent POV issues directly clouded my vote - my initial instinct was this was a good editor, however, the concerns raised about POV/user conflict caused me to stay on the safe side. In retrospect, aware of the situation, backroom vote dealings also indirectly effect outside voters, like myself. --Jay(Reply) 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you still have doubts about Khoikhoi, please look here as a fresh example and see what i mean. If propaganda like this is allowed, sending messages to alert people shouldnt be. (Metb82 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

*Sigh* What I added was neutral and can be backed up with sources. You, on the other hand, have removed paragraphs related to the Armenian Genocide, and added pictures like these to Cyprus-related articles. --Khoikhoi 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggested policy: Due to the very serious nature of negative votestacking, the recommended response for negative votestacking will be blocking for one week and a 1 month ban on that user voting in RfAs. To be clear: this is not intended as a punishment, but as a deterrent. JoshuaZ 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I support this idea. --Khoikhoi 04:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
*Sigh** Exactly! Just like you adding Armenian massacre to Adana page, that picture is neutral and backed up with sources too. I was just fixing a mistake in the genocide page which i could verify with strong links, but i think you erasing that picture from Cyprus page should be considered vandalism because it is a picture illustrating a paragraph of that article. (Metb82 02:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

: Um, what? JoshuaZ 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC) nm. I see.

I cited Britannica, you simply removed the entire paragraph. The pictures that you added were not only removed by me, but by 5 other users, and you kept adding them. Do you think this picture illustrates the "Post-independence" section which you added it to repeatedly? --Khoikhoi 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
as much as adana massacre represents a city of 2 million. You know its even needless discussing with you, everyone here can see that you are not NPOV enough to be an admin. People are not stupid. (Metb82 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
Quite the contrary, Metb82, quite the contrary. --Khoikhoi 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal to fix the gamed system

Wow, that was a weekend with some crazy RfA action, no? Anyway, concerning this Khoikhoi business. If the allegations above are true (I have no way to verify, I don't know Turkish) then this represents an extremely serious gaming of the system, which was eventually successful. Worse is that this sets a worrying precedent. People are discussing what needs to be done in this case to fix this particular situation, and that is fine. But I think it would be clear that something needs to be changed or this can happen in every RfA, since as the situation stands, this will always be effective.

Now, of course, some people really do believe that this is a vote. And if it is, let's be clear: what Metb82 did, or is alledged to have done, is perfectly legitimate, and in fact, encouraged, in a democracy. You get your supporters' bodies into the poll booth, no matter what. Of course, I take this as an object lesson as to why voting is evil in these things. On the other hand, if this is about reaching or measuring consensus, then everyone who came here as a result of campaigning should be ignored, or at the least, should have their opinion multiplied by a very small number. Let me propose an idea about this: what if the policy is, if you ever get exhorted on your talk page to come and vote in an RfA before you vote, then your vote doesn't count. Positive or negative. This would make any campaigning counterproductive. I think most people find positive campaigning in RfA's at least somwhat distasteful, and I'm sure now everyone has a really bad taste in their mouth about negative campaigning. And in this current situation, there would have been no problem in the first place.

Of course, one counterargument is that an agent provacateur could go ahead and preemptively leave messages on the Talk pages of known supporters of a candidate asking them to support, thereby negating their votes, and this is a flaw. However, it seems to me that if the only people who would have supported your RfA are people who are widely known to be your supporters, then you don't have consensus in the first place.--Deville (Talk) 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • There would be no way to enforce a policy that your vote does not count if you were requested to vote on a particular RfA. Even if you restricted it just to talk pages, you would make it the job of bureaucrats to go through every single edit made to any voter's talk page within the week the RfA was live, and probably for the week prior to it being live. You can't go just by what is currently on the talk page, as the exhortation could be deleted from the page. Further, you'd have to have multilingual bureaucrats able to translate whatever languages appear on talk pages. As if that's not bad enough, all of this is completely undermined by the ability of such people to go to IRC or private e-mail to campaign for/against an RfA. You'd have about as much success of this as preventing people from voting who have seen a campaign billboard. --Durin 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Nod. Outlaw behaviours and you push them underground where they are harder to spot, not prevent them. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • With that attitude we might as well give up outlawing murder, because we're not actually stopping murder, we're just making it happen more frequently when no witnesses are around. C'mon, what you're using is a silly argument and you know it. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Are you willing to volunteer to check every edit made for ~two weeks to every talk page of every voter on every RfA? I most definitely am not. I took a sampling of the first five voters on Turnstep and TigerShark's RfAs, and counted the number of edits to their talk pages from 14 March to 28 March, not including their own edits. The average number of edits to their talk pages was 39.8. From January to this past week, the average number of votes per RfA has been 60.62. The average number of RfAs per week has been 16.75. If you multiply this out, this gives you an idea of the number of edits that would need to be checked every week in order for bureaucrats to enforce this rule. The number? A whopping 40,412 edits per week that would need to be checked. In order to enforce this rule, the work load for bureaucrats would go up exponentially. In exchange, you would have no guarantee that contributors to RfA are not being contacted and asked to vote. Not to mention the fact that this could be VERY easily gamed. See the scenario outlined by Deville above. So far there's no answer to how to handle this shortcoming. --Durin 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • This is true, clearly Bcrats cannot check all of this for every RfA. And I'm not saying they should. For example, I'm sure that now they don't click on every link in every support and oppose vote to check that the voters' claims are substantiated. But what one could imagine here is that there is a policy that such votes get ignored, and in the case where one person, or several people, discover this sort of negative campaigning is going on (as happened here) and bring it to the bureaucrats' attention, then there is a policy in place which tells the Bcrats what to do. As it stands now, what is the Bcrats policy? Khoikhoi removed himself from contention, but what would have happened if the vote had gone through? Would it come down to a strict percentage vote? Would obviously shilled-for votes be discounted or ignored? Who knows? It seems better that there be a policy. --Deville (Talk) 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • To respond to Lar, yes, what you say is true. If people want to be infinitely sneaky they can find a way around this. However, I think a lot of people wouldn't go through such lengths in a scenario like this. Although there are exceptions, I think most editors to Wikipedia try to act in an ethical manner. I don't think most would sneak around in email and IRC to circumvent a policy that they knew about. I think in this case, most of the contributors probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and it's not clear to me that what they did actually contravened the letter of any previous policy. A policy which says the community frowns on this sort of behaviour to the point of ignoring votes culled in such a manner would stop all but the most egregious POV-pushers. In any case, I agree with you that it's better when people are above-board, but given that the negative campaigning was, AFAIK, technically legal in this case, what is the advantage of us knowing about it, if noone is going to do anything about it? --Deville (Talk) 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The problems of a representative democracy have been exhaustively discussed in many forums, and probably somewhere on wikipedia as well. There is no limit on the number of admins, and it's an almost irreversible transition, so I don't see that there is any competition. However, as long as any username can vote, then it is an election, and not a consensus, no matter the contrary intention. - Richardcavell 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with this would be to make it so that the headings were "reasons to support" and "reasons to oppose", and make it so signatured comments could only occur in a comments section.--Urthogie 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • How would this stop people coming to an RfA as a result of campaigning? --Durin 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Noone would campaign cus it wouldn't be a vote. It'd be a listing of reasons for and against.--Urthogie 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable solution, but one would need to be careful about what constituted new reasons so one doesn't just end up with "support per _". JoshuaZ 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello and thanx everybody for discussing this. I think what i did was not wrong, because as you could see on Khoikhoi's nomination, both the nominator Latinus and all of the voters that supported Khoikhoi were mostly in POV wars taking sides with him. Now what i dont understand is, why this isnt this considered as a worrying precedent because they all know the start time of the nomination so they have enough time to notify each other without being exposed before it starts. I think what i did could bring the nomination more equality if the people i sent messages to had time to vote.(Metb82 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC))
See among other issues WP:POINT if vote stacking in one direction is occuring, the proper thing to do is to aler other users and alert the buraeucrats, not to vote stack the other way. This is even assuming your statement is true. JoshuaZ 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000 is no longer a bureaucrat

I am no longer a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia.

During the AzaToth RfA I made an error when I closed a discussion early because I forgot the clocks had gone forward the night before, and I was no longer working at UTC but at UTC+1. Believing this to be a fairly minor error I immediately apologised on the bureaucrats' noticeboard and asked for advice from others as to the best action to take. A can of worms was then opened in which I was heavily criticised, my judgement was called into question and I received emails and a message on my talk page informing me that I was no longer trusted as a bureaucrat. This is only partly why I have stood down.

When the stress of Wikipedia started exceeding the stress of paid employment I did what I always did in the past and went on Wikibreak because real life is more important. I then received more criticism telling me that as a bureaucrat going on Wikibreak at that point was an error in judgement. This is why I have handed in my bureaucratship, because real life takes priority. I cannot be tied down to a project where my real life is effected by the levels of stress the project is producing, and when I am criticised for placing my livelihood and my family as a priority over Wikipedia, that's when I know I'm in the wrong place.

I don't know if I will continue to participate in future RfAs. I have withdrawn my opposition from current RfB nominations because my judgement is no longer trusted. -- Francs2000 13:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, don't they? One can be forgiven if he makes mistakes. Don't get yourself so guilty over this matter. However, I have to respect your decision. All the best to your real life activities and you will still be a good admin and editor. ;) --Terence Ong 13:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, I hope you some day can return to be a bureaucrat. →AzaToth 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yikes. Also sorry to hear that. I think your error was minor and not a resigning matter, but since I do trust your judgement I can hardly call into question your judgement on this matter! I hope you stick around as an editor and admin. --kingboyk 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand why you are resigning as a bureaucrat but I agree with the previous comments that this was a minor error (and, speaking for myself, calls into question the judgement of those who jumped all over you about this). I wish you the best and hope this doesn't sour you on Wikipedia as a whole.--Alabamaboy 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering they are 1 million+ users, 800+ admins and only 8 bureaucrats... may I be bold enough to ask you to reconsider if your resignation is not accepted as yet? --hydkat 14:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry to see the person who started my talkpage so stressed. Cheer up, Francs2000, I hope other activities will make you feel better. Conscious 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course real life comes first - anyone who says otherwise is frankly nuts. Taking a wikibreak to defuse a period of wikistress strikes me as exactly the right thing to do. Don't worry - most of us still trust you. (Having said that, a brief explanation of why AzaToth's RFA was unsuccessful would not go amiss, though. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that it would have been quite unusual for it to have succeeded, but that does not mean that an explanation is not in order when one is requested - just point me at it if it already exists.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you have decided to resign, but you've got your priorities exactly right. Life (family, friends, work (in that order)) trumps Wikipedia. FWIW, I think the math error was more of a big deal in this RfA than the slightly early close. But both are miniscule in my view... Here's hoping everything works out for you whatever you choose to do. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
As the one who left the comment on you talk page, I hope that you saw that yesterday I withdrew my statement about my trust being misplaced and explained what the basis of the original statement was. I've also mentioned on your talk page and in discussions elsewhere comments stating that it was unfortuneate that your relatively small mistakes were magnified so much in the course of the discussion regarding the controversy. I also said I respected your decision to absent yourself from the discussion. So I am going to take at face value the note you left on my talk page that this is not about anything I have said and is indeed about prioritizing your life. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Francs, I hope you reconsider. What you did was a very small mistake, and what was too blame was an excessive zeal of one or two supporters of that RfA which could not pass in anyway. You are right in all you say above. Please reconsider. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Francs, if you don't want bear the Wikistress involved at RfA then it is not unreasonable to withdraw. Unfortunately, while most bureaucrat action is routine, it is bound to involve conflict from time to time; however, please put out of your mind the concept that your are "not trusted" at Wikipedia. I see nothing at all to back up that assumption. -- Cecropia 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope you reconsider too, though the last thing I'd want would be if you were to feel further pressured by such calls. I see absolutely no reason at all why 'crats shouldn't be as entitled to wikibreaks as anyone else; or to going on a 'crat-break, as quite manifestly this is a right that many of the corps are even now exercising! If by some strange chance all of our active bureaucrats go on break, and none of the inactives return to duty, then we can worry about the urgency of the situation. Alai 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this to be a very minor error. In fact, I was rather annoyed by the fact that MediaWiki does not yet have an option to automatically adjust DST for those who live in countries which observe it. I'd ask you to reconsider your resignation, since you always seemed to be one of the most level-headed of all admins and bureaucrats, for that matter, to me; I can understand if the stress has become too much for you, though. (You wouldn't believe the amount of stress I currently endure in real life — in comparison, Wikipedia is like a vacation to me. =]) Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I second Nightstallion's comment. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Lar's comment. Wikipedia is after all a volunteer project, which is dependent on the volunteers being able to donate the time they are willing and able to donate. You may be willing to spend more time in Wiki, but sometimes, you just can't, and it is perfectly appropriate to do so. In fact, it is the most reasonable thing to do, as you then are able to come back to your duties in better shape, without the stress polluting your mind. I, for one, still trust your judgment, and I urge you to reconsider your withdrawal. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As above - I don't think that either a minor error nor the issue of Wikibreak are matters upon which your bureaucratship should hinge. If you want to continue as a b'crat, then please do continue. If you think it isn't worth the stress, then please don't feel like you are obliged to remain. As for the Wikibreak - b'crats go on Wikibreaks like everyone else. It's a non-issue, regardless of what people think. Guettarda 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sakes it was a clock error! I blame the time council for this. Francs, you still have my trust. Shame on them. Shame on them all! (it was a CLOCK error:) --Jay(Reply) 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to take a simple error so hard, Franks2000. The only people who are perfect and don't make mistakes are those who don't get up in the morning. Your's was a simple mistake and easily explained, understood and forgiven. Please continue. The error was just a drop in the bucket of the rubble that ensued and that you were not at all responsible for. I'm convinced it would have ensued anyway which is why I've proposed to clarify the language on the process to sysop someone (i.e., to help preventing such confrontations going forward). It would really be too bad to see someone good and dedicated step down over this. That would not make the Pedia better. Please reconsider and continue if the error and needed breaks from time to time are the only reason you want to step down. Everyone has other commitments and everyone needs breaks and semi-breaks at times. Just because you became a crat doesn't remove them and I don't think anyone would expect it would. It would be great if you continued on as a crat. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have allowed a small time-based calculation affect you so much. As bureaucrat/admin people throw a lot at you and you have to deal with the situation as per your conscience. Since you believed you were right, you should have politely replied to the accusations and ignored it any further. My suggestion to you is to go on a wikibreak and forget about this incident, and you should feel a lot better. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Francs: Have you simply abandonded Bureaucratic responsibilty, or have you formally asked a steward to remove your tag? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's resigned. Sorry that you feel guilty for what you did Francs, you are one of the best admins we have around here, and that error you made was minute, human, and ultimately of no real consequence or harm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that sentiment...without any intention of insulting those that were impacted.--MONGO 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Francs' resignation is a principled action, which does honor to the position. Francs, thank you for your services as a respected member of the community. --Ancheta Wis 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Main RfA Navigation improvement

Most would agree that any particular RfA vote page can get rather long. With the nomination + votes + comments + discussions, a single consensus can reach hundreds of lines. We've learned to deal with that. However, the main RfA page, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (i.e. the project page for this talk page) has all the discussions for all the nominations. The clutter can be at times difficult to navigate, or even hard to follow. That is why I propose that we have a streamlined main RfA page, that only links to the respective discussions, for easier navigation. Something like this, perhaps with a few tweaks (i.e. a "vote here" button,) would work better than what we have now, separating the discussions for easier navigation. --Jay(Reply) 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before; the main reason I don't quite like it would be that it would be more difficult to look at all the RfAs and read the discussion. Instead, multiple pages would have to be opened. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. But if anyone is interested in having quick RfA access, just copy {{User:Dragons flight/RFA summary}} onto your user/talk page. --Jay(Reply) 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the emphasis on numbers in your example ("oh, a 60-40 vote, maybe I'll vote there"). Leave name and ending date and that's it and I wouldn't mind it. Marskell 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Take it easy there. Rather than spending 15 minutes putting a decent table together as a graphic, I thought I'd use the nice table already existing as an illustration. It is simply an example. I also specifically mentioned that it would be open for tweaks. You don't have to look at it or even use it if you are offended by the statistics. --Jay(Reply) 00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm easy. Easy-breezy. Just my thought on numbers. Its MHO in general. The not a vote thing is kind of a joke given how precisely and exactly things get quantified here. Marskell 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely understand. Numbers are indeed very powerful here. --Jay(Reply) 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea because it would emphasize the numbers even more than now. The reasons and statement are very important and I would not want to see them moved off the main page. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Consensus does not necessarily mean raw numbers. It's the reason behind the vote, and if we're hiding the reason, the entire RFA process becomes akin to a communist election. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Would something like this work for anyone/everyone/someone? (Note the View Debate link). I do agree that the main page is really cluttered right now, so if we could minimize it a bit, it'd be nice. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like the direct link to the subpage to view the debate. I often click "vote here" and then "project page" to get to the subpage now when I want to read it. A direct link to read (not edit) each page would be an improvement. NoSeptember talk 10:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Something like that would be a much better approach. It has the information, and branches off neatly to the correct discussion page. --Jay(Reply) 20:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, why not. We could even leave off the running tally in general. Here's the nom, vote if you please. Marskell 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I quite like that. One aesthetic request: can the "vote here" "debate here" links be bigger and, say, centered at the bottom or something? Perhaps even go so far as to put them in the reverse order? -Splashtalk 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice! Sorry to bother, but how did you do it? Fetofs Hello! 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but would be an extra click when viewing the nominations if using that format on the RfA page, and I don't see much gain in replacing existing format. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The only thing being left out is the debate discussion; the idea being to shorten the page so it's not such a pain to navigate. If there's some concern that people might vote without reading the current debate, maybe we could omit the "Vote here" link and just provide the "View debate" link? (When viewed from the main RfA page). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've put together a test template at User:Locke Cole/Template:RfA. You can try subst'ing it in a sandbox (and then transcluding it someplace else) to see how it works. And of course, viewing the source might help. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Should be possible, FWIW I reversed the order for my test template (User:Locke Cole/Template:RfA) but haven't added the centering/positioning/etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a real detriment to the proposed format and a benefit the current, i.e., to being able to see the discussion on the page without the need to go into the different nomination pages. So, for example, after I have voted it is easy to continue following the discussion until the vote closes on a candidacy without the need to go into the subpage when I wouldn't necessarily need to go there unless I want/need to reply to a comment that was made after I cast my vote. The proposed format does not permit this. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering the complaint was that the main page was getting huge with all the longish discussions, the idea is to trim back stuff so it's easier to navigate. Judging from the other responses so far, people seem to agree it's long (or, at least, that my sample page is better or has potential). I'd definitely like more feedback: if people don't think it's too long, there's no sense with me wasting time working on something that'll never get put to use. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Are a few extra clicks too much a price to pay for a cleaner, easier nomination page? It must be a nightmare for 33k'ers, a now nearly extinct group, to vote on an RfA. I personally just use the table from Dragon's flight to access the relevant subpages. Nonetheless, the main issue is usability, and we have to do something to make the page cleaner. On a sidenote, maybe you could add a nice image for the "vote here" button, liven it up a little more. After all, it is a button:) --Jay(Reply) 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that the page is long, but also that any of the proposed changes will result in reduced discussion in the RFAs. It's very easy under the current system to see at a glance which RFAs are contested or contentious and may warrant close inspection. I'd be concerned that 'a few extra clicks' would indeed reduce participation.
Perhaps someone could come up with a clever transclusion method or some other technique to provide a short form to thems that wants it, while still preserving the long form for the RFA addicts and those who enjoy fast broadband connections. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you there. It definitely IS long. The thing is there is a benefit to having it and participation and discussion would almost certainly be negatively impacted if this proposal were to replace the "long format" we have now. But I do see the dilemma for those with slower connections. So, I'd second it if it was possible to offer it as an alternative rather than have it replace what's there now. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just wondering if someone could enlighten me as to why edit summary rates are taken so seriously in RfA's. Yes, everyone should use edit summaries wherever possible, but there are contexts where they are less important:

  • Talk pages (do people often read talk page histories? in most cases the comment stands for itself)
  • A series of uncontroversial edits to the same page: When the same user has made 10 edits in a row to a page, the benefit of summarising each edit is reduced.

And of course, sometimes we just forget, or hit the "save page" button instead of the "this is a minor edit" checkbox. So, compared to, say, edit wars, vandalism, or breaching any other policy, a mediocre rate of edit summaries seems less serious, no? Stevage 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's not too serious, but it shouldn't also be taken too lightly. Generally you'll not edit talk pages too much or make 10 edits in a row. This should bring your percentage to around 80% or so, which is acceptable. If anyone needs it, there is a script to force that input. Fetofs Hello! 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In my view edit summaries, good ones, are critical. They help vandal fighters, and they help other editors of the article hone in on what was substantive in the change, or why the comment is worth reading. With the available automation to remind you that you need to make one easily installed, any editor that has a low percentage (even on minors) is going to be evaluated a bit lower by me, all other factors being equal. Is it a deal breaker? no. Is it a negative factor? yes. IMHO. As I say at my entry in the criteria page (which link escapes me at the moment) ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. Fetofs Hello! 13:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
D'oh! Blazingly obvious. Sorry for not remembering and thanks! ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is now a new box in your editing preferences for prompting you, once per edit, to add a summary if you should miss one out. -Splashtalk 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It shows conscientiousness on the part of contributors and per Splash it's very helpful for page-watchers. I really dislike seeing ten minors in a row; a slog to check them all and no summaries just makes that worse. Agreed, lack of summaries is not an opppose reason on its own, but in combination with other things may turn a support to neutral, neutral to oppose etc. Marskell 13:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Durin, why not just compare between the first and last minor edit, rather than each individually? Then there's only one check to be made. Stevage 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been like this for a long, long time. There are certain areas of Wikipedia which are regarded almost as private fiefdoms by those who frequent them (see recent comments on this matter by Massivego). A bit like the userbox kerfuffle, really, only more entrenched. Really, edit sumeries are an excellent idea, and help eleviate concerns on watchlists, but aren't truly substantial in the analysis of an canidate. It's being used a bit too much as a coup-out in regards to a negative opinion.-ZeroTalk 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. I use it as one of my criteria but I'd like to hope I'm not using it as a cop out and I suspect that's true for most everyone. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The people who do this know who they are. Really its a very minor point in the manner a wikipedian should conduct one's self, but shouldn't be the only basis for an opposistion. -ZeroTalk 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't agree with you that the basis of an administrative nomination should be determined by edit summary count. Of what I did see, the most puzzling was your quote of description : A number of RfA voters find the frequency of use of edit summaries by a nominee is a potential factor in voting for or against a nominee.. I see something wrong with that. It was not a clear summary of describing how a person would perform administrative duties, nor was it accurate. I do hope people focus more on the canidate's performance and posistion. We'll see how it goes. -ZeroTalk 16:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not inaccurate. A number of people do find the frequency of edit summary usage to be a factor in deciding how to vote in RfAs. You see something wrong with that. That's fine. Some people do not. That's fine too. Some people do consider having some focus on a nominee's usage of edit summaries as relating to how well they will perform administrator duties. --Durin 21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I also note that Mathbot explicitly disclaims that the edit summary usage is a measure of the worth of an editor. Also another example where I don't use edit summaries: creation of a new page. What is there to say, besides, "I created this new page"? I thoroughly agree that in heavily vandalised or controversial pages, every edit should be summarised to help out other editors. But when everyone is working together in harmony, it's simply not that necessary, and people will tend to check all the diffs since the last time they edited. Stevage 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If you create a new page, the first sentence of the article (Foo is a barish baz) will make a perfect edit summary that can help new page patrollers or people who sort new pages thematically. Kusma (討論) 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, thanks! Stevage 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I probably barely scrape 5% edit summaries on minor edits. Not all browsers "remember" a minor edit code so you can jut type an "s" and have it remember that the last thing you typed in beginning with S was "stub correction". When you're doing a batch of 200 copy/paste stub changes, it would enormously increase the time taken for adding that each time (and because it's a copy/paste thing, I can't also have "stub correction" in my clipboard). Major edits in articles, yes, I can understand why edit summaries are useful there - but not with minor edits, and not with any pages where a person would normally sign their comments anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

question

Why do we allow votes that don't say anything but support or oppose? Shouldn't we require people to either give a reason or at least state that they agree with a given person? This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, right?--Urthogie 13:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule people are always called out on oppose with no reason but never support with no reason. I agree some minimum comment should be required. Marskell 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? A support vote implicitly states "this person is acceptable to me to have adminship" and an oppose vote implicitly states "this person is not acceptable to me to have adminship." Unless one has something to tell the community that may influence others' decisions, I see no need for a reason to justify a vote. When I review who has already voted, the reputation of the voter casting the vote matters more to me than what they say in most cases. NoSeptember talk 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
For one thing, an oppose vote carries much more weight mathmatically than a support vote. It takes 4 support votes to "cancel out" an oppose vote, though of course b'crat discretion is the ultimate factor. I do think people should explain oppose votes, based on my own RfA experience (where I never had any idea what the 2 objecters objected to). But at the same time, I don't think people should be reluctant to oppose because they don't want to get jumped on by a bunch of people. I think a good compromise is for oppose voters to explain their basic objection, and for everyone else to respect that and not hassle them. If we're all acting in good faith, of course :-) --W.marsh 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and supporters should explain why they support too. These are just personal preferences... I don't know that codifying these things would be a good idea at all. --W.marsh 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think of it a little differently. Although I provide a reason for almost every support vote I've given, I don't think it's as important to provide reasons for a support vote as it is for an oppose vote because the comments given in an oppose vote can help the RFA candidate improve for future RFAs if it fails, and maybe what needs to be done prior to taking on admin tasks even if the RFA passes. That's not as much of a factor in the support votes, unless, of course, the support vote still provides a qualifier like "Support, but I'm concerned about X". --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request? Yes. REQUIRE? No. --Durin 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote and promote?

I though bureaucrats didn't do this. -Splashtalk 15:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash, for the benefit of the rest of us who don't follow this page like hawks (ahem), to what are you referring? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Danny voted for and promoted Essjay to bureaucrat. And Talrias, there is no excuse for unhawkish behavior ;). NoSeptember talk 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not a good thing to have even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't think it was deliberate in this case. It is clear that Danny has not done an en.wiki promotion in a long time given the edit errors he made in closing it (such as appending the Essjay RFB to the Ed Poor RFB). Since he is active as a steward, it is easy to see how his confusion could result from the likelihood that each project has slightly different procedures and traditions, and the process at en.wiki has changed a bit since he last promoted someone on 17 Sept 2004. NoSeptember talk 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • There's no policy preventing Danny from doing so, though I grant the appearance of conflict of interest is not good. Still, his vote amounted to a .06% difference in the percentage, which is not exactly significant. --Durin 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The promotion is, though, given that it was carried out by a declaredly non-neutral bureaucrat at a level fractionally less than 90% and with more opposition than a successful RfB has ever seen before. It leaves an unpleasant taste, at the least. -Splashtalk 16:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. It's ironic that the "threshold" for admin appointments was such an issue in the RfB, and itself ends up being promoted with the lowest support/(oppose+support) ratio in "modern times" (two years, when the voter turnout was a grand total of 16). It's also rather more than fractionally less than 90% incidentally if one counts the (rather reserved-sounding) neutrals in the "votes cast" denominator. (A couple of opposes were also removed rather late-on without their clearly expressed concerned being addressed in any noticeable way, though that's entirely up to them.) The support vote with two prior edits I won't make a big deal of, as there's no actual identity concern, though it does make me wonder if there shouldn't be some minimal enfranchisement requirement, as with Arbcom "elections". Alai 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not the impact of one's personal vote that is at issue in a potential conflict of interest, but rather the value of one's discretion as a bureaucrat (which has a significantly bigger impact). The thing is though, even if you refrain from voting, this does not mean you don't have a personal preference when you exercise your bureaucrat's discretion. NoSeptember talk 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • One would like to think that in such cases, there would be consultation between the existing 'crats. That we now have the situation were one BC resigned during this request (striking out his opposition to it), another who has expressed and maintained opposition, a third voting for and promoting it (with < "the usual" 90%), and now a fourth as the direct result of this, does not give the impression of a 'crat-corps who are of one mind in matters of permission-setting. Alai 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You didn't mention the bureaucrat who voted neutral ;). NoSeptember talk 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I forgot. :) OTOH, "contentious neutrality" seems a less concerning issue. Alai 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • One would like to think that in such cases, there would be consultation between the existing 'crats.
        You're sounding a lot like Essjay now, as this was precisely his suggestion that created controversy over his RfB, just applied to an RfB instead of an RfA. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Not so very precise: The controversy was that he cited 70-80% as the "grey area in which to consult", as opposed to the conventional wisdom that it's 75-80%. (i.e., that there might be circumstances in which <75% was promotable.) For RfBs, there's no such clearly established zone, other than by precedent (and the lack thereof), and I'm making no particular suggestion as to what it should be (other than throwing out a few obvious possibilities). And also, I'm not standing for bureaucrat, and suggesting actually directly implementing such a thing. Though given the size of the Essjay fanclub, I should be flattered by the comparison, exact or not. Alai 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, Danny is a long-term and respected Wikipedian and one of only three who does paid work for Wikipedia. Also for the record, he has now made his second promotion at RfA. His other promotion was made on 17 Sep 2004, shortly after he became a bureaucrat. I did not look forward to the possibility that I might have had to make the decision on Essjay's RfB, but, if necessary, I would have. Consensus and precedent are highly prized at Wikipedia, and I will assert that, considering the non-participation at RfA of the promoting bureaucrat, I will not respect the circumstances of the promotion (<90% and 16 opposes) as a precedent for future RfBs unless the community explicitly decides to lower the bureaucrat standard. -- Cecropia 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The number of oppose votes is not a good standard to stick to in an environment where the average number of users casting votes is rising dramatically. At least 2 bureaucrats have been promoted with under 90% support (not counting the appointed crats), and it wasn't a very close 89.94% like this time. I agree through, that it is the community standard that matters, but given the diversity of views expressed in the many discussions on this, what that community standard is is not as clear as some would suggest. NoSeptember talk 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's kind of selective analysis. I believe the two Bureaucrats you are referring to were those made at the very beginning of the Bureaucrat system, when no one thought about it much or the implications of what would happen in contentious nominations. One was promoted with (11,3,2) which is 78.4% and the other with (6,1,0), which is 85.7% and so few votes that he could not be made Bureaucrat now even if there were fewer opposes. Of those two Bureaucrats, one has made two promotions in two years and the other made three admin promotions before making a controversial bureaucrat promotion and then resigning. -- Cecropia 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Alai noted above "less than 90% incidentally if one counts the (rather reserved-sounding) neutrals in the 'votes cast' denominator". Neutrals are NOT counted in this way. If that were the case, then neutrals effectively become a form of opposing. Neutrals are just that...neutral. Secondly, whether a person votes 1 second into the nomination or 1 second before the closing time, their comments count. It doesn't matter when they made their comments. I do think Danny should have recused himself either from voting or from promoting this RfB, but a lot of hay is being made out of a promotion that had considerable support. I too would not use this RfB as a precedent if I were doing promotions, but we're only talking about .07%...one more support vote on top of 143 and you have that. Let's stay focused on the project, and not on .07% in this case. --Durin 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The way 90% seems to be used here as a line of separation, one wonders just where the range of discretion is (the equivalent to the 75%-80% range in RfAs). Is 91% a clear pass?, is 89% a clear fail? Is there no discretion? There must be a range of discretion, and it seems quite likely that 89.94% is in that range. If 90% were a firm line, then we could promote by bot, as the cliche goes. NoSeptember talk 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • My comment on <90% etc. wasn't to say that that was the operative issue in this candidacy. The comment was made to argue against it being used as a precedent for the bean counters. THe operative issues were the points brought up in support and opposition. There are not so many Bureaucrats or bcrat nominations that we have to start casting numbers in stone. -- Cecropia 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if frequency is determinative of the need for numbers-engraving. It would do no harm to say explicitly where people thought the "grey area: personal judgement and possible consultation indicated" zone is, just as currently it's said to be 75%-80% for adminship. Where we have supporting and opposing (as well as neutral and resigning!) existing 'crats, some additional caution is surely indicated. Alai 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. →AzaToth 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • (ecs)Cecropia; indeed, the possible significance of Danny's role as a "WMF Wikipedian" did cross my mind, though I'm going to assume that has no direct bearing unless and until I hear otherwise.
    • Durin, your quote-cropping is a little too close for comfort: it's less than 90% regardless, as I said, and I was discussing the possible "counting" of neutrals not to suggest that they were established as "de facto opposes", but because it's recognised that in close cases, the neutrals be taken into account (in some nebulous and unspecified manner). (In different fora there's by no means complete consistency about the counting of "neutrals", though: after one CFD I was informed that 3 "delete"s, one "keep" and one "comment" was "no consensus", as the comment was a "neutral"...) Given the strength of Cecropia's statement above, it seems pretty clear to me that firstly, there should have been some consultation between bureaucrats in this case, and secondly, that there's no signs of this having occurred.
    • NoSeptember, AFAICS no-one has been promoted with <90% within the last two years, as I mentioned above. (If one does count neutrals, it was <90% in Francs2000's case, but those were remarkably neutral-sounding neutrals.) Given that two years ago, a literal order of magnitude less people were taking part in that venue (and otherwise, in many respects) I really don't see that was comparable. Alai 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • ...and we're still fretting about .07%. I don't see the need. --Durin 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Huh. I think "fretting about 0.07%" is a distinctly ungenerous characterisation of of the concerns that have been expressed, if not to say an inaccurate one. Had the final tally been 90.07%, with the same number of opposed-leaning neutrals, late withdrawals of opposing "votes", multi-way existing BC split, inactive BC making the promotion after supporting, and without wider consultation, etc, etc, I for one would have essentially the same comments as I have. There are issues here worth clarifying here beyond mere "bean counting". Alai 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The neutrals are not counted as oppose leaning or support leaning. They may be considered for subjective value, but not strictly as votes. Whether a vote is withdrawn late or not does not matter. It was withdrawn, period. If there's a bureaucrat disagreement, the decision still lies with the deciding bureaucrat. There's no dissension. Danny did not make an error per se in promoting. He made perhaps a poor judgement call in voting and promoting, but doing so is not against policy. Please state exactly what issues you would like to have clarified. --Durin 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Since we're fretting about .07%, a little history: In June 2004 promotions were simply not getting made because Angela was the only one really active, and with her other Wikiwork, it was starting to be too much for her. So she explicitly asked for more Wikipedians to stand for Bureaucrat, and a number (including me) responded. Some were promoted and some not. Since Angela's request we have made 13 Bureaucrats, starting with Ilyanep. Of these 13, and not counting Essjay, there was ONE person made Bureaucrat with less than 92% support (Warofdreams at 15/2) and TWO with more than two opposes (Nichalp with 4 (at 92%) and Francs2000 at 5 (at 93.3%). The two opposes on Warofdreams were over a relatively minor understanding of process complaint, and on such a small voting base, it was 88.2%. So this most recent nomination's 143/16 at more than 2% below all other post-fill nominations except Warofdrams' really stands out, which is why I don't want it to be seen as a precedent. -- Cecropia 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • There are just too few data points to make much out of these RfBs in terms of precedents. Before Essjay, there were only 5 successful RfBs in the last 18 months, which is an eternity in terms of the growth of the participation in this process and the reduced personal interaction active Wikipedians have with all other active Wikipedians. I think all these standards and precedents are just assertions of personal standards rather than clear and community agreed upon precedents. NoSeptember talk 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • We had considerable discussion on bureaucrat standards, with a significant number who said they didn't feel there should be any significant opposition by a regular user. So what I hear you saying that everything is subjective, so promotion standards are whatever the most liberal (or most lax) bcrat says it is. That is a recipe for the breakdown of a process that has promoted 800 or so admins and removed maybe half that many with very little controversy. -- Cecropia 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Where do you get the idea that "whatever the most liberal (lax) bcrat says" is my standard? And yes, there is an element of the luck of the draw in which bcrat reviews the RfB, but you are just as likely to get the "hanging judge" as the "slap on the wrist" judge. The "no significant opposition by a regular user" breaks down when the size of the voting pool gets so much bigger than it used to be. Essjay and Francs have the most oppose votes of promoted bcrats, but only because they ran in 2006, not because they are in any way less liked than bcrats from 2004 and 2005. We can't have a standard to allow any "regular user" to have what amounts to a veto. Only 6 bcrats have been promoted in 2005 & 2006. You can't compare them to those promoted in 2004, when Wikipedia was much much smaller. NoSeptember talk 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cecropia and I have both, on occasion, promoted candidacies in which we have voted, and I imagine that others have as well. There is no requirement that bureaucrats refrain from promoting those candidacies in which they vote. As for a .06% or .07% difference, parties quoting these figures may wish to check their math. As for neutrals, bureaucrats are expected to read them and consider the sentiment behind them but they are ordinarily not included in any numerical totals. And finally, as to the promotion itself, I am of two minds. I have always believed that the standard for bureaucratship should be high. On the other hand, I believe that the overwhelming support of such a large number of voters speaks the community's mind. To second-guess the plainly obvious wishes of the community based on a mere numerical formula seems contrary to our way of doing things. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Math: 143 support and 16 oppose yields 89.937107% support. To get to 90%, you'd need .062893%, thus .06/.07 ... Yes, you shouldn't round to .07 until you get to .065. So, I guess we're now on about .002107? :) --Durin 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • (parallel edit) 90-((143/(143+16))*100)=6.289308176100405e-2, if that's enough checking of maths. More to the point, I have to question this "plainly obvious" characterisation, though I'll chalk it up as a retrospective entry in the "other BC opinion" I was feeling the lack of. Is an unprecedented level of support in itself sufficient to allay all concerns as to a greater level of opposition than any other previously successful candidate? What if the next candidate gets 400 supports, and 80 opposes, is that still "overwhelming", and "plain"? A "mere numerical formula" sets a more objective test than the likes of "overwhelming support" and other just rhetorical characterisations and linguistic hedges. I'm by no means suggesting we apply one in a "bot like manner", I think it's worth discussing whether a) there really is an numeric criteria, as (admittedly somewhat fuzzily) cited on the howto page, and b) whether there's a "grey area" in which some form of caution or consultation is indicated (whether this be somewhere short of 90%, or somewhere over it is another matter). If existing BCs overwhelmingly support this as being "overwhelmingly support", then so be it. (As settling the broader question; the narrower one already "be", obviously.) Alai 21:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're talking about raw numbers, you can see that one less oppose vote would have brought the nomination above the magical 90% mark. However, if you start considering the nature of the opposes, you can see that two are questionable, as they have a strong ring of personal vendettas to them. Whether Danny should have voted and promoted is a different question, but not something that is out of the ordinary, as UninvitedCompany tells us above. There were also substantially more support voters in this nomination than in other ones, so the higher opposes could be just a measurement of RfA becoming a busier place. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please, let's not be so fast to let bureaucrats casually cast votes aside. There were many "petty supports": supports with no comment at all, more than two dozen, including Danny's. Many more are non-responsive: "certainly," "of course," "why the hell not?" There is nothing in these votes to give a hint that the voters had even read the issues involved, and they certainly don't present issues that could be addressed by opposers. If you want to say "remove one oppose," also consider that Francs2000 never really withdrew his reasoned opposition; we just removed his vote from the count because the upset of the attacks on him left him undesirous of being involved at RfA. -- Cecropia 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • (ec)Then again, some of the supports have a strong ring of "sheep-like", "whimsical", or "having only two prior edits", etc. I may be biased for the obvious reason, but I don't think the opposes were in any general sense lacking reasonable justifications. Alai 21:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Durin's reliance on fractions of percentage points here is taking his usual good analysis too far. It is not important what fraction of a percent one person is worth: we could discount an enormous number of editors as irrelevant on that basis. It is not reasonable to suggest that one should make a vote (which is all that Danny actually did, he failed to reason, comment, debate or address issues), consider oneself overwhelmingly irrelevant and thus to conclude you may decide the issue any way you please with no regard for what has gone before. It is not Danny's purevote that matters so much as his promotion following this explicit statement of non-neutrality in an extremely close nomination. We cannot begin the favourite process of casting stones at the opposers alone as Cecropia points out: the supporters are far more stoneable, even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if an opposer does say "Jehova". The question is "was this RfB of the standards reflected in past successful RfBs and in past community discussions on the issue". It is my opinion (as a declaredly oppositional editor) that it was not. There was substantial reasoned opposition from well-established members of the community, including the bureaucracy. This was Danny's sole bureaucratic action in an absolute eternity, and it is questionable at best that he should choose to use it in a knife-edge decision on an issue on which he was clearly on one side of the fence. I should make clear that I have previously expressed a desire for the standard to be "no significant opposition", with subjectivity on "significant" to be the standard: it is imperative that the process of promotion to bureaucrat, and the actions that a promotee takes on the back of it, be uniformly acceptable as correct. If there is any siginificant opposition, this cannot be the case. (That said, I do fully recognise that the prevailing position is not aligned with my personal preference: 90% is what we expect at the moment. Even so, that is not the sole consideration, as I have indicated above.) -Splashtalk 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Splash, I am NOT relying on fractions of a percentage point. In fact, I was doing precisely the opposite. --Durin 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Splash, please do not take offence at what I am about to say (a tipoff that maybe I should not say it) but in reading through all this, it feels like if this is dragged on indefinitely that something bad will happen. Perhaps Essjay will feel pressured into resigning. I did not like to see that happen to Francs2000 and I would not like to see it happen here either. Perhaps Danny will feel undue pressure. I would not like to see that either. I have to ask, what is your intent? It just feels like that you want to chivvy someone else into deciding to overturn this outcome, or to chivvy Essjay himself into resigning. I'd like to ask you sincerely to consider not continuing if either of those are a likely outcome. I'm just some random user but that's how I feel. Please consider it. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That reads as though you mean that, even though it seems obvious enough to me that the RfB was closed in a poor manner, I should say nothing about it. The easiest way for people to avoid criticism is not engaging in actions that deserve criticising; bureaucrats should know that better than the rest of us. -Splashtalk 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Amen. (Did I just violate the Separation of Church and Wikipedia?) -- Cecropia 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I know I've been told to keep shtum about this and haven't, an action in itself that presumably draws criticism. I'm just not really sure that "it's April Fools day" is an especially good reason. -Splashtalk 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Splash: (gee I hope I put this at the right place in the nesting!) It was not intended to suggest you should say NOTHING. Merely that, at the time I spoke up, it was my perception that the points had all been made and I wasn't seeing what continued repetition of them was going to achieve. To be clear: Our community does not work by stifling discussion and that was not my intent. I see now that the discussion seems to have moved somewhat. However my concern still remains. (on the other hand perhaps bureacrats ought to be expected to have thick skins and to be able to take whatever is dished out, so I dunno)... ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Lar, here's my suggestion for something good that could happen: the Bureaucrat Conclave (to continue the religious theme) might have a private discussion, to determine whether they on the one hand, wish to come to a private understanding as to whether there's a consensus (as it were) about how to handle future "borderline" cases. Or on the other, do make something similar, but make the results public (85%-90%, 88% to 92%, 90-90% or whatever else is noted to be a "grey area" roughly analogous to the "75%-80% zone" for adminship). Or on the third tentacle, make it explicit that discretion of the closing BC is paramount, and that mere numerals are but a passing illusion (in which case they should probably be removed or more heavily caveated on the howto page). Alai 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Er, no. Bureaucrats are asked to implement the will of the community, so if there is any determination of a gray area, it has to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. I do agree on the need for a gray area, by the way, to avoid these kinds of things. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • We're not talking about making policy here, we're talking about documenting what's already being done (or noting that it's inherently undocumentable). If the community does want to make a policy telling B'crats what to do, it's free(ish) to do so, but that's not what I'm suggesting, isn't necessary, and would be tantamount to kicking it into the long grass indefinitely. Alai 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What should be done?

  • I will address the point of what should come out of this. First is what I have already said: I will not take this as a precedent. The second is more complex. I take this process very seriously. I feel that the only thing Bureaucrats have is respect and credibility. This is what makes it possible to make a decision and have the great majority of RfA participants believe that the decision was reasoned and unbiased. In order to promote this credibility, I stand ready, and look to other bcrats to stand ready, to explain reasoning and stand by decisions, our own and each others', as I recently did with Francs2000. Am I wrong? That is not a rhetorical question, because if I'm wrong than I'm wasting my time and spinning my wheels trying to make reasoned decisions in a process that has been evolving for two years. Now, the issue isn't even whether or not Essjay should have been promoted. I realized I might be the one whose lap it fell into and, frankly, I was still reading and considering last night. Now to Danny. Danny is a fine Wikipedian and far more valuable to the project than I; I don't think that is false modesty on my part. But the way Danny handled this conflicts to an extreme with what I believe the process is and should be. He became a Bcrat about the same time I did, but (as far as I can tell) has taken three bcrat actions in two years: a promotion two years ago, a rename a week or two ago, and now this bcrat nomination. I don't think anyone believes this was not a controversial promotion, no matter which side you're on. If I had made the promotion (or removal) I would have expected to have to explain my reasoning at length. All I can find from Danny (correct me if I missed something) is a note on Essjay's talk under the heading "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" saying "You know. Danny 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)". This looks to me like a WikiGod coming down from Wikolympus with a Deux ex machina to trump the actions of the foolish mortals who have taken this process seriously. Another Wikipedian, Angela, at least as respected as Danny, also a Bureaucrat (and a Steward, and heaven knows what else) long ago proposed that all Bureaucrats (including herself) should periodically have to stand for renewal. At the same time, she proposed that lightly active Bureaucrats reconfirm immediately, and never active Bureaucrats be dropped, but be allowed to reapply immediately.proposal here The proposal died of ennui; maybe it is time to renew the idea. -- Cecropia 00:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Without getting into the details of the actions of alleged WikiHermes, WikiZeus, etc, I'd certainly agree with the reconfirmation principle that you and WikiAthena^WAngela suggest. In particular it would be useful to determine which of the "inactives" are truly "retired from duty", as the ambiguity here tends to be construed one way by those who think we're severely short of BC cover, and another those who suppose we have plenty (and another 18 besides). Alai 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
One problem with that idea now is whether anyone would actually get 90% during a reconfirmation process. I expect it would have been a lot easier in October 2004 when I first suggested it, but considering the recent arbcom elections where only Filiocht and Mindspillage had more than 90% approval, we'd probably need to lower the requirements. Angela. 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
That's probably self-correcting to a degree; arbcom elections being elections (well, sorta) rather than a true suitability threshold test in any realistic sense, people may oppose (or at least fail to support), simply due to having a preference for another candidate. If there's a perceived need for more BCs, people are less likely to whimsically oppose, and it's not a job that necessarily attracts disapprobrium in the way that some admin activities do. But I'd be in favour of an "ordinary consensus" confirmation process, or even just a simple majority, come to that. Reverse-consensus might be over-egging things, but even a minimalist process for checking the renominee still has a wikipulse would be a start. Alai 05:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would make sense that bureaucrats who are not active more than once or twice a year and who seldom if ever read/comment on this talk page simly be debureaucrat-ized, reconfirmation or not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
'debureaucrat-ized'..? Puzzling vocabulary, Mr. Alexandrov. -ZeroTalk 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
All right, Angela, I see your concern, though (absent some weird "let's dump the 'crats" campaigning) I'm not sure we'd lose bureaucrats who aren't dormant anyway. You yourself proposed breaking 'crats into groups based on activity and whether or not they were appointed or elected. I think the appointed/elected shouldn't make a diff now, since it's so long ago, and all would stand for confirmation now anyway. So why don't why have three groups rather than the six you suggested divided up something like this:
  • Group A: Active Bureaucrats, defined as having made at least one promotion at RfA for each whole month since appointment/election. I mean, if a Bcrat for 18 months, 18 promotions total, not literally one promotion in each 30-day period.
  • Group B: Less active Bureaucrats, who have made at least one promotion for each three months since they became Bureaucrats.
  • Group C: Inactive Bureaucrats, who have not made at least enough promotions to fit into Groups A or B.
I suggest a cutoff date of March 31, 2006, so we don't have bcrats trying to pump up their numbers to get into a higher group. Voting would go on for the usual week, and no 'crats would be exempt and every bcrat must say whether they wish to remain bcrats (I know a few who may not want to). I suggest that every candidate must have a total of at least 50 votes by the end of the voting period. Then set up the vote as follows with one group a week, starting with the least active 'crats, and the following threshholds:
  • Group C: Week of April 10-16 (Monday-Sunday). Same standards as for a new candidate, ~90%.
  • Group B: Week of April 17-23 (Monday-Sunday). Same standards as for a new admin, ~80%.
  • Group A: Week of April 24-30 (Monday-Sunday). I know for neatness sake, we would say 70%, but I think any bureaucrat should be able to garner three out of four votes, so 75%.
I think a week is plenty of time argue about the levels or even if we should do this at all, but I think we need to do something. -- Cecropia 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Almost forgot. Angela proposed annual re-affirmation. Each year Group A will be those who made 12 promotions, Group B at least 4 promotions, others Group C. We would make the anniversay dates the second, third and fourth weeks of April every year. It seems appropriate to have an annual "April Fools" election for the Bureaucracy. :D. I think they should be promotions, though, not Renames, because the former can be a contentious process and the latter not. -- Cecropia 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be curious to hear the reasoning behind more active 'crats needing a lower threshold of approval. I mean, 75% is probably not enough to make admin, so it seems awfully low to use as the threshold for remaining a bureaucrat. It seems arbitrary, but I assume there is a rationale behind the proposal. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
75% is generally enough to make admin. It's in the zone generally identified as requiring some sort of judgement or consultation -- or rather, it's the lower boundary of same -- but at least one recent promotion was done with <76% without any obvious signs of debate or consternation. Alai 04:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need reapplications for bureaucrat. I have no problem with some inactive crats staying around. If all our active crats went on wikibreak at the same time, I'm sure we could convince one of the inactive ones to fill in for a bit. Its not like we have bureacurat wheel warring, or a rogue crat sysopping all of his friends without RfAs ;-). The idea of reconfirming admins has failed repeatedly, the idea of doing it for crats should fail too. Besides, if you were to do something like this, handle it like the Steward elections, rather than having arbitrary definitions of what qualifies someone as inactive or active. NoSeptember talk 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But we have had two instances of inactive 'crats suddenly popping up to make a controversial promotion to Bureaucratship. This proposal was not made on a theoretical basis. I think it has now been twice demonstrated that we shouldn't leave a button like this lying around to be used on a whim. -- Cecropia 06:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There is controversial and then there is controversial. It is not like these promotions were completely out of line, they were in the area of discretion. Even active bureaucrats can disagree on promotion on a case by case basis. Being active does not neccesarily mean having better judgement. Are you claiming that any promotion was actually "wrong" (outside the area of discretion)? NoSeptember talk 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some promotions were "wrong," particularly Luigi's, which brings us to the original defect in the "70%" error cited by the last two RfB candidates. And some promotions may or may not be "wrong," but can be made in a "wrong" way, eroding community confidence and standards, which is why we have so much verbiage on this page. I am not going to characterize EssJay's RfB result as "right" or "wrong," but it was absolutely made in a "wrong" manner. -- Cecropia 07:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wow, how terrible. Am I missing something here? Are you percieving one b-crat promotion in the area of discretion and one admin promotion just below the area of discretion (but higher than the old area of discretion - it always used to be 70-80%, when did it change?) as really big problems? Has Luigi ever done anything to misuse his powers? Will Essjay? I doubt it. This feels like a mountain out of a molehill to me - something out of nothing - and definitely not worth the hastle of discussion, compilation and voting on a major new proposal. Get on with editing some articles already. --Celestianpower háblame 08:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit articles? What a great idea! You're a genius, celestianpower. Thanks! :) -- Cecropia 09:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like to think so. I'm fantastic, me :P. --Celestianpower háblame 09:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A crat-war is impossible since they cannot reverse their own actions. Reconfirming admins fails principally because of scale issues, which don't exist yet in the bureaucracy. It also fails because admins upset plenty of people fairly regularly: bureaucrats very rarely do so just by the nature of their limited 'increase' in powers. -Splashtalk 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I like Cecropia's idea. I'm not sure we'd actually have problems with a 90% approval threshold: all three of our recent 'crats before Essjay have cleared that no problem, so it certainly can be done. I'd also go slightly further and simpy de-crat Group C automatically. If we were left with not enough 'crats it would quickly become obvious and we could make ourselves a new one or two: at least we'd know that the new ones were current and relevant. But Cecropia's working seems ok, and unlikely to have unforseen problems. We all know that most of our existing crats are functioning alright, but that the bureaucracy could do with some dusting down. We'd possibly remove some 'crats: this might make it easier to see whether we do, in fact, "need more bureaucrats", even though RfA is not obviously backlogged. It does seem to me that those 'crats who are not in touch with RfA and the community's standards do not need their additional button. -Splashtalk 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since we have the precedent of elections for Board members, Stewards, and ArbCom members, if we are going to have another position become non-permanent, why not handle it with an election as well? NoSeptember talk 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Because elections have fixed numbers of places which the candidates compete for. RfB and RfA do not and this is good for all the usual reasons, not least the possibility of scaling at the community's pleasure (particularly when we start to lose 'crats...) -Splashtalk 15:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually an election could ensure that we have enough active bureaucrats to handle the job (promotions, name changes, and bot flagging apparently). Only actively interested admins will run for the job, so we won't have to worry about inactive crats too much. Btw, I don't believe there is a fixed number of positions in Stewards elections, just a certain approval level needed to pass. We can make the rules fit the nature of the bureaucrat job and how many we think we need. NoSeptember talk 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is better to let the process itself determine how many 'crats we need. It is enough to have them all seek (or decline to seek) reconfirmation. If we finish up with too few, people can step into the breach then. Limiting 'crat promotions to once a year may not take account of sharp changes that occur between-times, whereas leaving the process open to all volunteers, but reconfirming them once a year avoids that kind of thing. It also avoids any need to go campaigning and any need for "i am better because..." type work. Everyone would simply be standing on their own two feet. -Splashtalk 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Its best we have it staggered as per the requirements of enwiki. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah... I feel as those I've missed something, but I've tried to be thorough in reading. I can't quite understand why this hasn't been suggested: Rather than "de-b'crat"ize, simply adopt a policy/guideline/firm written expectation that no b'crat should ever close a nomination on which he/she voted. This seems the simplest direct remedy to the complaint against Danny's "conflict-of-interest", and less cumbersome than instituting a process to account for b'crat inactivity. Xoloz 21:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I think that's a bad idea. When I vote for a candidate, I vote purely as an editor. When I promote, I look at the overall consensus of the community, and treat my vote as just another wikipedian. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Sure, but with the number of b'crats we have (21 says the table), somebody ought to be sufficiently uninterested in each given RfA to be able to "sit out" and close it in a clearly "no conflict-of-interest" disinterested manner. I don't doubt your capacity to do this, but why bother with that practice (which some might honestly question) when we have plenty of b'crats? I, for one, would heartily admire a b'crat who promised never (or rarely) to vote at RfA. Xoloz 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yup, I'm aware of such a situation (It happened to me in an AFD I once closed), so I usually sit out if my vote is in the 75-80% region, unless of course they is a considerable delay in the promotion. I rarely vote in RFAs these days, and have opposed a candidate just 3/4 times. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list post about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyrenius

Would just like to point out mailing list posts on the above RFA: [1][2][3][4]. NSLE (T+C) at 06:54 UTC (2006-04-01)

Thanks for that. Those pointers lead to a quite long and thoughtful conversation thread that addresses many of the points raised here plus many more. Many great points raised by many great editors/admins... Recommended reading. (with a small sigh as to why it's all said there and not here but I haven't completely grokked the maillist vs. here social norms yet) ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was the one who posted it there. :) Personally, I find email better suited to serious discussion. YMMV. Stevage 14:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

HereToHelp's RfA

I guess my brain left the Bureaucracy before the rest of me. I closed User:HereToHelp's RfA but forgot to push "the button." So would an active bcrat do it for me, since I have thrown myself to the gerbils? Not an April Fool's joke. Thanks and cheers, Cecropia 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay Talk • Contact 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Slicky's RfA

Slicky withdrew his RfA simply by deleting it. Could a bureaucrat fix this up please? - Richardcavell 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Was already done before you reinstated it. In fact, I was edit conflicted while closing it; another user got to it even faster than I did. In general, we will catch these things and take care of the closing in due time. Essjay Talk • Contact 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Essjay. I did think of this possibility but wanted to make sure it didn't get lost. - Richardcavell 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, to be faster than Essjay. :-D Moe ε 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential problem brewing

Recent events on RfA/RfB have resulted in the resignation of two bureaucrats. Losing anyone under such circumstances is distinctly regrettable. In particular, I would like to note that Cecropia's resignation as a bureaucrat has left a gaping hole with huge shoes to fill. Some may be aware (most probably are not) that Cecropia has been by far the most active bureaucrat. Over the last year, he has performed just over 50% of all promotions. The next most active bureaucrat (Nichalp) has performed just 12%. While it is true that some promotions might have been done by other bureaucrats had Cecropia not gotten to them, the fact is that a huge amount of effort available to us by Cecropia's helpfulness is now gone.

The last several RfBs have frequently seen people vote in opposition because of the perception that we don't need more bureaucrats. That is most definitely not the case anymore. Over the last year, 14 other bureaucrats did less promotions than Cecropia by himself. If the other bureaucrats do not step up their activity level, then we're in need of a dozen or more new bureaucrats.

Let's not put forth candidates that are weak. But, let's find strong candidates who are willing to do this thankless job, and will clearly pass standards people have for RfB. 90% is a difficult level of approval to meet. Let's not drag people before RfB that are not ready, and are not likely to easily pass. We don't want to turn this period into something terribly ugly. We need to work through it and move forward gracefully. and before anyone asks, no I will not run for bureaucrat as I don't pass my own standards...in particular being an admin for a year. I've still six months to go --Durin 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that we do not need more B'crats is still valid. If the b'crats we have bothered to step up, then it will become evident that more are not needed. The potential workload is easily managable if the moderately active b'crats were willing to spread the work. If they aren't willing to do the very narrowly assigned task the community has entrusted in them, then they need to be de'b'crated. Then, and only then, may we need more b'crats. Until that time, despite the gargantuan hole left in Cecropia's wake, my standards remain unchanged. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the bureaucrats that we have now are doing as much as they can. We don't know. I've placed requests with the next four most active bureaucrats (Nichalp, Rdsmith4, UninvitedCompany, and Raul654) to step up their work in this area. They are the only ones with 20 or more promotions in the last year other than Cecropia. Personally, I think we burned Cecropia out. Heaving heavier burdens onto the shoulders of the remaining bureaucrats is probably not the best solution. In my opinion, it is at best a stop gap. Also note that in the last year the rate of admin promotions has trended up about 70%. Further, 81 of the last 100 promotions were done by Cecropia. --Durin 19:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If all the b'crats would bother to do their jobs, we wouldn't be talking. But lets say we can convince at least seven b'crats to be, well, b'crats. Two promotions a day is not too much to ask for, no? That's fourteen a day amongst the lot, assuming perfect consistency - that is (ignoring withdrawn and speedy-removed pile-on noms) 98 a week. Right now, there fifteen active RfAs. Fifteen. The need just does not exist at the moment, and the fifteen that are there now, across seven days, could easily be handeled by one b'crat. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes there aren't 2 a day to promote, much less for each b'crat. Every time I check, an RfA is about 3 hours from p-hour, but when I get back to it it's gone :\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, there's a perfect solution for that. Just log on 3 hours late everyday.;-) —Encephalon 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Durin, have you started thinking about candidate criteria, the way you have for Adminship? Your admin candidates sail through precisely because they tend to be so well suited. Perhaps some further thinking/discussion about criteria by you and others might be useful? (and as a PS I'd support your RfB in a second, if and when (in 6 months...?) you decided to stand) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thought about? Yes. Done much yet? No. What little I've done is here. I think that whatever measures I came up with would have a lot of similarity to the measures that I apply in nominating someone for RfA. The reviews I do for them take a minimum of two hours in large part because I check literally hundreds of edits. I think this would have to be the case as well for any bureaucrat candidate I put forth. That aside, I'm not the most successful RfA nominator. Since June 27, 2005 there have been 18 nominators with 3 or more noms that have had all of their nominations succeed. Of those, five had a higher percentage of support votes than my nominations. They are User:Cyberjunkie (3 noms, 99.21% support), User:Sjakkalle (3 noms, 98.55% support), User:Nichalp (3 noms, 98.43% support), User:Bluemoose (7 noms, 97.27% support), and User:Jfdwolff (3 noms, 97.25% support). They might be better suited to determining good criteria for RfB nominations. --Durin 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Before we run to prop it up, why don't we breathe in and wait to see if the sky is, in fact, falling? Cecropia is an enormous loss, but we simply don't know ahead of time how things are going to. As they say on financial products in the UK, "past performance is not necessarily any guide to the future". -Splashtalk 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Durin states that "While it is true that some promotions might have been done by other bureaucrats had Cecropia not gotten to them[...]". I think it's pretty self-evident that all of them would have been by other BCs. This "potential problem" argument ignores the actual workload involved (or else, is insisting on a very high "service level" of promotion speediness, as per the howls of outrage at a short interlude last Thanksgiving). The "dozen or more" figure is accurate only if a) no existing BC does a stroke more BC work, and b) we work hard to select only new BCs who similarly, solemnly promise not to promote more than a person a fortnight each, and adhere rigidly to such an ethic. i.e., it's not reasonable in the least.

Let's worry about this as an issue if either such complaints happen in practice, or more seriously, if existing BCs indicate it's a problem as regards the burden on them. Alai 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • (to everyone, not just Alai) In the very section title I noted this is a potential problem. I didn't say that it is in fact a problem. It behooves us to anticipate potential problems and have solutions ready if the problem becomes significant. Scrambling at the last moment to find somebody willing to do promotions might not yield the best bureaucrat candidate(s). The crux of the debate here seems to be, on one side, that the existing bureaucrats are ready and willing to respond to the increased demands on their time. On the other side, that the existing bureaucrats have already demonstrated their time capacity for promotions over the last year. There's no hard and firm answers here. I readily grant both sides have good points, and never meant to imply that the sky is falling and we must do something right now or else. I meant to state that there is a potential problem and that we should work methodically in addressing the issue.
  • As a related issue, I would like to point out that a number of people get quite upset when an RfA is closed early. It is precisely for this reason that I've taken great pains to correct the end times and dates of RfAs over the last many months. On the other side of this, some people have expressed concern when RfAs aren't closed in a timely manner after their end times have passed. Certainly there are less complaints about this issue than early closes, but it too is an issue. For example, there's been occasional debate about whether a vote counts when it's past the close time but not yet closed. In sum, the timeliness of closings is important. Cecropia's done a masterful job of keeping such debates to a minimum. So, it is quite true that some of the RfAs that Cecropia closed would most likely have been closed on time by another bureaucrat...but it is, in my opinion, unlikely that they all would be. The proof for that being that Cecropia has usually gotten to them first, meaning the other bureaucrats have not been as on top of it as Cecropia has been. If other bureaucrats do not step up their activity levels, we will see a rise in such debates.
  • Much as it might be a pain to collect the data, I think I may begin collecting data on the timeliness of RfA closings. This would at least help to clarify whether there is an issue that needs to be addressed or not. The first piece of data (and pretty worthless in isolation); the first promotion done after Cecropia stepped down was 7 hours late. Cecropia's last promotion; 1 hour late. --Durin 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The argument that 'it's a potential problem, therefore we should do something' is only sound if the "problem" outcome is either more likely, or more serious, than possible difficulties with the "solution". I think I've argued why I don't think it's at all likely: if people disagree, a first step in addressing the issue should be demonstrating that the existing bureaucrats are not happy to do more promotions, etc -- say, by asking them. Or that in practice "service levels" are dropping below what the community is happy with. That first of all requires determining what people are demanding in that respect. Who said anything about "on time"? What I said is that they'd have been closed. As "on time" isn't really defined, it's begging the question. Let's bear in mind that "backlogs" are generally measured in days, weeks, or months: talk of promotions being "late" by a matter of hours should be kept in that perspective. (Earliness is a separate issue, and indeed an unrelated one.) If late closure is thought to be having a distorting effect on outcomes, or people's perceptions thereof, then allow non-BC "clerking" closures (to further voting, pending BC action on the promotion itself).
    • As for the potential problems with having too many: I think those are sufficiently clear that I won't bother to enumerate them at this point. Certainly I think they're more serious than people complaining that their bits weren't set quite soon enough. Alai 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of bureaucrats

To add some (possibly unrelated) numbers to the discussion whether we need more bureaucrats, here's the number of bureaucrats on the largest ten Wikipedias (from Special:Listusers):

en de es it fr ja nl pl pt sv
21 2 63 4 6 3 3 6 3 4

On the German Wikipedia, one of the only two bureaucrats performed all of the last 100 promotions. Does anybody know why the Spanish Wikipedia has so many bureaucrats? The recent promotions I see there give bureaucrat and sysop powers at the same time, but I can't really read all the related policy pages. Kusma (討論) 20:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All active admins can be bureaucrats on eswiki. -Splashtalk 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If we only have 21 bureaucrats on en, then why is there persistant voting on RFB's saying we don't need anymore. It's a little absurd to me. I never looked up the # of bureaucrats we had but that's a really low number compared to the number I thought we had. IMO, I think we do need more. Moe ε 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is definitely absurd and ones where that's the only oppose reason should just be discounted by the closing person since it's a fairly invalid reason to oppose. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Please look up one thread to see why it is a decidedly valid reason to oppose. These numbers mean nothing compared to the current and potential reality our existing b'crats need to deal with. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Your by far in the minority as far as opinions as to the number of needed bureaucrats is concerned. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Judging by what? And even if so, so what? Correct and incorrect have nothing to do with majority. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Count me in this alleged minority too. We keep getting these essentially circular arguments that because 20 people don't evenly divide between them a task -- that realistically it'd take one person to do -- it's clearly actually impossible to do it properly with less than 30. Add a few more if you want closure to be consistently relatively rapid, and for "holiday cover" (and to facilitate this consultation thing we keep hearing so much about). De-BC the entirely inactive ones, and monitor how we do with a mere dozen for a while. The argument that we need lots more, now, is applying the precautionary principle entirely backwards. Alai 14:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Bureaucrats don't perform any particularly time-sensitive or crucial tasks, so we really only need two or three active ones; the entire b'crat workload is a few promotions and a few name changes daily. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • RfA/RfB promotions are particularly time sensitive, as we've seen from the frequent debates about early closings and the less frequent (but still present) concerns over late closings. --Durin 16:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There's certainly been debates, but I'd judge that more as evidence of captiousness than of a genuine problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
And the fact that Cecropia managed to do over 50% promotions makes it clear that two bureaucrats (as active as him) could do all the work. (btw, thank you Cecropia for all the work you've done!) Conscious 08:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I define a problem in this case as when significant objections are raised. Significant objections are raised frequently enough, in my opinion, to show that timeliness is an issue. I don't think we need to deride the objections of some people in order to gain a better understanding of whether there is a problem or not. --Durin 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If the German Wiki can get by with 2 then 20 ought to be sufficient here. Marskell 13:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Methinks the point is that we don't have 20. We have a couple of active ones, several semi-active ones and quite a few inactive ones. That's very different. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point Sam Korn. We can get by with 2-3 b'crats but what happens when they become inactive like the rest of them? Why can't we appoint outstandingly great admins to b'crat status so when the others leave, we have more? I don't see why great users like Titoxd and others have cannot have b'crat status when the are fully capable of the job. Moe ε 13:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Because we don't nee-- oh wait. Often people find anything to nitpick on, or expect the applicant to have a lot of experience e.g. more than a year as an admin. Problem is that these two are often mutually exclusive in practice. Anyone who's been around that long will have one or two bad things to his/her name, and anyone who doesn't have one or two black marks usually hasn't been here that long. Some exceptions to that rule are those incredibly saint-like people such as almost everyone on the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I leave for a day and get my name thrown into the mix... sigh... the thing is, bureaucrats should be highly trusted users because they are responsible for promoting adminstrators; if a bureaucrat is not trusted, that "stain", to call it that, is transferred to the promotions he does, tainting them. Perhaps I'm capable, right, but I won't try again until I have at least one year here, ideally at least a year as an admin, and/or someone drags me down to it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think that everyone on the arbcom in saint-like. Nobody can be absolutly perfect. (Except Jimbo :-D) But seriously, if a user can be trusted with the admin tools and are well-liked within the community, they should be able to handle being a b'crat. But what is bureaucratship but more than a couple more tools? I just looked it up and the actual stats on b'crats are as follows:

  • 14 are active
  • 4 semi-active
  • 1 on wikibreak
  • 2 recently left (Cecropia and Francs2000)

Moe ε 14:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I make that 10 active on either promotions or renames, and 3 semi-active. And the 7 "inactives", most of whom are active as editors and admins, and yet whom it's assumed will never again take a BC action, even in the unlikely event that the other 13 somehow totally flake out. I don't take this seriously, and won't until such time as they declare it to be so, they are de-BC'd, or events make it clear that this is the case. To those who think that 20 aren't enough: just how many would be? Durin's "another 12" seems very strange to me, but I'll give him at least this much: he's one of the few who demand more, that's even attempted to quantify this. Alai 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying we need 12 more. I'm pointing out that that is one way of looking at the workload that Cecropia took upon himself, and one way of potentially quantifying what is now missing from the bureaucrat pool...just one way.
  • Something that I think is being missed here is the human element of our bureaucrats. They are, after all, just people. They have likes, dislikes, demands on their time, stresses, etc. Can one bureaucrat handle all of the promotions? I think so. Cecropia certainly demonstrated that. But maybe they don't want to spend all of their available wikitime doing promotions. Maybe they want to help in this area some, but not have it be their main focus. That doesn't make them less of a good choice as a bureaucrat. We don't have to have supermen like Cecropia in order to make the bureaucrat pool work. Insisting that the current bureaucrat pool be considerably more active in promotions might not be the right answer; we could cause these bureaucrats to burn-out on promotions, and that's good for nobody. A bureaucrat who does on promotion a month is doing the job they were promoted to do. Sure, it'd be nice to see them more active in promotions. But, there's no job criteria that states "thou must promote at least two candidates a week else lose bureaucrat flag". Wikipedia is, by definition, a communal effort. We work together as a team. Don't despise a bureaucrat because they don't promote frequently. Instead, thank them for the efforts they have made. Every little bit helps. --Durin 16:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One a quarter might be a good plan, though, no? The above is continuing to overstate the actual workload involved (as distinct from the responsibility and the possible grief). I'm fighting the urge to refute point-by-point, but in fact there's no workload analysis here, just a lot of loaded language making reference to it. If you're going to argue that we must have enough BCs even if they all only promote one a month, we'll need about 60 -- and that makes no guarantees about how soon said closures will be after the closing time, which is by any statistical analysis going to be shorter and more consistent if you have a small number of regularly active BCs, than a large number happening by on an entirely ad hoc basis. (I'm not suggesting you are arguing for 60, I'm just pointing there's no basis to conclude any number greater than the present one is warranted, either.) Alai 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The evaluation of how much workload there is can only be gauged by the capacity/willingness of the current pool to do that work. Let's say we agree the work load is infinitesimally small. If you have no bureaucrats willing to do that work, the infinitesimally small becomes infinitely large. Thus, any evaluation of the amount of work that needs to be done is irrelvant without considering the amount of work that the current pool of bureaucrats is willing to do.
  • You know guys, all I'm saying is there might be a problem and gee wouldn't it be nice to be thinking about potential solutions to the potential problem if it comes about? What a debate we weave over minor points. Sheesh! :-) I feel like I showed up at a vegetarians convention asking if anyone would like a slice of meat lover's pizza. :-) Everybody seems to want to say there is no problem. Ok, fine, there's no problem. End of issue for me. We'll let time tell. All the best, --Durin 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What would a real problem be? An RfA is twelve hours past its deadline and no 'crat can be found to close it on Talk, IRC, via e-mail etc. I very much doubt that would happen and if it occurred the Wiki would hardly grind to a stop. Marskell 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A real problem would be the generation of a significant backlog due to bureaucrat inactivity. There are other processes in Wikipedia that are backlogged. Such a problem would not be unprecedented. 12 hours isn't a problem; days, weeks of backlog would be. --Durin 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If this page is ever backed-up days or weeks, I'll join the chorus demanding more 'crats. But given how well you've tracked the stats here :) you know as well as anyone that RfA remains scaleable (more of an issue is how 900 people allow AfD to get back-logged, but that's another story). I'm personally totally amendable to allowing 'crats more power (desysopping for example). If and when we do that, I'll agree we need more of them. For the time being, the number of 'crats is quite sufficient for the job at hand. Marskell 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I felt it was a potential problem because the bureaucrat responsible for 50% of the promotions over the last year and 81% of the last 100 has stepped down leaving a gaping hole. I think that's plenty of reason to think there may be a problem. Plenty of others apparently think not. As I noted above, fine...there's no problem. End of issue. :) and the mouse quietly works away waiting for more data to come in --Durin 21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
All we have to do is add the
RfA

to this page for bureaucrat assistance ;-). NoSeptember talk 02:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts about this: the problem with having too many bureaucrats is having a lack of uniformity in standards, encouraging cherry-picking of bureaucrats. However, as long as clear guidelines are in effect, that won't happen. Should we have 800 bureaucrats? No. Should we have one doing half of the load? IMO, we shouldn't, it causes burnout. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Most of the RfA/RfBs are non-controversial - they are either clearly fell or clearly succeeded. How about having a rule that the controversial RfAs should be closed by a collective decision of a plurality of bureaucrats? (Or either by an active bureaucrat, that have closed more than XX RfAs, or by plurality of the lesser active bureaucrats). That way we should eliminate the allegations that there exist "dormant bureaucrats" only interested in influencing controversial decisions concerning their friends? abakharev 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be sufficiently well-established that in the 75-80% zone, there's a degree of discretion, and the traditional formula uttered during RfBs is to say there'd be consultation between BCs in such a case. Above I suggested trying to establish a similar "zone" for RfBs themselves. I'm not sure anything much more formal or elaborate than that is likely to be much additional help. For one thing, trying to define "controversial" is problematic if one tries to nail this down too tightly. Alai 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal on RfB. I do not see much difficulties in formal nailing down the "controversial" requests - we can just use the numerics (e.g. for RfAs Promotions with less than 83% of support and Falls with more than 72% of support; for RfBs All promotions (they are such a rare event anyway), Falls with more than 80% of support). abakharev 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the large number of candidates who had prior failed RfAs who later became promoted, I don't see the need to have additional instructions layered in for handling potentially controversial RfAs. If it fails, it fails. The nominee should take the lessons from the RfA and apply them as they see need to their behavior on Wikipedia and try again in the future. That's a positive process, not a negative one. --Durin 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, the proposal is actually just a knee-jerk reactions on a controversial promotion a few days earlier. abakharev 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal

It is probably a perennial proposal, but anyway. We have an extremely high requirements for the bureaucrats, so all bureaucrats should have have an enormous trust of the community. On the other hand we do not have enough work for the existent b'crats. It seems to be a waste to have a pool of highly trusted people but to not use them. How about giving the bureaucrats an additional job that require a lot of trust? E.g. give them a power to suspend the sysop privilege's for a short time (say for less than 48h). abakharev 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion from February. NoSeptember talk 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I knew it should be a perennial proposal. I was thinking I am proposing something less drastic than what discussed in the link you provided. Not to give a full power to de-sysop, but only a power to temporarily suspend the adminship according to the well-defined formal rules (e.g. for the self-unblocking, violation of the 3RR in the wheel war, etc.), the bigger or less formal things should still be done by the stewards abakharev 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
First, you have the current bureaucrats do their current job. Then you worry about giving them extra stuff to do, no? -- Cecropia 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually both proposals would somehow increase the number of characters that b'crats are to type. They both have the potential to decrease the number of characters typed by the other users, complaining about some controversies. abakharev 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Oscark

User:Oscark added {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oscark}} to the bottom of the RfA page. For now I have moved it to the top of the page. I have also left a note at Oscark's page explaining the RfA process. I did not know what else to do, or whether it requires a b'crat to remove the link. So any admin or b'crat - please do the needful and remove the link. - Aksi_great 10:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Acceptable lag, votes after close, and related discussion

The recent resignation of Cecropia and Francs2000 as bureacrats has changed the landscape at RFA. I have some observations and suggestions to make on this.

First of all, I will be checking RFA once or twice daily, and I expect that several other bureaucrats will be doing so as well. I have no doubt that people will be promoted as appropriate.

I would like to point out that some lag may be acceptable, however. I recall that my own promotion to admin did not occur until a day or two after the end of the 7-day discussion and voting period. With increased activity at RFA, I doubt that such delays will again become commonplace; the point is that a lag of some hours need not be seen as a problem.

In this light, I would like to discuss the related matters of votes after the end time of a nomination. I believe that the 7-day comment period is sufficient and that votes made after the end time should be disregarded for three reasons:

  • for the sake of consistency of process
  • so that bureaucrats may discuss the nomination amongst themselves without facing a constantly shifting vote tally
  • to avoid the possible appearance that a bureaucrat is waiting for the vote to tip a certain way prior to closing the nomination

If there is a feeling that late votes carry valuable insight, I believe the better apprach would be to extend the 7 day comment period to 10 days rather than to permit late votes until a nomination is acted upon by a bureaucrat. Since most votes are cast in the first two days that a nomination is active, I don't believe that extending the period to 10 days is really necessary and only propose it as an alterative to counting late votes.

Finally I would like to encourage discussion amongst bureaucrats on close votes as a matter of course. Such discussion could head off possible errors in vote counting and would serve to limit the criticism of any one bureaucrat closing a particularly divisive nomination. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion in respect of bureaucrats discussing close votes. It's important to ask why the oppose votes are there. Often the oppose voters won't be shy about why they're voting that way. If the benchmark is 'consensus', then reasoning is important. - Richardcavell 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think discarding votes after the seven day period makes sense (especially if it'll give b'crats time to discuss a close nomination amongst themselves privately). I don't like the idea of extending debates though. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the period should be extended. Often late voters have the most information at their disposal, as opposed to those supporting/opposing before they know more about the situation. (Un)fortunately, most of these late votes tend to be opposes. DfA could help rectify this somewhat, but since people don't like it (despite the fact that it collates all pertinent information together before a single vote is cast), the next best thing we can do is extend the voting period. I personally vote late (if at all) on RfAs to maximise the information available to me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of disregarding legitimate, good faith comments on a technicality. (Isn't that how Freestylefrappe was promoted?) If the consensus (or lack thereof) is so borderline that a handful of votes can affect the outcome, this is precisely the type of situation in which maximum community input should be sought. Yes, extend the duration to ten days, and use those three extra days to discuss the comments that have been made thus far (rather than worrying about the "vote tally"). —David Levy 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with some of UninvitedCompany's points. 7 days is long enough for a consensus to form, the closing date and time is clearly stated at the top of each sub-page, and if a user places a vote outside this period it should be discounted, regardless of where it is placed. If there was something insightful to add, then it should have been done within the allotted period. Some delay in promotion (or otherwise) is inevitable. Whether it's half an hour or two days is immaterial. I disagree that there should be any extension of the 'voting' period, otherwise this could potentially continue ad-infinitum. Discussion of close nominations is to be welcomed and encouraged I would say. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The question should remain open until it is decided upon. If someone comes along and comments on the open question, there is little reason to discard their (presumably) considered opinion and effort in participation. A delay of a few hours does not seem to have caused problems in the past. As with AfD, the 7-day-rule is an alive-line rather than a dead-line and is simply the earliest moment at which the issue may be settled by a bureaucrat. Discussion among 'crats is fine, although I've only seen one or two cases in my (limited) time here where that has been genuinely necessary: generally, Cecropia's opinion of "if you don't know, don't act, and if you do know, act decisively" (not a quote) is a good one. If no 'crat is sure of promotion, then probably there should be no promotion. That said, spreading the blame is a good thing. Perhaps in such cases, the debate should be protected until a decision is reached. Or perhaps any bureaucrat should be able to explicitly refer the matter to the ocracy at large and in doing so freeze it by convention until they reach a collective decision. -Splashtalk 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Second opinions are usually a good idea. If an experienced 'crat is not sure, it is a good idea to back up the decision with one or more bonus opinions. --FloNight talk 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to discard votes which came after the voting period is over. I agree with Spash that one should not be so rigid about it, and that if desired to enforce the "exactly severn days limit" one should either protect the debate or put on top an explicit note sayng that it has been closed. Either that, or just accept the late votes, rather than for a bureaucrat coming later and simply crossing out those after the voting period is "officially" closed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think seven days is a particularly short time. And if we are to be rigid and unyielding about the 75% mark, I think subsequently being bendy and yielding about the deadline is a mixed message. We have to either allow bureaucrats apply their own good judgement and discression to both, or to neither. Proto||type 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
We are bendy around 80% in the downward direction, not around 75%. People seem to slip-sliding away from the fact that the gold-standard of adminship promotion is 80%+. -Splashtalk 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This runs the risk of becoming an open ended process in the case of lags in closing. The question then becomes: how long is an acceptable lag? 1 hour, 2 hours, 12 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 5 days .... ? I think the analogy to AfD debates is less appropriate than an analogy to ArbCom elections. In the latter case, closing times are important and are enforced. I think the same should be true for RfA. At the risk of being labelled a "process wonk", the header on each sub page does state: vote here (///) ending 0.00, April X, 2006 (UTC). Everybody should follow that, voters and 'crats, otherwise something else needs to be hammered out and agreed. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. "It risks" is possibly true, but the fact is that, at present, it isn't happening. So it boils down to a philosophical difference: should we ignore people who have taken the trouble to comment, or not? ArbCom cases close when they have sufficient votes, not at specific times. -Splashtalk 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to ArbCom Elections, not cases. And, yes, it is a matter of philosophical difference on the other issues, but time related from my perspective. :--) --Cactus.man ✍ 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I too disagree with discounting votes after a deadline. While I'm perfectly fine with a bcrat closing on time, any extra time is just more time to determine consensus (similar to an AfD being relisted for another 5 days to better determine consensus). Therefore, the votes after the deadline are completely valid and should be counted (though m:polls are evil anyway, so it's really just someone's input in the discussion after the deadline, but we all know that's not true ;-)). --24.46.201.42 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is a very real one. When there is a close vote, and there is an attempt on the part of bureaucrats to be deliberate and discuss, the discussion process (a) can take hours if done on-wiki, and (b) draws the attention of more voters so that (c) prior discussion amongst the bureaucrats is invalidated in light of the new votes. This is one of the reasons there has been, historically, relatively little discussion among bureaucrats of close and contentious RFAs. And as others have noted, RFAs that remain open after the de jure end time generally draw more opposition than support. If there is a genuine problem with people being heard, I think the discussion period should be extended to 8 days or 10 days. But I don't believe there is such a problem. I just think that the discussion of close RFAs on the mailing list, the wiki, and IRC tends to draw voters who would otherwise have no interest. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you are making a very good point. I'm all for closing the "booth" so-to-speak at the time and day it is supposed to close and that is stated at the top of each RfA. 7 days is plenty of time for people to vote and even the ones who want to vote late so that they have more information can do so on the 7th day if they please. I think the appearance of impartiality and fairness of the process applied to each RfA is very important and therefore the circumstances should be as similar as possible for each RfA. To eliminate the dilemma of counting or discounting late votes, how about automatically protecting the pages at the time the vote is supposed to close? This could be done with code or by an admin (there are enough of them to make sure this would get done on time) and then there cannot be any late votes. --Mmounties (Talk) 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the occasional late vote, but if it were decided that this is a big problem, we should just create a new page (WP:RFA/Pending bureaucrat closing) and let anyone remove the subpage from WP:RFA and add it to the new page as soon as the time runs out. Seems unnecessary to me though. NoSeptember talk 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary. Until a bureaucrat actually closes an RfA, new comments should always be welcome. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And then we end up with admins like Freestylefrappe, who abuse their powers in precisely the manner that the ignored voters warned. It's far more important to protect the encyclopedia from unqualified sysops than it is to bureaucratically ensure "fairness of the process." If well-reasoned opposition (or support) surfaces before a decision to promote (or not promote) has been rendered, it should not be thrown out on a technicality. If this new information results in the request's failure, any serious, mature candidate should be willing to address the voters' concerns and re-apply when he/she is ready. Anyone who responds to such a setback by throwing in the towel probably shouldn't be an admin. —David Levy 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If it's important to the community that RfAs last "exactly" 7 days +/-ε (and there seems to be some indication that there is, following the CSCWEM too debacle), why not create {{Rfat}} that says:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that is temporarily under discussion. Please do not modify it; a final result will be posted shortly.
-- nae'blis (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't quite have time to read through this entire discussion, but rest assured I have skimmed it. I like the idea of placing RfAs on hold so that crats can discuss it (rather than it being a race to promote in a sense). I also wanted to throw the idea out there that maybe we can find a way to modify the WP:DFA proposal to allow for this? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I am second to have some lag to allow crats to discuss the results of controversial RfAs. I do not think the discussion is needed if we have 50% oppose votes or if we have 100% support. I am not sure if it is a good idea to have the crats to discuss the results in open. Some things told about problem voters may look like a Personal Attack. Something told during that brief discussion may be untrue, etc. I would think that a closed IRC channel or E-mail exchange maybe a better way to handle the final discussion. I think the "final tally" should be calculated from the votes casted before the closing time. The closing bureaucrat[s] can take into account the later votes and the arguments in the borderline cases. I believe it is the common practice as it is now. abakharev 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a mailing list put in place. Anyone? — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by "putting a mailing list in place"? I don't understand. --Mmounties (Talk) 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the Mailing lists? I'm thinking something like that (like wikiEn-l or probably more like the ArbCom only one) but for 'crats should be made. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing bureaucrats do needs to be private, so I don't see why we wouldn't just use the noticeboard. Angela. 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree absolutely. Have we forgot our discussion about conflict of interest above? Transparency of process is important. NoSeptember talk 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me to be problematic to have the request/discussion/voting period still effectively "open", and fully visible convention of BCs to discuss the same thing. Almost Goedelesque, in fact. I'd imagine it would be preferable to either on the one hand, declare an end to the RFA, and a start to a fully open BC discussion (which isn't to say when this must happen); or else to have the BC discussion in private, if the RFA in in effect continuing in parallel with it. Personally I'd prefer the former, but in the case of the latter, the BC discussion can always be made public after the fact. Alai 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Last time I tried to discuss a close RfB on the noticeboard, instead of being told politely about how it wasn't quite as close as I thought (apparantly now 90% is the norm), I was called someone who was biased, someone who was looking for reasons to discount oppose votes, etc. I was also told that an open forum is not the place to discuss such issues. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
While its good to discuss things in general, especially when a new bureaucrat comes on board, I don't think discussing specific cases is warranted. When the time comes on a close case, let the closing bureaucrat make the decision alone. Even a legitimate mistake about an admin or bureaucrat promotion won't be that harmful to Wikipedia. Can anyone point to a bad decision that harmed Wikipedia? NoSeptember talk 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Call me a PW (process wonk), it's ok, I don't mind, but I shy from judgement calls that could include some votes sometimes and not include votes that are late by the same amount other times... Unless there is a process to automatically extend the comment period (sort of how some auction sites prevent sniping by extending by an hour any auction "sniped" in the last 5 min) somehow, the fixed and firm deadline seems like it should stay fixed and firm, and that seems a good thing... Once the deadline is passed, perhaps an extra step of saying "voting is over but we are deliberating" might prevent overdeadline votes. That seems a thing that a bot could do??? Oh, and deliberations on how to decide ought to be done off wiki, just present the reasoning if desired. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My two cents: opinions expressed after the nominal end of the comment period, but before a bureaucrat has determined whether a consensus to promote exists, should play a role in determining consensus. The point of this process is to obtain consensus for promotion, and discounting someone's opinion on a technicality seems inappropriate. This is, after all, not an election. If you want elections, make them elections. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is felt that a single bureaucrat should not make a decision on a close RfA, then do something like the ArbCom vote to close a case (a net vote plurality of 4 ArbCom members to close). Personally, though, I say leave it the the individual bureaucrat. NoSeptember talk 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative thank-yous

What's up with all the people using templates to thank people who voted in their RFAs? I realize that votes run in the hundreds these days and it is difficult to thank people individually they way many did back when I ran. Not that it's necessary to thank your voters anyway—presumably they voted for you because they thought you were a good candidate, not because they wanted to do you a favor. But why does everyone use these colored boxes with pictures? And what I especially don't understand is why people feel it necessary to write that their bid passed with a vote of 84/0/1 or whatever. What possible reason is there to list one's final tally on all of the voters' talk pages, except to display one's impressive showing? Doesn't anyone else think it's a bit tacky to do this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's unnecessary to thank everyone who voted for you. It wouldn't hurt to thank your nominator, but I didn't even do that when I became an admin.-gadfium 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree here also. Fine to thank someone if there was some particular reason for a personal thank you on an RfA or RfB, but the impersonal form-letter thank you's to everyone that voted in your Rf* are not necessary. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
While thanking contributors to a RfA discussion is good ettiquette, I personally cannot stand those kinds of thank you's. They are ugly clunky and unnecessary. I have personally de-html-ified any such message I get. In my view, a simple (text) "thank you" will suffice - no pictures, no boxes, and FFS, NO HTML. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
For the past month or so, most of my talk page messages have been RfA thank-yous. My current talk page only consists of them. I appreciate the effort, and approve of their gratitude, but still I feel they clutter up my talk page and make me archive it faster. If recently created admins slowed down in thanking everyone who voted for them, I wouldn't particularly mind. JIP | Talk 07:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I promise not to post any thank you's if I'm ever made an admin. (^_-) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 07:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
JIP, your talk page is hilarious! Back when I became an administrator, only 20 or 30 people voted for me, so it was quite feasible to write individualized comments to each voter. Not everyone was doing it back then, but I wanted to. I think it was because I felt much closer to everyone then; the community was smaller and I was more familiar with the prolific editors. I felt everyone was happy I made it, sort of like a JV athlete who has just made it onto the varsity team, and I wanted to share it with everyone. I do think that thanking your voters is nice, but when it gets into the 80s and such it becomes quite difficult. If I somehow managed to get that much support, I suppose I might leave individual messages for those I felt close to, or who had left substantial comments or support, and so on. I definitely would not use an HTML box, and I definitely wouldn't list my final tally. And if it must be a copy-and-paste message, at least substitute the {{PAGENAME}}. I have things messages like "Thank you Knowledge Seeker/Archive7 for voting in my RFA" and such. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of them are rather funny. I particularly like User:Samuel Blanning's one: an example is here.-gadfium 08:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that one's "wish I'd thought of that" great. I'm so intimidated by the thank yous thing that I still haven't written any weeks later. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been building a separate archive at User talk:Hiding/Archive RFA. One can see the progression. I remember writing individual notes to all voters of my rfa. Time consuming, but it just felt honest. People took the time to post their individual thoughts on me, I thought it best to return the favour. Hiding talk 09:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been collecting mine since I got my very first thank you: User talk:Lar/RFA 1. User User:NoSeptember is also collecting them at User:NoSeptember/RfA_thank_yous, but trying to get them all, not just the ones he received, in support of an administrative information page User:NoSeptember/Admin_user_pages... OK, so there are some people here who don't like getting thank yous? And some (like me) who appreciate them? One more thing to try to remember! Maybe we need a list somewhere of people who don't want to be thanked so new admins can avoid offending them?? (that suggestion is only about 23% serious...) Yeesh. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Some people actually put 'please do not thank me for RFA votes' at the top of their talk pages. Until just recently the 'guide' said, "It is customary to thank all users that voted for you on their talk pages." That has now been extended to include, "...however this is not required, and some users do not welcome such messages." The disclaimer may help, but the 'custom' of sending these out has been established enough that it seems somewhat rude not to. If nothing else to let people know how it turned out so they don't have to track down the nom in the archives if they wanted to know. That said, it does get more difficult to personalize these as the Wiki-population increases and the vote counts go up. It took me all day with just minimal personalization (and none on the pages of people I don't know well / didn't have a response to their RFA comments). I pity CSCWEM if he decides he needs to send these out. :] --CBDunkerson 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The more determined people will always find a way; I can't recall who was sending them out, but I saw an edit summary like "RFA thank you (using AWB)" recently ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I sent out fairly personalised text thank-yous (it did bump up my edit count a little bit, not that I suffer from edit-countitis or anything), and don't mind getting RfA thank-yous, although I much prefer normal text to all those pastel boxes. In response, I usually send out a congrats to the new admin. I wish mine was as funny as Sam Blanning's. I didn't know it was actually stated in the RfA page that it's customary to thank people: I just thought it was courtesy. Gosh-darn it, it took a while, though! --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If mine goes through, there's no way in hell I can be bothered spamming 110+ user pages with thanks messages. Unless someone wants to make an RFA-thank-o-bot... anyone? Of course, that would make them even more impersonal than they already seem. I think I'll put a section on my talk page, and ask people to put their names there if they want to thank me for voting on their RFA. Proto||type 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I see people using AWB for thank yous en masse more and more, so there's always that... --W.marsh 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh gosh, that's unnecessary. I only had around 60 votes, so it wasn't so bad (though it still took me a while to thank them). But even if it's courteous to thank people, I will hardly be insulted if people don't thank me for voting for them on an RfA, and I would never opt-in to a list saying that I want to be thanked for voting for their RfAs (which, I suppose, is the whole point). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I don't need thank yous, I'm not offended by them as Lar suggests might be the case for some people. However, I do have one request for people sending out thank yous: please don't use "My RfA" as the section title; at least put your user name in the section title so that the many thank yous don't end up conflicting on the section anchors, and can be discerned in the TOC. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How do they even get the notes out when they have 190 votes? Do they use AWB? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I sent out thank yous because it still seems to be the done thing, and in my case I did have a genuine reason to be grateful as I was promoted with a shorter tenure than average and good faith was definitely extended to me. I put a list of all my voters into my sandbox and sent the messages using AWB. I don't mind receiving "thank yous" as it helps me keep track of who has been promoted and adds a splash of colour to my talk page. That said, I don't feel very strongly about it either way and if the community leant towards it being "a bad thing" that's fine by me. --kingboyk 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting should be costly
  • Everyone who vote more than 10 times for other admins should start "paying" for it.
  • His vote should only count as 1/(#of votes per year he makes -10)
  • For his own adminship he should require 80% from the number of total votes when votes from those he voted for only count as 1/3 vote.

Zeq 14:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What would this accomplish? JoshuaZ 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to WP:GRFA in the RfA template?

I want to start by saying that this is less about "fixing RfA" and more about informing candidates of RFA resources. This idea was just born out of actually reading the Guide to requests for adminship, which I didn't know about during my RfA, but which I now found to contain a lot of useful info. I think it would be better to more explicitly state this to be sure that RFA candidates know about it, in the form of a simple yes/no question: "Have you read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship?" While a candidate can simply answer "yes" without reading it, at least it's stated there on the outset. Why do this when there is already a suggestion of reading it at the top of the WP:RFA page? When I was nominated, I didn't know about the guide, I just went in and answered my questions. Self-nominated candidates might be more likely to know about it, but maybe not. In any case, this is a very simple question, very easy to fake, but at least the candidate is explicitly made aware of the guide. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I started the guide back in October. Outside of a minor change, I haven't edited it since early November. At the time, a debate evolved over the content of the guide. In a nutshell, the debate was centered around whether the guide should show how RfA is or how RfA should be. The debate did not resolve in a satisfactory manner, and the result is pretty much as you see the guide now. As a result, we had a user who got caught in this trap during their RfA. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyrenius. I think that until such time as it is clarified as to what the guide is, using it as a tool for prospective admins is potentially setting them up for problems. --Durin 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, okay. In that case, maybe the link to the guide should be removed entirely from the WP:RFA page. I made it a suggested reading in one of my oppose votes on an RfA. I'll go and correct it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to do RFA soon. (after I hit 3000 edits and 6 months). To get ready, about three months ago I made a check list of the site to make sure that I visited the entire WP. This included all of the policies/guidelines. As I went along, I began watching the policy changes that were suggested. After a while, I began making comments to the suggested policy and guidelines. This helps me feel confident about my knowledge of policy/guidelines. I think doing this was much more valuable than reading the guide right before starting RFA. FloNight talk 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that a nomination is wrongfully declared as unsuccessful, you may petition the bureaucrat who made the decision.

Damn :) →AzaToth 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... that might fall into the "this is how we think RfA should be" part, who knows? --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sad you didn't know about it, since I actually copyedited it pretty heavily when it first went up and I also happened to nominate you. Youda thought I mighta been like pssst..... I guess I just assumed you'd know about it. Oh well, I think you turned out alright ;-) Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure another member of the phoenix cabal would have done so eventually. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_50"