This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Being curious, I have been gathering data on the evolution of RFAs during the process. The figure at right is one pretty way of looking at that data. It shows the empirical probability that an RFA will succeed as a function of how many days it has been listed and what its support percentage is at the moment. As one can see, after 1 day an RFA in the 80-90% range is pretty much a toss-up. This narrows over time so that most RFA outcomes are pretty certain by the 5th day (or so). A sharp promotion threshold at 75% also appears to be indicated. The line at 60% is entirely a byproduct of the Carnildo 3 promotion (which stands out very starkly here).

So, if anyone is in the midst of running an RFA and wants to know there odds of success, feel free to point them at this. Dragons flight 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to highlight the (obvious) huge swaths of zero. There are large chunks of parameter space where it is fairly easy to predict that an RFA will fail. Dragons flight 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From this graphic, I only gather that Carnildo would have earned a nice $$$ bonus had he bet for himself :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. Two questions on the data source - it says 'a year's worth' of RfAs, but how many is that? (Not too large if one outlier is so obvious, I guess?) And does the probability calculation include RfAs that were closed early/withdrawn? Opabinia regalis 07:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice data report. This also corroborates that there is a certain amount of bandwagon effect/groupthink at RFA, especially from the less experienced users - people tend to pile-on whichever side seems to be majority view. I noticed this a long time ago - whatever the early majority says shapes the rest of the vote; sometimes early minority voters will even change their mind to go with the flow. It's only human - I admit I myself have a tendency to change my mind when I see everyone having the opposite view from my initial impression so I'm not just saying this to "pick on sheep voters". It's unlikely that there are any easy solutions to this though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:31Z

There's a correlation v. causation issue there. There may be some pile on effect simply because the initial few voters are likely to bring up most of the major concerns that will be raised in the RfA. JoshuaZ 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you notice how the shape of the graph at 7 days end corresponds almost exactly with RFA guidelines? Also there's a thin vertical line around 0 that appears to correspond closely with WP:SNOW, which means maybe Badlydrawnjeff deserves some more attention than we've been giving them.

Basically, this graph shows how specified guidelines can shape a system. Do we have enough data to simulate how changing the system might shape the graph?

--Kim Bruning 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting graph. I surprised how wide the light red range at the end of the 7 days is - you need to have over 82% support to be sure of passing, it seems. Which RfA's have failed with over 80% support? Also - what kind of smoothing did you use of the data? I imagine the prominence of the line caused by Carnildo's RfA is because there aren't many RfA's with support in the high 60's after a few days (most will have moved one way of the other by then). I'm guessing you used some kind of constant smoothing (fixed width groups), maybe a variable smoothing (fixed population groups) would get a better graph, without the anomalies. --Tango 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since June of 2003, the highest raw support percentage RfA that was not passed as successful was Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kafziel_2 which closed with 77.08% raw support. That RfA was in November of 2006. Kafziel passed unopposed on 7 February 2007 on the 3rd RfA. --Durin 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I could certainly have used that fact when I wrote his 3rd nomination. :) Newyorkbrad 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wise man say, those who do not ask a question get no answer. :) --Durin 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a dubious distinction, but I'll take it. :) Kafziel ^Talk 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, you have another dubious distinction, being either (1) the first candidate to be cheated out of a chance at WP:100 by an early favorable SNOW closing, or (2) the candidate on the RfA that proved we have a bureaucrat who can't count to 7. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... can I have a copy of the raw data you used? I'd like to run some tests of my own. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This might be useful. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be best to not have the votes displayed while an RfA is open then (if such a system is workable on Wikipedia)? It would require users to actually peruse the contributions of a nominee and arrive at their own decision instead of being influenced by popular choice. I will not lie, on some occassions I have been a little influenced by the vast majority of popular choice when I see many people voting to Support giving brief reasons, yet while there are a few Oppose with greatly detailed and supported reasons for deleting. --Ozgod 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest, however, letting the person in question see it so that they have the opportunity to do an early withdrawal if they see good reasons why they should (e.g., the 200-edit people). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would turn RfA into a pure vote. It's meant to be a discussion. Not letting people see what others have said removes any possibility of discussion. --Tango 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's any change we can make to the system to et rid of this fact of human nature. I think the best way to deal with it is just to discuss the problem as we're doing here, and maybe bring it up in a friendly way when we see it happen. delldot talk 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's not a bad idea. It's certainly easier to vote for a candidate when you know everyone else is doing the same, and also to vote against sometimes. The vote count really doesn't add anything to the discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that it is very frustrating looking at the answers that some people give as to why others do not rate to be admins. They say in order to be an admin you "MUST" know about this, this and this. I say B.S. This should be a vote on fair and trustowrthy editors who have shown a true dedication to the project. It is safe to say that people did not spend months to years editing, reverting and discussing just to become dicks the first day they get extra tools. If they do, then there is a system in place to deal with that 0.001%. So what if they have not been active in AfD or CfD for the last few months or ever. If they are good editors then in time they might migrate there, learn the rules of the road and help out. Will anyone here not deny that their editing habits change over time depending on where they are bouncing around? We should be voting on an individual's performance, fairness, etc... Not the fact that they don't spend months going through image copyright tags. Give them time as admins and almost all will flourish in their roles. Vote the person and their performance and let them grow. They do not need to be experts at everything from day one.--Looper5920 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I judge based on their experience in the areas which they say they will contribute in. So while an admin doesn't have to participate in AfDs (this RfA seems to be going very well, for instance), if they then say they will start closing them, I think there's reason for concern. For me, it's a two-stage decision: firstly, do I trust this user enough to know that they won't abuse the tools; secondly, has this editor demonstrated competence to show that they won't (accidentally) misuse the tools. Trebor 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think it's more dangerous to have an admin who blocks a user too hastily than to have one who closes XfD's wrongly. Most people won't bother closing XfD's unless they know what they are doing. And we don't have to prove anything to be an editor - some things can be learned on the job. Xiner (talk, email) 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the questions says "What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog". Candidates who actually check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and base their answer on that will automatically attract oppose votes ("those are not sysop chores!"). Can we stop asking people to check out a backlog when they'll be opposed if they say they want to tackle it? What the question tests is mostly whether the candidate has lurked at WP:RFA and knows what people expect; we should try to encourage honesty instead. Can we remove the non-admin backlog from the question? Kusma (討論) 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Viridae^Talk 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I've never actually clicked on that link - I always assumed it linked to the admin backlog. Kill it! ;) Glen 10:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed it was either a nod to the people who think adminship should be about editing, or a hint to candidates about how they could demonstrate that they should have the tools. It's pretty inappropriate anyway, though; it would make a lot more sense on the Community portal (I check... it's there already, on Template:Opentask). --ais523 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Kusma (討論) 10:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not intended as a trick question. When the question was added, the "regular backlog" was the only one in existence. The "admin backlog" was split out later. Aside from that I find it rather silly to oppose users because they want to do cleanup>Radiant< 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's asking what they want to do as an admin though; any user can do cleanup. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless we occasionally see people vote "Oppose. Aha! You didn't list any (or enough) admin tasks in your answer to Q1!". I guess that's where the "trick question" thing comes in... --W.marsh 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As one of those "Aha!" people, I didn't read it as a trick question. But I do think a more straightforward question about "Why do you want/What do you plan to do with admin powers?" makes sense. —Dgies^t c 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I say remove it. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to know if you guys think my work is fit enough to for me to become an admin eventually? I prefer getting opinions first before I decide. Amlder20 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

With an edit count of only 299, you would be opposed as being too inexperienced for people to be sure that you wouldn't screw up when using the tools. Read WP:GRFA, keep editing, and after a while you might be in a better position to request adminship. --ais523 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see how you're doing so far, you may be interested in getting an editor review. Trebor 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my opinion. Thanks for the input anyway guys. Amlder20 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the minimum edit count needed to apply for Adminship and what do you look for in an Editor to be chosen as an Admin??--Cometstyles 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is technically no minimum edit count needed and anyone asking that is probably unlikely to pass. Most people look for 2000-3000 though. – Chacor 13:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The last lengthly discussion was here. Cheers!--Kchase T 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. --Durin 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This chart puts my Success rate at O.8% which I believe is Quite good for a novice..--Cometstyles 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, that chart is a year out of date and other charts I have done show that standards slowly rise over time. That said, there isn't any edit count based reason why someone with 4,000 edits should be opposed. Which leads to the second point; don't focus on edit counts, either for yourself or others. Focus instead on how you help the project. If the ways in which you want to help the project are appropriate to an administrator, you've demonstrated the ability to be trusted with the additional tools granted to administrators, and you've demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, there isn't any reason you should not be an admin. However, there are going to be edit countitis addicts who will insist that your current 191 edits to the Wikipedia project space is too low. Focus on the positives. --Durin 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum; there are going to be people who oppose you because you've been here three months, as opposed to six months or a year. Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_82#2006_RfA_In_Review. --Durin 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the Advice and anyways I was going to apply for Adminship in May and all I wanted to know if its still 3000 minimum edits or not because recently I have seen Editors with over 10000 edits being unsuccessful with their application and thats quite a drawback and yes I do have only 191 edits on Wikipedia Project space and User: Majorly did point that put to me that for a user to have 100% chance of winning he or she must have done a lot on Wikiprojects and since then I have been trying my best and my Editor Review did teach me that I still have a long way to go and thanx for having faith in me..--Cometstyles 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of pointers: "thanx" won't help you, you need to start typing proper words, unfortunately. Secondly, this isn't about "winning". Thirdly, Wikipedia ("project-space") ≠ Wikiprojects. And as I pointed out above, there's no set "minimum", per se. – Chacor 14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..Iam sorry but thats how I mainly write on talk pages and in Articles I use proper English and I know its not about winning but its about commitment and Hardwork and regarding "Wikiprojects" I was just Quoting Durin and its good to know that there isnt any set minimum edit requirement...--Cometstyles 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say "that for a user to have 100% chance of winning he or she must have done a lot on Wikiprojects". Please don't misquote me. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) ... what do you look for in an Editor to be chosen as an Admin??

Besides good English at all times - because the clearer the wording on talk pages, the easier a posting is to understand - I look for editors (non-capitalized) who can figure things out for themselves. For example, reading this page and its archives would certainly answer the question of whether there is a minimum edit count or not, and would probably be edifying in other ways. I avoid voting for editors who seem to spend more time increasing their edit counts than trying to understand Wikipedia and its administrative processes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How many Wikignomes actually pass adminship successfully?? I'm one of them, and another editor on here wants to nominate me - but what's the percentage rate for Wikignomes?? --sunstar net^talk 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's rather hard to discern. You'd have to define Wikignome carefully, and then identify all nominees who fit that category. --Durin 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have a policy of not supporting non-humans. Are you really a gnome? ;) NoSeptember 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd argue wikignomes make great admins, assuming they have taken part in and are familiar with most wikipedia processes. A lot of the admin chores can be classified as "gnoming" (vandal patrol, vandalism revert, IFD, etc.)Borisblue 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NoSeptember, I'm not literally a gnome, it's just a metaphor (per WP:GNOME). As it stands, I just tend to add obscure but verifiable information to articles, take part in AFD's/MFD/CFD/TFD's, nominate speedy deletions, request page protection etc. etc.

- if that counts as wikignoming. My last RfA failed due to some concerns, how can I improve this?? --sunstar net^talk 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• NoSeptember -- I object to your speciesism!!! See User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. >Radiant< 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, to answer the question, Gnomes tend to make good admins but lately have been opposed by people who believe they are overspecialized. Which is a pretty silly reason to oppose people if you ask me. But anyway. >Radiant< 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's reasonable insofar as a candidate's previous involvement in discussions and interaction with other users shows that they are e.g. not insane and more dedicated. Otherwise, the Wikignome route would be the most effective avenue for a banned user, or simply someone carefully using a bot, to gain adminship. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I passed unopposed as a self-described wikignome. I think having a) a demonstrated need/use for the tools and b) some experience with the basics of article writing are essential to gnomes avoiding the 'stigma' of being specialists. -- nae'blis 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to what naeblis says. I passed unopposed in November (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Metros232) with a few comments saying we needed more wikignomes with tools, Metros232 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the talk page here is about as short as it gets. There has been a steady stream of RfA candidates, with something like 85%–90% passing lately. The survey on the evils of RfA has died down. Seems the current cycle of hand-wringing over the RfA process has died down once again—and once again, nothing was "fixed". I keep thinking that this is an indication that nothing is really broken with the RfA process, but this will probably be viewed by some as an indication that there is something broken with the "RfA reform process". I do appreciate all the pretty charts though. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. There was a stretch there where it seemed people were much more willing to support candidates. Maybe that says something for the candidates themselves or maybe it says something about the dynamic views of voters. Nevertheless, it almost made me want to apply for adminship!↔NMajdan•talk 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's jinxed now!!!! Anyway, the RfAs have been passing well recently, always a good thing – not so sure about RfBs though, considering the last 9 or so have failed. Anyway... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's quite possible that, like democracy, RFA is the very worst system except for all those other systems. >Radiant< 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• You crystalized my thoughts precicely! I have always been unconvinced that anything here is really "broken". Agent 86 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a problem of not enough bureaucrats to get the work done? I don't see a broken system there either...seems like enough candidates succeed to meet the needs. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of Wikipedia:Changing username where there are 17 requests sat waiting. I know it's not an essential part of the running of things, but still it would be nice to have it cleared. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that gave me a chuckle. 17, wow. And some as old as almost two days. Compared to the admin backlogs, I see we do have a problem at RfB... :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that if namechanges were something any admin could do (which has been proposed, at least in non-usurpation situations), the backlog would still get to two days sometimes. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We might need more bcrats, but probably not for CHU. Two days ago there was only one open request. Also, notice in that diff that Essjay handled 7 requests in 3 minutes (03:51 - 03:54, 27 February 2007). ChazBeckett 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, where are the bureaucrat backlogs then that indicate we need more? I'm not opposed to promoting more, I just don't see that there is a problem with RfB to fix. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question, but I don't have a good answer for it. I think we have an ample number of bureucrats at the moment and I trust that the community will respond by electing more when/if this is no longer the case. ChazBeckett 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a problem with CHU, we could also ask the developers if they'll make changing usernames an admin task, or invent a new group for it. There is no clear reason why username changes, assigning of bot flags, and assigning of sysop flags should be made by the same people, who are determined by a screening process that focuses almost exclusively on the third of these tasks. Kusma (討論) 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Bureaucrats cause fewer problems than admins as well. Everything a crat can do is reversable, but an admin can mess up a page history very easily. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are technically correct, but I think it is probably easier and more fun to manually sort 500 revisions of wrongly merged articles than to deal with the fallout of a controversial promotion (which for practical purposes can't be undone without an ArbCom case). Kusma (討論) 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of accidental promotion. It's happened before, but was sorted within two hours by a steward. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few RFAs recently that have oppose votes because the candidate has uploaded no or only a few images. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but can you provide some examples? The Rambling Man 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw "no image experience" opposes on several RfA's in November and December, not as many recently. I was braced for some opposition on that ground to my own RfA in January, but the image-based !voters took that week off. :) Newyorkbrad 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, yeah, I remember that, but this is slightly different and even more specific. :) Xiner (talk, email) 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems unnecessarily extreme to me, but then again it's a question of how "rounded" an applicant should be. There are various schools of thought that say a potential admin should have a good grasp of all aspects of WP while others say niche expertise is equally valid. Lack of photographic ability (or free use uploads etc) should definitely not preclude a support opinion... (in my opinion!)... The Rambling Man 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I just saw one on one of the active candidacies. I don't want to provide a diff because my post is more of a theoretical question and I don't want to be seen as trying to help a candidate or criticize or a nay vote. I don't know any of the persons concerned and hope to avoid the appearance of pointing fingers. Hope you can understand. Sorry. Xiner (talk, email) 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, not a problem. My previous comment stands, my personal feeling is that if a prospective admin candidate shows me that they've got enough to offer WP in any or all of the various areas of contribution then I will support them. I cannot believe anyone could object based purely on image upload (or lack of...) The Rambling Man 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. You can't expect every candidate to have experience in every facet of Wikipedia; its just too vast.↔NMajdan•talk 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the relevant RfA – the candidate said they would like to help with image backlogs, and the opposer pointed out they had uploaded fewer than 10 images, which indicated inexperience. Seems fine to me. What I don't like is opposing based on that, despite not mentioning images in the nomination. I feel that way about other areas as well. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is the typical backlog (trick)* question "...can you help with backlogs..." blah, with the generic "...I'd help with XfD backlogs and speedy deletes..." without a distinguished history of edits in the XfD field. Bottom line is that RFA applicants ought to know that saying they'll help out on various backlogs will immediately open themselves (to some extent, correctly) to a certain amount of scrutiny in their experience in that area of editing. The Rambling Man 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just want to point out that you don't need to upload images to be involved in IfD's. Xiner (talk, email) 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I got that complaint on my RfA back in November. I still squeaked by. I found it an odd reason to oppose, but I don't see a problem with it—it's not like it started an avalance of opposes. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, almost as crazy as the time someone opposed me on my RFA for having too little template edits. — Moe 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no fair! That oppose was a protest oppose because you'd opposed AzaToth that same week for not enough main space edits. Anyway, my point here is still relevant—it's not like the opposes for dubious reasons on either of our RfA's were going to derail the process. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that. Xiner (talk, email) 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of image uploads isn't a valid objection, but many copyvio uploads are. The image uploading opposes is likely because of the image backlogs, which can get backlogged for weeks. Thanks Ja ^{wat's sup} 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking: I would understand "lack of free image uploads". I would even understand "lack of image uploads" in someone who is willing to help with the deletion image backlogs. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just by passing candidates who want to work in other areas, you may well free up time for existing admins who want to deal with IfDs. Xiner (talk, email) 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Uploading images is not an admin action. HowIBecameCivil 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with IfDs sometimes does, if the nomination is correct. Xiner (talk, email) 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My RFA's supposed to be expired a few years ago but no crats are like closing it. Is it going to close in a short while? --Deryck C. 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Years?! :) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, bad timing. It might be a little longer than usual before it is closed... —Doug Bell ^talk 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that two b'crats are currently very inactive and one is undergoing a community-wide pillage, your promotion may take a while. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for telling me about that. I'm waiting! --Deryck C. 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

13:35, 2 March 2007 Taxman (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Deryck Chan from (none) to sysop, so it seems that it doesn't take ridiculously long to clear out an RfA backlog even in times of turmoil. --ais523 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need more 'crats. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a good number of active crats? 15? 25? I do think 11 is a little low but I don't think there is a need for that many more.↔NMajdan•talk 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 23 currently; I would say max of 8 are active, and three do the most work around here. I've called for more bureaucrats before, but have been shouted down. Incidents like this show we do. And check the rename user backlog. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've never thought opposes based on "we don't need anymore 'crats" are very compelling. It never hurts to have a surplus of anything, so judge a candidate on his/her merits. Trebor 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, we should be less harsh with RfB. The "active" ones seem to be slowly declining in activity. While the backlogs aren't too bad, we could definitely use more activity in those areas. John Reaves (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to ease to workload on the 'crats, the rights of synops could be increased to include a few 'crat tasks. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They currently have three jobs. Another needs to be nominated and not opposed for the sake of "no more needed". I have a good candidate coming up soon, I hope. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of things, you should get that nomination live as soon as possible. John Reaves (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He's on a wikibreak currently, so it won't be happening soon. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Durova is interested in becoming a 'crat. See here. · AO ^Talk 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it isn't Durova. It's a user who I used to mistake for a bureaucrat in my early days here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not opposed to two nominations. John Reaves (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was going to run for B-Crat a month or two ago, but it requires too much political neutrality leading up to the RfB; I'd rather not sacrifice my beliefs and new ideas - or detract from article work and review - for that reason. Until there is a shift in the RfB "standards", I see no reason to run. However, I was concerned with our most recent RfB, which featured one type of oppose vote: "too many b-crats", and still featured a 70+ percent support rate. — Deckiller 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That was bad, particularly as most of the opposes had no rationale. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And now we've arrived at the situation that some predicted: a couple of inactive 'crats meaning there's a backlog. This is hardly the most important thing in the Wiki, but it just seems unnecessary (and consequently a bit short-sighted on behalf of the opposers). Creating new 'crats "when we need them" seems to be inferior to creating new 'crats "in case we need them". Trebor 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Those considering a run for bureaucrat at this time might want to take into consideration this posting: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_view_by_Heligoland. With no comment on Essjay or his actions and only on Heligoland's statement, this seems a legitimate concern. I would not be averse to standing for bureaucrat, but I certainly would not do so while this latest situation is still ongoing. --Durin 01:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, please. That opinion is ridiculous. Given how few people in the project could become a crat, If that has any accuracy at all then the whole project is doomed. Actually, I was thinking of running for crat. But if Durin wants to, I may hold off, since I think he has more involvement with the RfA process itself than I do. JoshuaZ 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This would be a non-issue if we didn't have to wait until we needed bureaucrats, instead of promoting them before the need arises, as someone said up above... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• You'd have my support. -- Renesis (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll vote for Durin for b-crat in a snap, we do need another B-crat or two, now that Essjay left the project, I won't be surpriced if several people runs in the next few weeks, we do need to lower B-crat promotion standards from 90% to 85% though as they are always going to be people that say we don't need more b-crats, I had a agruement on IRC about it not long ago. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you're capable of being a BCrat, then Run Forest, Run! If the community could use you, then it is better to try and fail then fail to try. Just try it, and so what if you fail? Nothing will change. However, isn't it worth risking failure to get a chance at success? If you could do the community good, and you are capable of doing the job well, then go for it. What have you got to loose? 声援 -- The Hybrid 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• If people feel we need more bureaucrats, then I'm more than fine with that. There appears to be more people stating that than there had been. But a little perspective please; the current time to promotion is substantially less than it used to be, and waiting a few hours to be promoted isn't in the scheme of things a major detriment to the project. What's much more important is promoting good candidates so we can keep articles improving. Remember improving articles is the only reason we do the other support tasks. The only reason most people besides the candidate even notice a delay in promotion now is the fact that now we have two bot summaries that track it all the time. Of course I do reallize that sometimes it's more fun to talk about RfA than it is to write articles (for example I'm very busy right now and I'm doing more bcrat tasks than anything else). Also though it is the task I knew I was signing up for, it's still not fun to recieve more criticizism than anything else. I guess I'm just being defensive, so please carry on and improve some articles. A separate note for what is really needed is below. - Taxman ^Talk 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the current RfA's have some of the lowest amount of participation that I can recall in years. It is very important that some editors spend some time evaluating the candidates' edit histories to determine their suitability for adminship and give well reasoned opinions. Thank you - Taxman ^Talk 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• This chart shows an apparent decline in participation in RfAs beginning about mid-year 2006. A problem? I'm not so sure. We've promoted plenty of administrators with less than 30 votes per their RfAs. I'm not aware of any correlation between low participation RfAs and poor administrator performance. I think the trend is odd; Wikipedia's always growing, yet now RfA participation (at least in 2006) is dropping. Seems odd. Of course, well reasoned opinions on an RfA are always quite welcome. --Durin 16:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  I would also note in the last few days, there have been no new adminship requests. Are these things related? Captain panda In vino veritas 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Seems to go in waves at times. I recall in December we were down to less than 5 active RfAs. --Durin 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  True. About a week ago or so a whole bunch appeared. I was just wondering about that. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, but for the most part those promoted with less participation (<30) in their RfA's were back when everybody knew everybody and trust was easier to determine. - Taxman ^Talk 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's the problem when something gets big. It gets less personal. :( Captain panda In vino veritas 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  I believe this one reason some people use very fixed criteria in RfAs. Without an interactive level of trust building in various situations over time, candidates must be judged in whatever manner is available. Thus, litmus tests on particular aspects of WP participation become important to judging future behaviour. I doubt I'm the only person who also looks at other participants/!voters in RfAs, seeking people whose opinions I trust and their rationales for their positions. This is part of the info I use to reach a decision on a candidate in addition to candidate's participation on WP. This is part of community building when it is impossible to personally know everyone and their contributions to the project. (Umph, sorry, got off on a sociological rant there.) Pig^man_dialogue 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's also that many people vote for names they could recognize in RFA. I could only recognize two names currently in RFA, which is the first time in a long time that it happened. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That does seem to be the case. Michael 06:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because I've only recently begun paying attention to the RFAs, the overwhelming majority of the candidates in the last few weeks have been unfamiliar to me. But perhaps I just don't participate in the right places. Pig^man_dialogue 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm, I'm recognizing perhaps four to five of those on RfA at this time. Not too bad ... Yuser31415 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple question. Are bots ever promoted or nominated as administrators of Wikipedia? Simply south 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

None has ever been successfully promoted, no. Several have been nominated (2 or 3, I can't remember exactly). User:ProtectionBot got closest, but was withdrawn after a developer got a patch in to the MediaWiki trunk that would perform the same function without a bot. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

However, some admins do use bots on their accounts. And not everybody thinks that RfA is the right place for bots, either. -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not many though, they mostly use scripts. If they do it isn't allowed. The only one that was allowed that I remember is Curps bot. Ja ^{wat's sup} 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bots usually don't get adminship, but users with bots sometimes do. Michael 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically people are a lot more fussy about adminbots, especially as they can do a lot of possibly irreparable damage (merging page histories, for example, is an irreversible step, as far as I recall). Yuser31415 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't irreversible. It is a pain in the ass to reverse, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice so before, but it seems to me that number 4 of the standard questions being asked at RfB is rather loaded:

"If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?"

The desired reply is rather obvious: yes, I will pledge so (of course, it may be considered a trick question, but is that fair?)

I'm raising this especially since I think there are good reasons for private communication, though of course the final decision must be motivated in public if necessary. I don't want to discuss that here, I'm only proposing to use more neutral language in the question, e.g. something along the line of "Will you discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats and in public (in their talk pages or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard)?" (first draft).

Apologies if this has been discussed before; I admit I didn't look through the 83 archived talk pages. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes the question is leading and it's the type of question that sounds good, so of course why would anyone not agree to it. I got stuck in that without catching all the implications. There are cases where discussing everything in public forces a WP:BEANS violation. I've discussed the problems with discussing sockpuppeting completely in the open before. You can never be 100% right, but sometimes you can tell it's going on anyway. You help them be more sneaky if you discuss the evidence and they'll all of course complain loudly if you name names. And checkuser is of course no magic bullet. - Taxman ^Talk 12:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I never had to answer that question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was added after the Carnildo promotion. – Chacor 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh candidated for bureaucratship, see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/W.marsh, then repeatedly deleted his nomination page. I guess that's not appropriate, even if the user withdraws the nomination page needs too be kept. Is that so? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd expect so as archives should be kept of all things.Rlevse 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes, tis the wheel war! Yeah, I was under the impression that all nominations, regardless of their acceptance, should be kept for historical purposes. PTO 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1 --W.marsh 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a very special case, Gator1 left due to a set of unfortunate circumstances when somebody found his real name and contacted his work place or something like that. There is no good reason to delete your own nomination. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm being stalked by the Essjay fan club. Can I just leave in peace? --W.marsh 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if you want it deleted it can be. You've stated you don't intend to try again, so there's no point. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand you are ticked off over the result of the RFB but don't delete it. The RFB should be restored for historical purposes, like Oleg said, Gator1 was a special case, as he was harrassed out of wikipedia :(. You would have had full 100% support from me in the RFB anyways. Remember bureucratship, like adminship isn't a big deal. Just take a wikibreak and write some articles, which you are good at. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I want to leave this RfB/related drama behind and just go back to doing my thing as an admin. For me that means I'd like to have the RFB stay deleted. It was barely open for 6 hours early Sunday morning... it's not really an important record to preserve. --W.marsh 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone is keeping RfB stats like they do for RfA, then it would be nice to have. And if you ever change your mind and decide to run again people would want to see the last one. As a compromise, how about someone recreates it as closed with only the final vote, that it was withdrawn, and a brief explanation why the details are not shown. —dgies^t_c 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh, ideally you'd have a time machine and you'd go in the past telling yourself not to candidate. However, now that the RfB request was posted, and people voted, following process it should be withdrawn and archived, and you should move on. And really, repeatedly deleting it is called a wheel war and doesn't look so good on you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Go. Away. --W.marsh 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted it. Can we archive this thread now? Or does anyone else feel the need to tell me what I've done wrong? --W.marsh 18:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It will probably be archived in a few days, ignore it.. — Moe 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

3 New RfBs have gone up in the last 12 hours or so, and I anticipate that we will see some more. Can anyone provide any statistics regarding 'crat activity. Aside from whether an individual candidate is qualified, there seems to be a question regarding whether or not another crat is actually needed at this point in time. Some statistics may help to clarify this. In the absence of this, I may start opposing/neutraling nominations based on a criteria of "let's see what happens for a while with one fewer, before we jump to any conclusions". --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is the "we don't need one right now" a fair oppose because, after all, if an editor is qualified, they're qualified, right? The Rambling Man 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't really fair. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Sadly, as I stated in my three neutral votes, I was expected this. No better opportunity to fetch the bureaucrat chair than when one is having troubles with the community, or one just left. This is not the trying admin's fault, though, there is this "elitist" thought that we need as few bureaucrats as possible, converting it into a Cabal. We should be as open as possible. We don't have three stewards, we have 29! -- ReyBrujo 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know stewards do handle problems with hundreds of Wikipedias, but you get my meaning. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec*3)There does seem to be recent precedent for opposing based on need for the bureaucrat as opposed to just the qualifications. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks who oppose RfB saying "there's no need for more b'crats" are awfully loose spending the time and effort of the existing bureaucrats. It should be based on individual merit, not "offensive timing" or a unilateral decision that "there are enough". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight, that is exactly what I was talking about. When you have a 'crat basically stating "we don't need more of us", it speaks very badly of the position: it makes it seem as it is a closed circle you can enter only by sacrificing black cats on full moons. That is why the RfB were expected when Raul did what he did, and now that Essjay left. Very unfortunately, but true. -- ReyBrujo 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) So is the suggestion that there should be a precise number of 'crats, no more no less? When one resigns, allow another election? In all cases these requests are fervently referred to as such, and not votes. We try to reach a consensus, not a winning score, so if we don't "need another 'crat" then perhaps the current RfB process needs to be completely different. The Rambling Man 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for administrators is "have as many as possible". The threshold for bureaucrats is "have as few as possible". I see a problem there. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what I mean. Adminship = no big deal while bureaucratship = we don't need another one so even if you're the best ever, forgataboutit..... Not good. The Rambling Man 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed at the RfB process, to be honest. People oppose for abstract philosophical reasons. Because of all the argument over whether or not the RfA process is a vote or not, expressing an opinion of either kind will get people opposing you either saying "But RfA really isn't a vote!" or "For all intents and purposes, RfA is a vote!", as RfA is such a big part of being a bureaucrat. I don't expect to see any nominations pass for a while. A shame really, as I feel that most candidates that nominate themselves probably should be promoted. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 19:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I literally don't think that anyone could pass an RfB in the foreseeable future. For one thing, there's no good answer to the "would you have promoted Ryulong" question that's been added to two of the recent nominations, which won't tick off at least 10% of the !voters. Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that we will soon need to add a couple of new bureaucrats, and I certainly don't see that there would be any danger to having one or two more than some people deem absolutely necessary. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my problem with it, exactly. No matter how you answer questions, you're going to annoy enough people with your answers to fail the RfB. Unfortunately I can't think of a better way of doing it at the minute. I would nominate myself (again) but considering that my last one wasn't long ago and I know it'd fail, I see no point. There's not going to be any new bcrats for a while, the RfB crowd just wouldn't allow it. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 19:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing the process to be more like the ArbCom elections model?

I think the main problem is that each candidate has to individually dodge the "do we need more crats" question, then they have to pass the "are you my ideal candidate for a crat" question. Its unsurprising that overwhelming concensus doesn't result as a consequence. It may be better to first have a concensus on whether we could use additional crats. Lets say hypothetically that it is decided that things would run smoother if we had two new crats. It could then be made known that two crat posts are available. All those who think they'd make good crats then nominate themselves. The community votes for a week. Then the two candidates with the biggest support margins would become crats.
At the moment individual crat noms are pretty much doomed to failure. If there is a concensus that more crats would be helpful (I don't think need to be necessary in the strict sense of the term) then we should look to something a little more like the ArbCom model- assume there will be promotions at the end of the day and pick the best candidates. What do people think? WjBscribe 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite like this idea. Totally unsuitable for RfA, but since that's not what you're suggesting I quite like it. I wonder whether it'll start making bureaucratship feel more like ArbCom than adminship though. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ooops. I had the same idea in the next section. Bucketsofg 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, but we have to get more crats somehow... Captain panda In vino veritas 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of election procedure for Bureaucrats in the same format as Arbitrators. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Let people judge a crat nominee based on credentials, not on the need (or lack thereof) for one.↔NMajdan•talk 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raising red flags

Apparently one bureaucrat is enough': Per a number of comments at two of the three different RfBs that have been run today, enough of the community feels that two bureaucrats are capable of handling RfA. As I noted on my RfB, there are only two bureaucrats in the last three months that have conducted more than 3 promotions. Two. I fail to understand how anyone can construe this situation as a good one where no additional help is needed. At present when (not if, but when) Redux or Taxman go on vacation, the effective load on the other half of the RfA bureaucrat team is doubled. Doubled. We already have a hard enough time convincing bureaucrats to work at RfA. Expecting the remaining two to double their burden when the other it not available (for whatever reason) is unreasonable. The community seems to feel this is an equitable situation, that in the event one of the two bureaucrats steps away temporarily there is no cause for alarm; we still have one bureaucrat to cover the bases. Thus, it seems rational to conclude from this that even just one bureaucrat is enough.

Never a good time to run: On my RfB, Oleg Alexandrov noted the "paradoxal situation that if you candidate when some other bureaucrat resigns you are told that you take advantage of the situation, and if you candidate when no bureaucrats resign you are told that no bureaucrats are needed". This is an apt description of the problem. We've had eight candidates for RfB in the last nine months. Not one of them has passed (including my own and RyanGerbil10, which are both failing miserably).

Apparently, the only good time that there will be to run, the only time that there will be sufficient consensus to pass an RfB that we need more bureaucrats is when there are zero bureaucrats. Whether or not most people think this is true is irrelevant. In practice this is what is happening at RfB. --Durin 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to be fair. People think two are enough, so that one person can handle every request at WP:CHU. Nobody's so insane as to force one person to perform every bureaucrat action. -Amarkov moo! 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad situation. However a couple of weeks wouldn't have minded since Essjay's resignation – you never know, the inactive bureaucrats might have picked up the workload created. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am being fair. I am speaking strictly about WP:RFA, and not WP:CHU. As of Essjay's resignation, we have two active bureaucrats at RfA. This is fact, unless anyone wants to dispute that a bureaucrat who pops in once a month is "inactive" at WP:RFA. Since a bureaucrat could step away, for whatever reason, the community apparently feels that the long remaining bureaucrat is enough to handle the load at WP:RFA. This of course leaves that bureaucrat alone to make contentious decisions. The community is apparently not concerned about this. Or rather, not concerned enough to promote a another bureaucrat to correct the situation. --Durin 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing some recent RfBs, I found another problem. If people mention that they'd ignore invalid opposition reasons, they get opposed for disregarding consensus. If they don't, they get opposed for disregarding consensus. It would be funny if it didn't prevent people from passing. -Amarkov moo! 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been through all the failed RfBs since September, i.e. Ram-man, and there were other reasons beside "need for bureaucrats" in all but one. That's about 11 I think. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is here it takes at least 9 people to say we need bureaucrats for everyone 1 that says we don't. De facto, we're running RfB by supermajority, and it will take a supermajority to decide we need bureaucrats. Since there are enough people that feel that two (and by extension one, when the other takes some time off for whatever reason), we're stuck with this situation. Show me a candidate that isn't capable of getting enough opposition to his RfB for other reasons, and I'll show you a candidate who is inexperienced enough to be a bureaucrat. If you do your job here, a volunteer job I might add, it is impossible to not have people disagree with you. --Durin 21:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see why some of the candidates didn't pass (these are the main oppose reasons by the way):

• Ram-Man: mostly due to him having little experience with RfAs
• Geni: Answers, little RfA experience.
• Mailer diablo: 1FA
• 1ne: maturity problems, from IRC
• Crzrussian - too early, and his resignation as an admin.
• Grandmasterka - Answers
• Deskana - forgot to mention consensus, amongst other things
• Nihonjoe - this is a difficult one to analyse, but most people were "per Taxman" - who said we don't need anymore.
• W.marsh - Essjay AfD conduct.
• RyanGerbil - possibly too soon after Essjay's resignation?

Hope this shows interest. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do find this interesting. How many of the central oppose votes have anything to do with how the candidate will use RfB tools? There are a few which are just crazy. I fail to see how the 1FA standard should have anything to do with how he acts as a bureaucrat. Incidentally, I think 1FA is a silly way of judging RfAs, but I'd never oppose an RfB because of it. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Durin's original comment, Never a good time to run, I believe trying to achieve bureaucratship when a previous bureaucrat retires or has a low standing in the community is cheap. Why? Because we are using the excuse of "But now they are one less". Yes, I acknowledge there is a problem because now two or three bureaucrats need to do more, but I also notice another problem: why is it cheap to do this? Because we are not used to RfBs. We should have at least a couple per month, with a 50% success rate. We should add around 10 bureaucrats per year, so that we can really say "bureaucratship is not big deal". -- ReyBrujo 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by the opposition based on it being too soon after Essjay's departure. There seemed to be an attitude in previous RfBs (particularly Nihonjoe's) that "we don't need any more 'crats now, we'll approve them when we do", yet now a situation has arrived that we probably could do with more, they're being opposed for it being "too soon" (again, I can't see how that has any relevance to whether they'd be good or not). Add to that the very high threshold to succeed, and it does seem impossible to pass RfB at this time. Trebor 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am not the only one who is ready to assist whenever there is a backlog at RFA. Nonetheless, I do support the idea of having more bureaucrats. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A good, sensible, logical position to take. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that it seems impossible for a B-crat to be approved these days, I wonder whether we shouldn't explore reforming the institution or the process of creating it. A couple ideas spring to my mind, which I offer.

1. Given that one of the chief points against making anyone a b'crat is that we don't need any more than we presently have, might we want to consider actually naming an appropriate number and having an election for vacant seats (rather like the arbcomm elections)?
2. Or, slightly differently, we could create tranches of b'crats (again, like the arbcomm tranches) so that up to one-third of the b'crats are replaced each year.
3. Perhaps we should abolish the position entirely and divide up its roles among other functions. Sysopping of new admins, for example, to ArbComm, etc.

I'm sure that there are flaws with all of these, but perhaps someone has some other ideas. The present situation is far from ideal and other systems, even with their flaws, might work better. Bucketsofg 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with #2 is that it causes a problem that is not present today, and is not needed today. See Wikipedia:Adminship survey/D: the vast majority of users who have answered that survey do not want a reconfirmation process. Idea number 3 would add extra workload to other user groups that don't need the extra burden, either. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The "appropriate number" would flunctuate a lot in the case of the most active one or two taking wikibreaks, so the number would have to be significantly higher than the minimum needed. I like this most of your three suggestions, however.
2. No, they'd never get re-elected even if they did alright. Bureaucrat looks like an easy job to burn out or become inactive in, but even the quieter ones come back and do something helpful every once in a while. Angela and Nichalp, for example, are still helpful even if they aren't consistently promoting and whatnot.
3. We should be limiting, not expanding, the ArbCom's jurisdiction. With all due respect to the arbcom, I find it highly unlikely they'd respect consensus, even with 15% stretchmarks. Picaroon 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's actually fairly clear that if we were designing a user rights system from scratch, bureaucrats might not exist as a separate right category. But I don't think anything is sufficiently broken that it would be worth the community turmoil involved in changing things around; plus we have to remember that the user rights model here serves many other wikis as well. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of that. After all, bureaucrats were created by splitting off a couple steward powers, and that still is not implemented by default in MediaWiki. -Amarkov moo! 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• en.wikipedia always runs into the problems of scale before any other language. I think RfB has run into a problem of scale. The number of people that hold the position that "we do not need more bureaucrats" has become sufficient to be self sustaining, and sufficient to de-rail any RfB nomination. I think RfB is gridlocked and it is currently impossible to pass. --Durin 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If Durin is right, then I don't know what we can do. As far as I can tell, we're screwed. :( Captain panda In vino veritas 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that is a positive outlook :) Seriously though, you are right. I personally dislike users opposing the idea of new bureaucrats for the sake of don't need anymore, and I think the level of scrutiny a candidate has to go through is far too much. As I said above somewhere, bureaucrats perform actions that are a lot easier to undo than say a cut and paste move. There are nearly always stewards available who can remove the flag should there be a problem. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a rahter radical suggestion, but perhaps we just discount any votes where the reasoning is solely because said voter does not believe we need more bureaucrats. It might open the door just enough for one or two to pass.--Wizardman 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The voters who say that are, in fact, largely bureaucrats; now how likely are they to discount their own votes? Picaroon 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, something will have to be figured out. If not, we may quickly have a great shortage of bureaucrats. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need for bureaucrats? Sysopping is usually uncontroversial, and could be done by admins who had no involvement with the candidate, and the other two things (bots, renaming) are never controversial that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why people think in bureaucrats as a small group of just the exact persons that stay in their position until they decide, turning other candidates down because "we are enough"? -- ReyBrujo 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah that's another good one. Taxman votes oppose on Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe, and 9 other people directly base their opposition to the candidate on his vote. This effectively creates a situation where you must have the approval of the bureaucrats in order to become a bureaucrat...and nobody finds any problem with this? Good grief. Bureaucrats should not be voting on any RfBs. If the community can't find enough reasons to oppose an RfB, then the bureaucrats should damn well accept the candidate and stop providing barriers to becoming a bureaucrat. --Durin 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm... now it seems I am generalizing based on a single case. I should have said "we/they are enough", as even non-bureaucrats turn candidates down because "they are enough". I will be happy the day we can go back to the past, when everyone was administrator, even casual readers. I can dream! -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  For reasons that outlined at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive5#Redesigning_adminship:_the_issue_of_scale, that is impossible. Standards will continue to rise here, and there's not a damn thing the community can do about it. Lobsters in a pot. If we went back four years and proposed the system we have now to the people back then, there would have been a MASSIVE uproar over it, and there would have been no way in hell it would have been instituted. Do it bit by bit, and nobody complains enough about the teeny incremental changes and rises in standards to cause it to stop. People, go back and look at RfA from summer 2003. I dare any of you to come up with more than 5% of the admins promoted then who actually caused harm to the project. Many of them were made admins with less than ten people commenting. Good lord how did we survive!!!?!?!?!?! Wikipedia should have fallen apart! We can't have a system like THAT!!! Quick! Call in the bureaucracy! Save ourselves! :) --Durin 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Durin you can be sure I was incredibly annoyed with that and said so on the RfB. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Except not enough people care to say that Taxman was way, way out of line for doing that. I did approach Taxman about the issue [1]. I'm sorry to say that I was too careful in my wording of my protest against his actions. I should have been considerably more direct. I question Taxman's good judgment. He was foolish for making that oppose, and should have known better. But, he didn't, and now a good person whom we all trust was prevented from expressing his volunteer efforts in ways that he thought he could. --Durin 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that's because instead, many people agreed with me. Some didn't and that's ok too. I explained why I felt it was enough of an issue to go ahead and leave that vote. You can disagree with me, but enough with the potshots and personal attacks. And with the rest of your voliminous commentary in various sections below, I can't figure out how you think that's helping anything. It's endless handwringing over things like this that are not related to improving articles that make the project less fun to contribute to for everyone. - Taxman ^Talk 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm making a personal attack. Hysterical! This is the kind of social currency I'm talking about. Voice opposition, and you're the boogeyman. Oh, and if you do, the bureaucrat who is most opposed to anyone joining the ranks of bureaucrats tells you to get lost and go do something else. Very nice Taxman. Thanks for minimizing everything I've said into not "helping anything" and "endless handwringing". If I am making a personal attack because I question your good judgment for opposing in that RfB, then you are equally guilty of it with this very response from you. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance on accepting critical commentary. I know for a fact I am not the only one who finds your oppose vote on that RfB to be seriously lacking in good judgment. What's next, you're going to block me for posting to WT:RFA? --Durin 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • When I said you made a personal attack, I wasn't talking about simply disagreeing with me, voicing opposition to me, or even thinking that my judgement isn't good, and I think you know that. There are ways to disagree constructively and without personal attacks. As I said I'm ok with you or others disagreeing with me, as long as it remains civil and there's an effort to keep it constructive. - Taxman ^Talk 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Then don't minimize my complaints at "endless handwringing". You want to keep things civil, look in the mirror first. That applies to anyone. --Durin 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
              • If you read my statement I didn't say that. It was a general statement related to my below comments. - Taxman ^Talk 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Well, let me see if I can summarize your position correctly: We don't need any more bureaucrats. You're willing to vote oppose to people's RfBs because of this position. Anyone who disagrees with this position should leave this arena and instead direct their efforts to the mainspace. Did I miss anything? --Durin 18:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • That is not a correct summary, and I know you know that. That's disingenuous and it's not helping anything. - Taxman ^Talk 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • I can cite multiple edits by you which support that. --Durin 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of how bureaucrats should be selected (and whether, in theory, they should exist as a separate user class), recall that there are basically four bureaucrat functions:

1. Overseeing the RfA process and closing clear-outcome RfA's;
2. Deciding on the presence or absence of consensus in borderline RfA's;
3. Username changes (now including usurpations); and
4. Bot flags (after the bot approvals group has cleared the bot).

A vast majority of the time, items 1, 3, and 4 are pretty much ministerial tasks, not requiring a great deal of discretion. The level of community confidence required is not all that much different from that associated with ordinary administrative tasks, and I daresay that if system issues could be overcome, it would not cause a great disruption to Wikipedia if any administrator, or perhaps any administrator with more than XX months of experience as an admin, were authorized to perform them.

That leaves determining consensus on close RfA's. Since I've been active in commenting on RfA's, a period of roughly six months, there have been a total of perhaps 3 or 4 RfA's which either were controversial when closed or arguably arguably have closed in more than one way (Carnildo 2, Ryulong 3, Kafziel 2, possibly Wernda 4). That implies that the whole RfB process may come down to selecting a group of people who may, at most, make one significant discretionary decision every month or two. Granted they are important decisions, of course, but I still think that if this had been foreseen, it is not inevitable that a separate class of bureaucrats would have evolved, or that the perceived qualifications for bureaucrats should require as much well-nigh perfection as they seem to. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was an uproar about the closing of Werdna 4; I supported him, but accept that there wasn't consensus, as did everybody else (if I recall correctly). Sean Black 2 is a better fourth member of that list, although it was more than six months ago. Picaroon 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't an uproar about Werdna 4, but a 'crat could have arguably closed it as a promotion using the Ryulong precedent. My point is that even using a wide spectrum of discretion, there were still only 3-4 close calls in a 6-month period. Sean Black is before my time. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to separate 1 and 2 - they either have the ability to promote or they don't. I'm not sure why 3 and 4 initially became 'crat functions - are there increased risks associated with those functions above and beyond the usual admin tools? Trebor 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Durin has withdrawn his attempt at bureaucratship now. Anyone have an idea for getting someone passed? Captain panda In vino veritas 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I supported Durin as a bureaucrat, I don't see that there is any dire issue here. If a backlog develops for bureaucrat tasks, I suspect the problem will correct itself—people will apply, and some will be chosen until the problem goes away. I still say there's not a problem here. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question, look at past RfBs. Avoid the mistakes of others, and look at successful requests for a good idea of what's being looked for. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt Durin's fault. I Believed he was the best choice but then who am i. Essjay made a big mistake but you cant blame his mistake on someone else and I know the request was too soon to apply for Bureaucratship but we should have at least given him a chance to show his worth. He had to withdraw and by far he would have been the best choice. (all the other Bureaucrats arent doing their job)..--Cometstyles 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not correct to say "all the other Bureaucrats arent doing their job" as they are, perhaps not as efficiently as we'd like though. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• So, who are you going to promote? I know Majorly is interested in a particular candidate; but now that I am free to say so, I'll say this; Majorly, he has zero chance of passing. He's never made a single edit to this talk page. So who else? NoSeptember? Obviously interested enough in RfA. But, I saw people complain about him on IRC today because he has not nominated anyone. I could go down the list of people who are regular contributors here at RfA and come up with clear reasons why each of them might not want to be chosen as a bureaucrat. There simply isn't anyone, at least not by the meaasures people are all too willing to apply here. There isn't anyone who has worked as hard as I have at RfA, yet my work here was not enough to get me promoted. If RfA can not promote its most active contributor (or come even close...at close it was more than 100 votes shy of passing) when there are only two active bureaucrats left at RfA, then the system has categorically failed. Only two bureaucrats left and people still say there are enough. Absolute insanity! Am I wrong? Am I right? It hardly matters. The proof will be in RfA being incapable of passing a new bureaucrat. I will be greatly pleased when someone passes. But, that time is not now, six months from now, or even within the next year. Good luck RfA. You're going to need a lot of it :) --Durin 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The point I was trying to make was not that there are enough bureaucrats, but rather when the problem of not enough presents itself in tangible terms that the community will promote a candidate. People aren't going to put up with RfAs sitting unclosed for days at a time as a regular occurance. There just isn't any crisis that needs solving. I hope when the community is in the mood for another bureaucrat that we have a candidate as qualified as yourself willing to subject themselves to the process. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The point I made in my RfB is that with only two bureaucrats, there aren't enough bureaucrats to reasonably expect them to discuss contentious closes. You get just one other bureaucrat to discuss such a close. One. Plus, I showed that bureaucrat load has doubled in the last nine months since we last promoted a bureaucrat. And, I'll note again, if Redux or Taxman goes on vacation the load on the remaining RfA bureaucrat doubles, and they have nobody to discuss contentious closes with. The only measure is not whether there are backlogs. One very active bureaucrat can handle all of RfA. One. I was actually keeping track of this. That's all it takes; one. If the need for bureaucrats is going to be judged solely on whether there are backlogs, then indeed it is going to be zero bureaucrats contributing significantly at RfA before enough people come together to recognize that another bureaucrat is needed. --Durin 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would nominate myself, but people will complain that I had never logged into the admin channel :-P I think we should give a two-week break to this matter, and then we will see. Yes, we need plenty of bureaucrats more (my take is 10 more per year) so that when one leaves it does not become a corpse looting competence. -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If we are going to name names then I think User:Nihonjoe should give it another go if people think there is a need for another bureaucrat. Catchpole 08:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Impatience is the worst affliction one can have on this particular page. Glacial patience, my friend. Glacial. Splash - tk 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"X is not giving the result I want. Ergo, X is br0ken", is an argument I am sure I have seen somewhere else before.

Durin, you are probably the ideal candidate, but you chose what is possible the single worst period ever amen to run for RfB, and W.marsh chose an even worse one. You both then, are victims of circumstance, rather than RfB, and those circumstances were essentially of your own choosing. Please don't lick your wounds too publically, it does no long term good; and RfB's editors cannot help that you chose right now to give it a whirl.

I do not see that RfB is broken any more than one of those steel rulers they give out to engineering undergraduates. They bend a lot and sometimes you slice your finger on the end of them when it pings back unexpectedly. But bent-out-of-shape as it is at that moment in time, it is still not broken. Given a little time, and the right room temperature and pressure, the steel returns to its original shape. Glacial patience. Glacial. Splash - tk 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hysterical. Really quite hysterical! (this isn't against you Splash, so please don't take it that way...it is against this apparently commonly held notion which I'm about to lampoon). Young grasshopper, you must have the patience of a glacier, and never run! If you run when someone resigns, you will lose. If you run when someone doesn't resign, you will lose. You must understand the better essence of RfB, and never run. I don't really care what people think about me losing stock for publicly licking my wounds, or whatever. I find it ridiculously stupid to oppose people because of *when* they ran. The reality is there isn't any good time to run. I sure as hell am not going to try to politically game the system so I can soothe the bruised emotions of those who were sorry at seeing X editor go. It's frankly, bald-facedly absurd. Anybody who is opposing someone because of them running at a particular time should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
• Look, this is a VOLUNTEER project. We're not getting paid to do this. You've got people willing to help in a lot of ways, and you are all putting barriers before them to help. Forget about me. Look at what you're doing. You've created this monster called RfB that nobody can pass. Want proof? Take a look at the ArbCom elections from December 2006. You think RfB is wise and all knowing and has it right? If we applied the measures that RfB does to the ArbCom elections, we would have seated only three people. Three. Now, let's keep in mind this is ArbCom. Far more responsibility to the project than RfB (which is ridiculously easy in the vast, vast majority of cases). It would be reasonable to put the "pass" level at 95%. Guess what? You seat two new members of ArbCom. Two. ArbCom isn't gridlocked because people who have managed to screw their heads on straight realized they couldn't handle it that way and best serve the needs of the project.
• Here, we've got a nice little fiefdom of people who are ridiculously obstructionist to people who want to help. You want to see me publicly lick my wounds? Fine. Does anybody find it ridiculously hysterical that I am called a "policy wonk" by several people on my RfB when I have been fighting probably harder than anyone at RfA to reduce the ridiculous amount of instruction creep and rising standards we have here? There isn't a one of you that should not be ashamed of what RfA has become, even those of you who have been fighting against the monster that it has become. Admin responsibilities have doubled. Bureaucrat responsibilities have doubled. Onwards and onwards the situation gets worse and worse, and like a lobster in a slowly boiling pan, there's not a one of you who is willing to jump up and down screaming that this is absolutely insane.
• Step back from the stupid processes here. Step back from all the crap of guidelines and policies that so many of you find yourselves mired in. What is it we are trying to do here? BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. This isn't myspace. This isn't facebook. Focus on the ENCYCLOPEDIA and the best interests of building it. Jimbo wanted as many people as possible to have admin tools. Yet, we give them out now like they're the last tomatoes on the planet. SO many of you will scream "But we have no effective way of de-adminning people!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!" Get over it. If there was such a massive problem with this, we'd have had 10 times the number of forcible de-adminnings than we do. If their *really* was a problem we would have come up with a process to handle that. There isn't a problem, except with a *few* individuals who have been (for the most part) handled appropriately.
• Look, give out the admin bit liberally and you stop this stupid bickering in its tracks.
• The proudest RfA I did was for User:Edcolins. It was blatantly obvious that he could be trusted to act in appropriate ways with the additional privileges. Since he was given the adminship bit, he's used his privileges less than a couple dozen times. 18 admin actions in 1.5 years! He's not a major vandal whacker, AfD hunter, or anything else here that people are so addicted to. He's a rational, thoughtful person who is eminently trustable and there's ZERO reason to believe he would do anything to harm the project with the additional tools. He passed 27-1 in his RfA, and that was before I built ridiculously detailed RfAs. Yet, if I tried to run him through RfA today he would miserably fail for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. If he re-afd'd now, people would say "He never used the tools much, why does he need them?" He doesn't NEED a reason to want them. If they occasionally help him in his editing or assisting in the project and he can be trusted to use them, then he should be given the bit, as should anyone who comes here. If soooo many people get through RfA that it creates a problem on the other end, then we can fix that.
• Almost all of you are forgetting that everything an admin does is undoable. Everything. Anyone who thinks that any one admin could cause grave harm to the project is forgetting that the same impact could be had with any one editor. All of you should be ridiculously ashamed at the state that RfA is in. Yet, I will guarantee you that quite a few people here will respond to this posting (as they have to everyone who brings this up), "Well, there really isn't much of a problem ya know..."
• There is a problem when good faith editors acting in compliance with the guidelines and policies of the project are being prevented from contributing in any volunteer capacity they desire on Wikipedia, with the sole exception of ArbCom. Anything...ANYTHING...else is providing massive barriers to building this project. --Durin 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But you hit the point. There is no effective method for desysopping, unless someone is a complete idiot. And it's still such a stressful process that few want to go through it, and it will result in someone leaving, usually not even the person desysopped. To borrow your logic, there is a problem with desysopping now. It's not obvious to most, because they don't have to deal with it, but it's there, and waiting for gridlock to solve it is not a good idea. -Amarkov moo! 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And onwards and upwards rises the temperature of the pot... --Durin 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I just want to say that I endorse everything in Durin's rant. Emotional does not automatically imply insensible. Borisblue 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We didn't have an effective method for desysopping people from the beginnings of the project. Yet, the project didn't collapse because we liberally gave out the admin bit. We're presuming there's going to be a problem we can't handle, so it's too scary to give out the admin bit liberally. There's no evidence that liberally giving it out is going to cause a massive problem. If it does, ArbCom is well capable of coming up with something to deal with that. Until such time as such a massive problem is proven, then we'd should always...always...be giving out the admin bit liberally. --Durin 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Anything...ANYTHING...else is providing massive barriers to building this project.", I take issue with. The only massive barriers are in improper expectations. That statement assumes there should be no prioritization of tasks. In order to build an encyclopedia without unlimited resources and to do it efficiently, mindful of those limited resources, we need to prioritize resources and all reasonable efforts to encourage placing those resources where they are needed most should be made. Yet, for pointing out that bcratship is not where the need is, I get pilloried by a few. Yes, perhaps I should not be the one to say it, but it still needs to be said, so I won't shy away from saying it. Everything we do that is not related to improving articles should be minimized to the extent needed to complete it well and to the extent that it helps support article improvement as directly as possible. I'll say that as many times as needed because I believe it should be a central tenant of what we do here. - Taxman ^Talk 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Taxman, why are you a bureaucrat? You seem to dislike the position so much, and since you'd rather we wrote articles, perhaps that is what you should do. Your actively preventing another bureaucrat for "we don't need another" and "there's more important things to be doing" really confuses me. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I started to type another answer, but any reply would not simply distract from the more important point made above and not be the most productive choice. Short answer is I do enjoy it and it is important, but only to the extent it supports improving articles. - Taxman ^Talk 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Just the response I expected; perhaps it's time to remove the bureaucrat section from the RfA page? I would ask you, but since it would distract you from improving articles I'd better not. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Taxman, the situation you are fundamentally creating is this; a volunteer wants to help in a particular area. They want to *volunteer*. They are not a paid person. They are attempting to contribute in ways that they find interesting. Instead, you place barriers to them and say "go away, you're not needed here". This is a very, very poor position to take. If we were all paid employees trying to compete against other companies, your position would have merit. As is, I fail to understand how telling a person who wants to volunteer that we don't need their efforts since *you* perceive a lack of need is correct. If we take that stance, without extensive backlogs in adminship tasks (and there really aren't any that last very long), why pass any RfAs? You should make sure you apply your stance. If you don't want any more bureaucrats because you think there's no need, then make sure you fail RfAs for lack of need too. This isn't how the community works. In fact, it is blatantly *against* how the community works. You've created an exclusionary club, and you're opposing RfBs and warning people off of making an RfB run because enough people are agreeing with you on the "need" for more bureaucrats that it is impossible for new bureaucrats to be made. You're holding this process hostage with your position, and all it takes is 1 of 5 people to agree with you. Your opposition to Nihonjoe's RfB was unconscionably wrong, and your continued opposition based on need is equally so. --Durin 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • All taking us further away from where we need to be. There is a need for admins, and asking people to properly prioritize is not telling them to go away. There's 22 bcrats, I don't see you complaining there aren't enough checkusers (where there is a big need), or people to work on copyvios. If you were advancing that argument, you'd never here anything but support from me. - Taxman ^Talk 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There are not 22 active bureaucrats, and you know it. Straw man argument. When bureaucrats were first created, there were six of them. The rate of promotion then was infinitesimal compared to what it is now. Yet now, we have two active bureaucrats at RfA and one of them insisting up and down the page and on RfBs that we do not need bureaucrats, and anyone that suggests we do should direct their efforts to the project mainspace. Suggestion for you Taxman; and it's no more a personal attack on you than your suggestion I do the same from you, why don't you address your attention to the project mainspace, hmm? --Durin 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I find [[User:Durin|Durin]'s tone a tad strident, many of his points seem accurate and well considered. I haven't been involved enough at some levels to judge whether there's a "crisis" (and I use that word in the most guarded and qualified of manners). However, many organizations reach a point in their growth where they become conservative in the basic meaning of the word: a reluctance toward change. Of itself, such institutional conservatism is neither good or bad. I note that many people have commented on the increasingly difficult gauntlet of gaining adminship, a process that (I believe) discourages many qualified candidates from even considering submitting to it. Dismissing Durin's critique as mere sour grapes would be a mistake. Sometimes the bitter speaks better truth than those contented. --Pig^man_dialogue 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Closely related Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive5#Redesigning_adminship:_the_issue_of_scale. In particular, anyone who thinks RfA isn't broken and is capable of change should read all of A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. --Durin 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I find it funny when people try to invoke "Article writing is more important than anything else"! Do you think that people who are told this then start doing article writing, even though they dislike it? Because they don't. So, instead of the maybe marginal bit of extra good they would have done as an admin/bureaucrat/whatever, they do no extra good. And if you do manage to get someone to do things they don't want to, you've found someone who cares more about status than having a good time editing. And people like that shouldn't be given status either. If you think that they're likely to misuse something, then it's reasonable, but if you're witholding things as a way of making people focus on what you think they should, you're just throwing away benefit for no greater one. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  Five pillars, point 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you don't know how to write and reference articles, if you don't know the difference between a stub and a good article, if you replace free images with fair use ones, if you are not familiar with the different policies, guidelines and style guides that apply to the main space, then you will be a very limited administrator. -- ReyBrujo 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  If you believe that, I don't mind; I share that to some extent myself. My issue is with comments like Taxman's, which are not "You don't know how to edit properly", but "You don't edit enough". -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  I didn't say that. I said we should minimize other things that don't support improving articles as directly as possible. Of course you can't make people do what they don't want to do. That doesn't mean we can't encourage reducing overhead. - Taxman ^Talk 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not making my point clear enough. If there were more people as bureaucrats, then the ones like you would have more time to improve articles. But not making them bureaucrats will not convince them to do the improvement you would have done, meaning that less article improvement happens. It is very rarely productive to reject people who want to volunteer to do something because other things are more important. -Amarkov moo! 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When the position of bureaucrat was created in 2003, the powers that be at the time posted six...yes Virginia, six...people to the position. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Now we're down to two active bureaucrats at RfA. Further, one of the two remaining bureaucrats has at least twice stated there's no need for more bureaucrats, and one RfB was torpedoed due to this stance. Nope. No problems here! Move along please... --Durin 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's specious. There have never been more than one or two highly active bureaucrats at once. Most of the original six only made a handful of promotions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from Redux, just after getting the 'crat flag in June 2006[2]: Especially, I've been able to cover what I'm calling a "window of inactivity" in the Bureaucracy: it extends roughly from 2 a.m. to 11 a.m. UTC daily. During this time, it is not uncommon that all the Bureaucrats are offline, so any RfAs ending during this time could be closed with a delay of up to 9 or 10 hours. So the timezone problem was affecting RfA until that promotion filled a gap; with only 2 active 'crats, it would be almost impossible to cover all 24 hours (luckily, I can't think of anything that would require immediate 'crat action, and if there were it would be possible to borrow a steward from Meta in an emergency). --ais523 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• THE metric people are using for judging if there are enough bureaucrats is whether there are any backlogs. RfA backlog is probably considered anything over 8 days on full run RfAs. Since one active bureaucrat can handle all of that, one bureaucrat is therefore enough to handle it all. Thus, we do not need more than one bureaucrat. Since it is obviously such a BadThing(tm) to have more than the number of bureaucrats we need, we should ask one of two bureaucrats we have to step down. :) --Durin 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Another interesting stat is that all over the archives of Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges there are statements that "a 'crat has said that they could manage the extra workload", although I can't find the original statement they refer to. So back then (it would have been some time between June and August 2006) there was a feeling among the 'crats that they could manage an extra workload without trouble. --ais523 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I counted about 7 bureaucrats who have done at least one name change since 1 February. I see no reason not to add more bureaucrats as we come across well qualified candidates, having more certainly won't hurt, but I also am not overly concerned about the rate of promotion of new bureaucrats. In a temporary crunch, we know which semi-active ones we can poke into action (and some of us have our sticks ready ;). I have written more about the way I perceive this issue here, including my call to action. Cheers, NoSeptember 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrat count is rather distressing...we have such high standards of what a bureaucrat should be that it almost becomes idealized. bibliomaniac15 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is idealized. Becoming a bureaucrat is less possible than becoming a member of ArbCom. When did being a bureaucrat become so lofty that it is *the* set of tools most impossible to get? It's absurd on the face of it. I'll restate what I've said earlier; show me a person qualified to be a bureaucrat and I'll show you someone who has too little proven experience. ANYone here who does their job will got shot down in the current climate. --Durin 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the "bureaucrat qualifications" thread I started above, which hasn't had much of a response yet. In it, I identify four basic tasks that bureaucrats perform—three of which could probably be performed by dozens of adminstrators, while the fourth arises maybe once every other month. Perhaps that may shed some perspective on how bureaucrats should be picked, or how the bureaucrat role should be further defined. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If we feel like being "historical", then I find it interesting to point out that Tony Sidaways RFA was mildly controversial when he was promoted with "only" 80% support in March 2005. At the time 4-to-1 support vs. oppose was generally a minimum expectation, and now it is clearly 3 to 1 (i.e. 75%), and many people feel that even that ends up being too strigent. By contrast, RFB seems to have fallen into a hole of needing 90% and staying there. I'm not actually sure how this happened, since there haven't been that many borderline RFBs (i.e. 80-90% support), so there isn't even a great deal of precedent about where to set the line, except that somehow it seemed to get accepted. Does someone have a nice page detailing RFB outcomes? Dragons flight 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the archives for this talk page. I believe that I was the one who suggested that any bureaucrat candidate with any meaningful opposition should not be promoted. This was before it was fashionable to oppose individual candidate's nominations on the dubious grounds that we already have enough bureaucrats. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ma. Get the pitchforks. We've found the rat bastard that's dun us in.  ;-) I think our definition of "meaningful opposition" may need retooling after all the changes the community has seen. Dragons flight 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One possibility to address the issues raised above about the b'crat selection process is to break it up into two parts:

1. At a regular interval (say, every six months), we have a discussion and !vote on whether wikipedia needs a new bureaucrat. If the result of this discussion is negative, the process stops.
2. If the result is positive, we start a period roughly akin to the arbcomm election: a period of nomination, followed by questions and answers, followed by votes. The candidate with the highest percentage positive is made a bureaucrat.

Anyway, tell me what you think. Bucketsofg 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this up a level and opine that that whole RFA system is due for overhaul. We have far worse problems than the nature of the bureaucrat elections, though I agree that the present system is frustrating and unfair. See the WikiProject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, Bucketsofg. Only one question, what percentage of voters wanting a new crat do you think is necessary to get a new crat? Captain panda In vino veritas 02:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be consensus, which in the case of a simple yes-no question should be 2:1 in favour. Bucketsofg 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Works with me. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been kicking around an alternative idea intended to supplement RfA without replacing it. Not really my idea to begin with but some of the language is mine and I think it's worth considering. Comments appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• You have to have 1000 edits in the last three months to be considered in "good standing"? Somebody better go tell Jimbo Wales he's in bad standing :) Without the tongue in cheek bit, the edit counts thing is once again a negative aspect here. How do you intend on policing one objection every three months? --Durin 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would be .really. worried about this idea backfiring. In other words, you could have "objection hoarding" where to many people want to save their objection for an IDONTLIKEIT personality conflict nomination and then there's nobody who follows RFA / cares enough to object to someone that is really "worthy" of an objection. Really, no system is going to be sufficient right now because there are too many competing interests. There are those who think that admins should be an aristocracy of the best writers. There are those who vote against anyone who doesn't have experience in every area of Wikipedia because (obviously) they don't really need the tools. The solution isn't to make procedural changes - the solution is to change hearts and minds so that candidates are not supported or opposed for reasons other than suitability to use the tools. --BigDT 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)-Why can't someone be "proposed for adminiship" if they have proposed someonelse. Also, why only one objection per editor every 3 months, where Jimbo gets unlimited. He may be the founder, but that doesn't give him special power in RFA voting. I wouldn't support thus proposition. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding dumb, would you mind explaining what good thing this is intended to accomplish? Since it only seems to deal with noms that are otherwise completely unopposed, it seems to add more bureaucracy while accomplishing litte. Dragons flight 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No ... it would do more than that. Remember - you only get one objection. So if there is someone that you are kinda opposed to, but it isn't worth giving up your right to object to future RFAs, you will sit quietly. So the proposed administrator would just be the elephant in the room. (The population of elephants in the room would be tripled, thanks to Stephen Colbert.) --BigDT 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The primary idea is to loosen up the process. The unlimited objection for Jimbo--and Arbcom--is meant as a nominal safeguard. By all means, if it's unworkable let's chuck it out the window and move on, but we need to keep thinking about alternatives. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for "good standing" seem rather high. Aside from the example of Jimbo, users who fail/are very close to failing (depending on what exactly counts as a semi-automated tool or JS-aided) include Bishonen, mav, Neutrality and I am sure many others who I did not think to check off the top of my head. Because these users are obviously in good standing, the standards seem questionable. I also worry that a specific types of users will be particularly prone to exclusion under them, which would be problematic for the process. The downside is that if we actually let everyone who is in good standing participate, the number of objections available will so overwhelm the total number of candidates that every plausibly objectionable candidate will probably find an opposer. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to changing the number, but the idea is to deliberately limit the objectors. Otherwise we might as well just keep RfA. Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If one is trying to limit the effect of opposition, I feel this is probably the wrong way to go about it. The assignment of 1 oppose per X interval of time and Y number of edits etc., is arbitrary and will undoubtedly feel so to people that think their opinions have been stifled by such a policy. (And I would hope we have all recently learned a few lessons about how stifling participation creates further conflict.) If I might suggest an alternative type of reform. One approach that I think might have greater potential is to create an actual set of adminship requirement guidelines (which might still be fuzzy things, like "Experience interacting with other editors", "Adherence to NPA policy", etc.) and then insist that opposition at RFA must be framed concretely as a failure to meet one or more of the guidelines. Or to put things another way, I think one way to improve RFA would be to really deal with the arbitrariness of the standards many people currently apply. (Though, I will admit there is a risk that this could backfire if the standards are chosen poorly.) Dragons flight 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As a cautionary note, I'd advise you to read through the talk page of WP:QAV first. I suspect there's merit in the idea, but it would have to be done very carefully and I suspect no set of criteria (even fuzzy criteria) would ever reach consensus. --ais523 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No. This concentrates power rather than delegates it, does not scale well, and does not leverage the wisdom of the crowd in an effective way. I'm also unclear on the benefit of forbidding people who have nominated/been nominated from being in good standing, and am mightily unhappy with the "Jimbo veto" rule, since he keeps nominally trying to devolve power away from himself. -- nae'blis 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a problem with the RfB process? I don't think so - it merely imitates the RfA process, which in my opinion is not broken. The real question is gauging the need for more bureaucrats. And the biggest problem standing in the way is the large number of least active to inactive b'crats, who have the tools but don't use it.

To this end, I suggest that the position of bureaucrats be subjected to greater accountability. If a bureaucrat is inactive for more than 2 months, he/she automatically loses the b'crat position. Inactive b'crats are a major problem here - they don't do the b'crat work nor the adminship work. So what are they doing with all these tools?

I'd like to add that there are key differences between adminship and bureaucratship - adminship involves more than 1,000 editors doing a wider scope of work. Bureaucrats have a smaller area of work to do and few are required to do it. Hence, if you want to be a b'crat, you need to show greater activity level. The special nature of jobs of promoting editors to sysops, commissioning bots and re-names additionally require people who are active both as sysops and as encyclopedia-builders - that is the base, foundation.

Wikpedia can function well if 20-30% of admins don't perform their duties or are inactive - if only 3-4 bureaucrats actively do the job (which basically needs 5-7 b'crats) while 10 others don't, its pretty much a waste of tools and position. Accordingly, the inactive b'crats should be removed. Rama's arrow 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested something on similar lines soon after Ryulong's promotion, however it was quickly dismissed. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's Arrow, there is way too many inactive bureaucrats, we only got three-four active ones now, and another three that aren't that active but still does a rename once in a while, one b-crat was removed last year for lack of activity, User:Optim but there are more, like User:Cprompt who hasn't even done a deletion since 2004, we should let the community decide what to do with them. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have the community's trust, and I am ready to assist at RFA any time I observe that there is an RFA ready for closure. This is rare because historically there have always been bureaucrats nearly tripping over themselves to close RFAs, who note the time of the next upcoming closure on their schedule and visit Wikipedia solely to perform it. While I am happy to help I do not find it necessary to organize my schedule in this manner only to compete with others doing the same thing. I think you will find that at many if not most of the less active bureaucrats are in the same situation. Regarding total inactivity, I believe that both admins and bureaucrats should lose their privileges after an extended period away from Wikipedia, but it has never been possible to reach a consensus on that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if b'crats have to avoid tripping over one another, its clear there is no need for any more b'crats. I would like to see ianctive b'crats give up their position - there is no reason for anybody to waste the tools, especially as there are others eager to do the work. Meanwhile, we cannot rely on these people anyway. To me, its clear that there needs to be a refreshing of the system. Rama's arrow 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I know there has never been consensus, and never will be consensus, for admins to be desyropped after an extended period of time, but I don't think that one was ever tried for inactive b-crats, even if I'm wrong, consensus can change. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any data on inactive administrators? Have there been any proposals for removing their bits after a period of absence from the project or non-use of the tools? Is there any harm in having bit-enable accounts available for people to return to? In my opinion, if these questions are asked, they should be asked regarding bureaucrats and administrators, not just one or the other. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been asked and proposed several times before. There is no harm, and there is no reason to remove them. —Centrx→talk • 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained above, WP needs maybe 5-7 b'crats, while it needs 1,000 plus admins. It doesn't matter if 200 are inactive, given that 4-5 new admins are promoted each week. Also, b'crats don't have to do as much work as admins do - admins can meet the needs as 800 admins do bits of it; with b'crats, there are roughly 10 people who don't do or don't need to do anything - so why are they b'crats? If you say that Essjay did most of the work while Taxman and Redux are managing the present burden and need some extra help, how about waking some of the slumbering b'crats? Don't ask about future RfBs, especially as we have so much evidence of overpopulation in the b'crat category. Rama's arrow 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that no one has explained why having extra bureaucrats is bad. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And nobody is trying to demean the b'crat job or current b'crats - the matter is entirely practical. I know there are literally hundreds of good editors/admins who can become very good b'crats and I will express my opinion with an open mind on any RfB, but given the present condition, we are beating some dead horses when people try to figure out why RfBs don't succeed or if the RfB/RfA process is broken. Rama's arrow 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't firing bureaucrats for not doing bureaucrat work defy the purpose of Wikipedia being volunteer? Captain panda In vino veritas 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't registering with Red Cross but not actually doing any service be defeating the purpose of volunteer service? Again, I'm talking only from the practical point of view and not trying to demean the job or implying that we "fire" anybody. The problem is we have a large number of inactive b'crats; only 3-4 b'crats are needed to do the job and at each RfB the question is - do we need more? Rama's arrow 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that an analogy between the Red Cross and bureaucratship in the English Wikipedia isn't particularly valid. By the time you become a bureaucrat, you've done something. Otherwise, there is no way on Earth the community hands you down the bit. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's say you manage an office which is staffed by volunteers. The office contains valuable property and records. The volunteers have keys to get in the office. If a volunteer leaves one day with no intent to come back are you going to consider asking them for their key back. If you can't find them to ask, are you going to change the locks? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose under that analogy, you might want to remove status on inactive members "without prejudice", meaning if they come back and can reasonably assure people their account was not compromised, they can automatically get their "keys" back. —dgies^t_c 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I oblivious, or is there somewhere that someone has explained in detail why 'we don't need more bureaucrats' is a reason for not promoting any more? There's a narrow sense in which we don't need more articles either, but nobody's stiffening up the requirements for article creation. Though I don't understand it, the argument is popular enough that I assume there must be a clear articulation of it out there. Opabinia regalis 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think for many people holding that position the argument boils down to logic something like: As long as the pool of RFA promoters is small we can expect consistent results. Since promotion is so imporant and very hard to undo, consistency is very important. Therefore why risk changing things so long as the small pool of Bureaucrats we have are able to keep up? Better to stick with the few we have than risk that some rogue element will change things.

Not saying that I agree, but if those are your values, the desire for a limited group of promoters does have logic to it. Dragons flight 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is precisely why having a small group of bureaucrats is bad. This is an argument for having more, not less. --Durin 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is often said that the job of the American vice-president is basically nothing except wait if the president dies or leaves office. Speaking metaphorically, here we have 5 vice-presidents for each president. What is the advantage or benefit of having inactive b'crats? Who is going to resuscitate them if/when their services are needed? Meanwhile, we have many other aspiring presidential candidates... I just started this debate when I realized that in every RfB, the top question is do we need more, and when to answer that question one looks at the present list, there are all these "inactive" and very-low-active b'crats. So am I to tell user:X on his RfB that he can't have the tools while users Z, Y, U, B have them, even though they are basically not needed (as per UninvitedCompany, b'crats are tripping each other while getting to doing one task) and are not doing anything? Rama's arrow 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats Inactive for 6 months should be fired and/or Replaced because as I mentioned before I dont think they are doing their job and its better if they are replaced or simply removed and we really need more Bureaucrats and very experienced Admins should apply for this job...--Cometstyles 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. And I don't think people would support it. There have been crats who've returned after a long break. Cecropia (sp?) jumps to mind. – Chacor 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Declining support after 7.000 days (new subsection)

There are many admins who would love to apply to help out (e.g. there's an RfA that's been sat waiting for 13 hours) but since our most active RfA closer insists we do not need another so be it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. And during that 13 hours it went from exactly 75% to less than 71%. Also note that one of the active bureaucrats was on Wikipedia 8 minutes after it was supposed to close [3]. Can anyone cite any RfA that at scheduled closed time actually went significantly up in support while the bureaucrats waited to see if "consensus" developed? Such RfAs are just targets for pigpiles. Nearly 25% of the opposes in that RfA came after scheduled close. AFTER. Who needs more bureaucrats? <rolls eyes> --Durin 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh that's disgraceful, it was at 75%!!! :S Just ludicrous. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is that disgraceful or ludicrous? 75% isn't exactly a clear consensus and extending the RfA by a day or two probably wouldn't have been a bad idea. In any case, if she takes the advice from the RfA and gets some article experience, she'll probably pass without any issues next time. ChazBeckett 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually 75% is the standard for consensus in RfA, whether it be clear or not. The fact it lasted 13 more hours to go to 71% bothers me. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is orthagonal to the original discussion, but any RFA that drops 4% points in 13 hours didn't have consensus to begin with. Taking a look at the top of this page, most RFAs have become a done deal by that time. The idea that you'd have promoted at 75% when support was falling bothers me more than the backlog. -- nae'blis 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I would have promoted; I'm just annoyed that such a marginal RfA wasn't closed on time. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize you didn't explicitly say you'd have promoted; however I'm trying to understand why you're annoyed by a "marginal" RFA being left open longer. Do you believe consensus is reflected by a single point in time? Would it have been better to have KyraVixen (I assume this is who you're talking about) promoted/declined at 75%? -- nae'blis 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the bureaucrats to look at the comments and to determine the consensus. IMO 1 week is plenty long enough for anyone to comment. If it had been closed on time, it may have had a different result. It's cases like this that the bureaucrat has to actually make a difficult decision; I think, after reading the RfA, that the right one was taken, but marginal cases, especially ones in favour of promotion, should close as soon as they are scheduled to. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For myself—being one of the terrible people who opposed after the 7-day mark—I had been on the fence about the nomination until yesterday, when the point was raised that she had never created an article. To me, that's an obvious "oppose", but I don't like to pile on so I still didn't vote. I very rarely oppose an RfA unless it's really necessary. The nomination was borderline, though, so it seemed important for me to voice my opposition. It wasn't a case of trolls coming out of the woodwork (at least, I don't think of myself as a troll). It was a case of a new issue brought to light at the end of the nomination, and it wouldn't have been right to hurry up and close it before anyone else noticed. Kafziel ^Talk 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't a terrible person :) I'm just saying you had a week to decide, and something like that would have been fairly obvious to me (see the answer to question 2) and if I had been opposing I would have simply done it earlier. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• My earlier request stands; can anyone show any RfA that gained significantly in support between scheduled close and actual close? --Durin 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Are we only allowed to have rules that make it easier for RfAs to pass? Who decided that?

Not many people have been screwed by an extension more than I was, but that doesn't mean it was wrong. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats because the community has placed its collective trust in them to make thoughtful decisions. It's pointless to second guess them and call for "reform" every time they make a choice we don't like. Kafziel ^Talk 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not calling for reform because this particular RfA closed 13 hours late. I'm pointing out that it is further proof that we need more bureaucrats. You want reform? I fully expect RfA as we know it to be gone within a month. --Durin 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Kafziel ^Talk 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6 is my best example, though not quite what you are looking for. This RFA was open nearly 10 days because someone posted an incorrect end date at the very beginning. At 7 days it was 41/11/8 (78.9% support) and by the time it actually closed it was 60/10/9 (85.7% support), which is proof in principle that such things can lead to significant shifts. There is also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2 which turned on late breaking news. At 7 days it was 121/30/3 (80.3%) and was intentionally extended by Bureaucrat due to many late opposes. During the next 12 hours it fell to 123/45/4 (73.2%) before being withdrawn. Dragons flight 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding that. So extend it to 14 days then. --Durin 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• ...late breaking news I must have missed that. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have long supported disallowing new !votes at RFAs after the comment period has expired. In general, the support percentage will decline during this time, which affects results. However, the bigger problem that we have is that the present system doesn't allow bureaucrats time for considered discussion of the proper handling of the nomination, because the totals keep changing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does; I created ((rfat)) ages ago, just no one ever takes advantage of it (or their own homegrown solution). I don't see why people are falling over each other trying to make sure we hit the grip tape at 7.0000. -- nae'blis 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been bureaucrat support for it, at least in the past; Cecropia once reverted me when I attempted such a thing. Perhaps that's changed with some of the personnel changes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope not! Kelly Martin (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea: We can always use the magic words and parser functions automatically add a red "Discussion is closed" notice, to discourage votes past the end time if we do not want to allow those. That is not necessarily my position, this is merely an implementation idea. -- Renesis (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We can do that I guess. I have another idea, I notice most of the inactive b-crats still actively edit this site, maybe we should ask them if they still want the tools. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea here is that comments after the 7.00000 mark magically become worthless, despite having been useful, hypothetically, had they been made only hours before? Milto LOL pia 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is an encyclopedia, not a Nomic. It's high time people started remembering this. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the above discussion would be moot if people bought into the idea that it isn't so much the number/percentages of votes, but what people actually say. If I were a bureaucrat I would not bother to count the votes, but I'd read the comments and make a qualitative determination if there was community support. Of course a poll with very few opposes will pass, and one with split opinions will fail, but in between is a gray area that requires discretion and common sense. Suppose people pile on the oppose side because someone made a damaging claim, and it turns out the claim was not valid, should the nomination fail? Suppose there is overwhelming support but some very distressing information is revealed in the last hours of the poll that clearly shows the person to be unsuited, should they be approved? I think the answer is clearly "no" in both cases. A bigger issue, is how percentages leads to wikilawyering and squabbles about the numbers. I'm amazed when people start arguing about the last few "votes" that change a percentage by a few points one way or another. It isn't the number that is important it is what people say. We have to stop thinking about this as a vote. If we need new 'crats, it is to shake things up so that these percentages go away. (I'm skeptical however that this will happen, as it seems a huge number of wikipedians seem to love percentages.) --Sam_{uel Wantman} 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the above comments by Taxman, we need more users with Checkuser permission. Is there a traditional way of going about this? Can a user simply be nominated on meta? Or are requests simply submitted to and approved by the Arbitration Committee? John Reaves (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• The latter. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Before applying, it is recommended that one see the ominous note of doom on WP:RFCU and provide print verification for all credentials. Picaroon 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are applications actually considered/needed? The current checkuser pool is limited almost exclusively to current/former arbitrators, and as long as that is sufficient it would seem a very sensible restriction. I have the technical knowledge to understand WHOIS and similar information, and wouldn't mind helping with Checkuser activities, but have been assuming that the size of the checkuser pool was A) generally sufficient, and B) so deeply limited by privacy issues that only people at the highest levels of our social hierarchy (bureaucrat, arbcom, steward, etc.) would even be considered. If there really is a need, feel free to see this as a statement of interest, but I certainly won't be upset if you do prefer to keep it restricted to only the loftiest levels of our society (or if for any other reason you think I wouldn't be suitable for such a job). Dragons flight 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to expand on Dragons flight (not against him), this is one of the biggest privacy issue per our m:privacy policy and would lead to easier real-life harrasment and lawsuits, for the Wikimedia Foundation and the individual users. So, this is not something that is handed out lightly. This brings us to our other power limited to the upper hierarchy, and rightly so, oversight. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Which brings the question: is the ArbCom interested in granting those sensitive tools (Checkuser and Oversight) to non-Arbitrators, non-Bureaucrats, or non-Stewards? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly. Basically, it's best that candidates for checkuser and oversight already be vulnerable to harassment. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean "vulnerable to harassment" or something more along the lines of "immune to harassment" or "inured to harassment"?

--Richard 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean "already vulnerable". I don't know what I meant, really. And I don't speak for ArbCom, I'm just a single arbcommie. And apparently there are various opinions on the issue. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it it's much more B) than A). Check around if there's a process, but asking the arbcom would be the likely route. - Taxman ^Talk 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If there really is a need for more checkusers, I'm available. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that you will get the support of the community for this role, after the RFC that you initatiated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin_3? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this subthread is likely to be a productive part of the discussion. Newyorkbrad 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support Kelly, she already has had it before and did not abuse it at all. She may be a butt at times (politely said), but she is trustworthy and would be very helpful. Cbrown1023 talk 22:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to further comment on this, Cbrown1023. If this comes up for discussion to the wider community we can address any concerns or voice support at that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was just a formality based on the "formal vindication" on Kelly's checkuser actions, it would ever be a community thing, my comment was not intended in that respect. As I have stated before, it is the Arbitration Committee and only the Arbitration Committee who deals with this. Cbrown1023 talk 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd help with this but I have a feeling my help is neither required nor wanted (and I don't mean that in a snide way, that's just the way it came out when I typed it and I can't think of a better way of wording it) --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not snide, I'm sure that you and I and most other people feel the same way. Cbrown1023 talk 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am one of several admins originally nominated by Essjay. Essjay's fraud calls into question everything that he did. I'm willing to step down if anyone in the community thinks this is a reaonable idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly, you have demonstrated yourself to be trustworthy and got through the RfA process without issue. Viridae^Talk 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why don't we rollback any articles he contributed to as well. Seriously, how in the world could you fabricate consensus among active, non-sockpuppet Wikipedians? -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Even if your adminship was wholly dependant on Essjay's vouching for you that wouldn't make you an invalid administrator. You aren't a Catholic doctrinal article, so his fabricated credentials have no bearing towards his opinion of you. --tjstrf talk 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dumbass. (I mean that in the most gentle and loving way possible.) Your nomination was judged on its merits, and it received unanimous (!) support. While we shouldn't understate the effect that Essjay's deceptions have had – on Wikipedia in general and on his friends and acquaintances in particular – there's also no need to blow this mess up into more of a disaster than it needs to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, he missed WP:100 and now he can get another go. Besides, I didn't know him well enough to support last time, and I feel like I missed out. So if the dumbass wants to run again, we can all have some fun. Which is all by way of saying: "No, Rick, you don't need to do it again". Dragons flight 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense (in a playful context). Just because a now-disgraced editor nominated you doesn't mean that your own position, attained with community support, is in hot water or is controversial. Using your reasoning, if you were to resign your position as your nominator is disgraced (hence making you disgraced), shall I have to step down also? (you nominated me, remember?) :)--²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Any admin who thinks that he maybe should step down should step down since he knows enouhg to be worried and any admin in this position who doesn't think he should step down is obviously too involved with Essjay. Ok, joking aside there's no reason for you to step down. JoshuaZ 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. Essjay did a lot of good things for Wikipedia as well as a lot of goofy things. -- Nick ^t 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Per TenOfAllTrades - this is a purely ridiculous extension of a completely different issue. A most stupid suggestion. Rama's arrow 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What everyone else wrote. No known issues with you other than your clearly misguided opinions on certain featured article candidates... :-) :-) :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rick, I was nominated by Karmafist. Does it mean I'm him? Does it mean I should step down? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't forget to step down yourself, Tariqabjotu. Since Essjay promoted you, your whole RFA was obviously irredeemably flawed. 124/2/1 means nothing. Dragons flight 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure that was the joke. JoshuaZ 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • As was the reply. Cbrown1023 talk 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Heh. I should have expected that. :) Anyways, worries about someone's influence or anything stop when you're talking about your own record. It stands on its own. There's no need to worry about stepping down. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, this discussion seems to have established two things. One, your adminship career isn't dependent on the person who nominated you, and two, your adminship career isn't dependent on who you yourself have nominated. Picaroon 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • True, but there's another issue as well. Rick Block said, "Essjay's fraud calls into question everything that he did." I don't think that's true. People can and probably should scrutinize his logs and edits, but the same thing applies to everyone, including you and me. But we should not assume, without evidence, that Essjay's actions were suspect just because of what was on his user page. In particular--and this is what is of concern to this talk page--I have never seen evidence that Essjay was anything other than an excellent bureaucrat. Chick Bowen 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Chick Bowen. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my fear. Essjay was perfectly willing to edit under a fictitious identity. I think it's a reasonable question to wonder if he stopped with one, and if he didn't stop with one why not have one nominate another? I can assure everyone I am not an Essjay sockpuppet (Rick Block is my real name and it would not be difficult for me to prove this - although if I were an Essjay sockpuppet I'd probably say this), but the pernicious nature of this particular kind of fraud may lead folks to wonder. Perhaps "calls into question everything that he did" goes a little too far - for example, his actions as bureaucrat had a transparency to them that would have exposed any wrongdoing - but there are any number of other things that we might not want to take at face value. The flip side of this is Occam's razor may argue his identity was his only deception. In any event, thanks for the nice comments, even the dumbass ones. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is skilled enough to make a sockpuppet with your level of involvement, especially if they have another, very high profile, account. And if people have such amazing sockpuppetry skills, there are other people who are much more likely to be sockpuppets. For instance, in the mailing list a couple months back, someone made a joking comment that I am a sockpuppet because I don't do any article writing. I'm actually surprised nobody has seriously advanced that, because it's actually something people might say. And I've managed to go completely off on a tangent. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this situation is reminding me of a certain award... bibliomaniac15 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things: 1. Though I'm shocked at some of the things that have come out recently, I can still reconcile them with the Essjay I know, because I think of them as an initially minor deception that got out of hand; I cannot reconcile the scenario you describe, Rick, with the Essjay I know. Of Essjay's many thousands of edits, we know of a few that could be considered bad-faith. It seems likeliest (as you suggest with your Occam's razor comment) that the ones there are we know about. 2. The hypothetical scenario of someone running a convincing good-guy account and a no-good sockpuppet simultaneously has frequently been suggested, but there's no evidence it's been done, and as Amarkov says above, it would take someone of tremendous skill and pathological deviousness. Karmafist, who's awfully smart, tried to do it and couldn't pull it off. Chick Bowen 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Considering that Essjaay used meatpuppetry to gain Bureaucratship, I would call into question any admins he nominated as possible socks. —M (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG ONE SUPPORT VOTE! Even if he was a meat/sockpuppet, which nobody has actually proved, a single support vote from a user with 5 edits does not change the course of a RfB. -Amarkov moo! 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It was never proved that he did use a meatpuppet, it could be Essjay's lover, we would never know, WP:AGF Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How many other votes were from SPAs? BTW, it's impossible for anyone to assume good faith with Essjay anymore. —M (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an extremely unprofitable and unhelpful speculation. Newyorkbrad 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Rick was co-nominated by Essjay and myself. I am who I say I am! -- Sam_{uel Wantman} 09:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Scheduled to end" time in an RFA exactly that, a "schedule" - meaning that it is an approximate value to be used as a guide, or is if a "hard deadline" meaning that no further discussion is allowed. I am asking this as a result of seeing this edit. For this RFA, I suppose it could be that there is no 'crat available to perform the close, or the crats could be purposely allowing more time for comment, as the % is currently borderline. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be against a hard deadline. See also Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Closure. Garion96 (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's approximate for the reasons that there may either be no 'crats around to close it, or it needs more time. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• In this case there was a bureaucrat around 8 minutes after it closed. Not that a bureaucrat should be FORCED to check RfA before signing off of course. Still... --Durin 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed at length after my second (failed) RfA, which wasn't closed until 36 hours after its initial end date. Votes can be posted until the discussion is closed by a bureaucrat. Whether it's overdue because the crat decided to let it continue or simply because nobody was around to close it (both of which were the case for mine), editors may continue to voice their opinions. Hard deadlines are bad. Kafziel ^Talk 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While hard deadlines are not our tradition here, I believe our tradition should change. Please see my comment above in the related thread. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to any hard deadlines. Would that mean votes which come in after the deadline are ignored? This is pure instruction creep, should go to the same bin as the proposal limiting suffrage and the proposal meant to "educate" people about how to vote. Absolutely unnecessary, burdensome for people involved, and hard to enforce. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to enforce. At the end of 7 days, simply add archival templates so people stop editing. Then have crat(s) come back and convert it to pass or fail once a decision has been made. Dragons flight 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point (I should have read the actual comment above first). The question which remains is whether this is necessary. I find UninvitedCompany's argument that the non-constant number of votes makes it harder for bureaucrats to promote unconvincing. I would be opposed to such a rule unless there are solid arguments as to why it is necessary. Otherwise it is a rule for its own sake. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that it makes it harder for bureaucrats to promote. The problem is that it incentivizes the bureaucrats to close a close nomination without discussing it with other bureaucrats (except perhaps those who can be reached immediately e.g. on IRC), because the changing support percentage likely to occur if the vote is held open for a day while discussions with other bureaucrats take place is likely to make said discussion moot. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To repeat something, roughly, out of the discussion Kafziel linked to, RfAs are for determining the way the community feels about a particular user being given the admin tools, not about the process of voting. If a BCrat isn't around for a little while and more people say how they feel, that is not a bad thing. It actually makes the results more accurate. -- The Hybrid 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, it would auger for extending the comment period to, say, ten or fourteen days. In close cases, the support percentage will tend to decline when votes are added after the deadline. I don't believe the extra oppose votes have the effect of improving the overall quality of the decisions. RFA is, at this juncture, very much about the process of voting, not one of people saying how they feel. The impact of extra time is more votes, not more opinions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this has been covered before, but could RfBs be listed above the RfAs? There's usually a gaggle of RfAs and with my small screen, I wouldn't notice an RfB listing without scrolling down. (Indeed, it seems I've missed a few recently). --Dweller 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Noticing RFBs is one of the things my summary is good for. Dragons flight 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason your summary isn't on the RfA page? I usually go to the WP:BN page to view.↔NMajdan•talk 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The summary was added before and quickly ripped out. I think there was a second attempt too. --Durin 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I honestly don't care whether or not my summary (or anyone else's) appears on the RFA page or not. Which is to say, whatever other people want is fine by me. As a point of clarification, I only mentioned my summary rather than the one at BN by Tangotango because the latter does not include RFBs. Dragons flight 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but no-one's really addressed whether or not my suggestion is a good one. Maybe it stinks. Happy to be told! :-) --Dweller 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is fine at the bottom. There are fewer of them so it is normally empty so why put it at the top? If you're concerned about missing them just pay more attention to the TOC box as they would be listed there as well.↔NMajdan•talk 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I wasn't clear in my first post. My screen size means that I see only the top part of the TOC box, which is always log-jammed with RfAs. I won't see RfBs unless I scroll down. Vice-versa, the problem wouldn't exist, as we get so few RfBs. --Dweller 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The RfB belongs at the bottom I think. That section is empty most of the time, and it just would be a distraction on top. Logically it belongs at the bottom too, this page is primarily about requests for adminship, not bureaucratship. I understand your inconvenince with the small screen, but I think there are better reasons for keeping the RfB part down though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An alternative would be to put up sort of brief note/banner (one line, different background) at the top of the page whenever (and it's rarely) there is an RfB in process. Perhaps someone could mock up something for consideration? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Alternatively, RfB could have its own page (WP:RFB?), which would crop up on watchlists whenever there's a change (though I'm guessing that's so obvious an idea that it's already been discussed/discounted). --Dweller 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be very, very rarely used though. I think it's just a case of checking the contents page regularly. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly and would like to say that many people might not check it because of the lack of candidates and thus wouldn't vote on them when they do come. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

<coming back here> That's the problem I'm identifying with their current position at the RfA page. Because the RfBs come low down, I don't notice them. Perhaps I'm a muppet and just should stop being so slapdash, but it's my guess others do the same. No-one has yet presented a good argument (IMHO!) as to why we shouldn't list the RfBs first. They're hardly going to be an encumbrance... if we reach a day when we have more than one or two simultaneously, a) I'll be surprised and b) we can reconsider the wisdom of this. --Dweller 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought Oleg's response summed it up.↔NMajdan•talk 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess "because A comes before B" isn't a good reason then? Cbrown1023 talk 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the recent cases of the Yanksox wheel war and the Essjay controversy, is anyone still under the naive impression that adminship is, to quote the founder, "no big deal?" —M (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not being a big deal doesn't mean it can't be abused, nor does it mean that it shouldn't be removed if you do abuse it. And if Essjay were just an administrator, then nobody would have cared. But he was also a bureaucrat. And Oversight. And Checkuser. And Arbcom member. And he probably had some permission I don't even know about. And he was a press representative for Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Malber, you may wish to rephrase your statment: one might interpret it to mean that Mr. Wales is naïve. Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• As the promotion rate of admins ever continues to decline, as the burden of admin function usage per admin continues to increase, the notion that adminship is not a big deal gets trashed. The inherent paradox, the big elephant problem in this is that we need admins to help run the project and it was never supposed to be treated like it is today. RfA has lost its way. Badly. --Durin 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but looking at the current RfAs, every candidate has at least 90% support. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but still not a sign that RfA is the horrific trial that it's sometimes made out to be. ChazBeckett 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, not near horrific as WP:FAC :) .↔NMajdan•talk 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry folks, but there's blatant evidence based on the data at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination data that shows otherwise. Anecdotal "it looks ok now!" doesn't undermine that data. Standards are rising, and I noticed the last time I looked that not only are they rising, the delta is increasing as well. The promotion rate is dropping too. We already showed that the admin load had doubled. --Durin 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if we mean by "standards", "edit counts", then sure, they rise over time. More automated tools are available than I know the trendy names for, more people spend more time bashing vandals of which there are more etc. None of these actually require any greater personal/wikipedic/adminly development on the part of the possessor of the higher edit count. And I should say, as I have before, that I really cannot accept the drawing of a straight line through that green curve; in Dec 2006, it had the same value as any number of preceding months! Now this is not to say that other, essentially immeasurable standards may not have risen, but the reportable rises report only those that can be reported.Splash - tk 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, my thoughts on the "no big deal" statement are that since the requirements are rising, adminship is beginning to defy the page saying what it is not and is becoming a trophy to earn and achieve by going through the great process of RfA and what you need to do before to prepare. Also, another thought about the "not a trophy" part is that when I first learned about RfA, I immediately wanted to be an admin. I almost submitted a request, but then I saw the oppose votes in RfA and the talking about people not being good enough for adminship and it scared me away from submitting. This caused me to think that adminship was the epitome of being on Wikipedia and only the privleged, elite, and supremely immpressive users can have it. That was my vision of adminship when I was a noobie and I most certainly thought then (and still do now) that adminship is definately a big deal. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem i see is that Adminship can't possibly be "no big deal" unless De-Adminship becomes a "no big deal" thing. People can say it's "no big deal", but people consider it a big deal because adminiship is more or less a one-way street. Once you're an admin, you have to do something VERY bad before you get de-admined. People can fail an RfA for very minor reasons, where as there's no way someone who's already an admin would get de-admined for those same reasons.

Therefore, it's no surprised that people are harsh on RfAs. It's simply a matter of being "better safe than sorry". If it was easier for someone to lose sysop powers, and if it was less of a big deal, then i think people would be more willing to give other editors a go at the admin business. But given that it's almost impossible to get someone de-admined unless they do something REALLY bad (and in most cases bad enough to be blocked/banned anyway), i guess people just consider it not worth the risk. --`/aksha 09:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is not big deal, as it does not convey any special authority, only ability. De-admining is a big deal because it is usually the result of a breach of trust. Like a janitor that uses his keys to steal change from lockers getting caught and fired is a big deal, but hiring a janitor is not a big deal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed Yaksha's point... If the system says the janitor will only be removed if they do something really bad, or the janitor is being hired for a high-security position and has potential to do a lot of harm (think an airport), then hiring a janitor certainly is a big deal. -- Renesis (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except there is nothing about an admin that makes it high security. Oversight, yes. Checkuser, yes. Not admin. Viewing deleted pages isn't a special case of security. If there's anything damaging in a deleted page, it gets oversighted. --Durin 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily mean that kind of security... I think admins have a lot of responsibility to be careful not to harm other users. A lot of actions that admins can take can harm our editors, including blocks, threats of protection to solve disputes, and general incivility using their perceived rank. These actions can do a lot of damage to the real foundation of Wikipedia - the editors creating it. -- Renesis (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you give out the admin bit liberally, you remove the rank aspect of it entirely. That's part of the problem; adminship has been turned into a "rank" that is sought by people. Look at Wikipedia:Admin coaching. People need coaches in order to be trusted with tools? *boggle* If adminship were sent back to being no big deal, this problem would evaporate. --Durin 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are complaints about a gridlocked circle here, and unfortunately they are true. People can't be less harsh until there's a reasonable method for desysopping, or too many people who don't do well will slip through, with no guarantee there will be a way to remove them. But at the same time, people can't set up an easier method for desysopping until RfA is less harsh, or people who were once desysopped might never be able to be an admin again, even if the intent was just to show they weren't ready yet. Both sides are perfectly reasonable, so something is going to have to break before anything happens. Unfortunately, when this was easy to change, there was no need for an easier desysopping process than Arbcom, so nobody bothered to make one. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should have considerable faith that ArbCom and/or Jimbo can come up with an efficient, workable desysopping process if it becomes a problem. I think people are operating under the failed notion that what an admin can do is tremendously more bad than what a user can do to Wikipedia. Take comparison; newbie user blanks a page (this effectively deletes it, if temporarily). What happens? Someone comes along and undeletes it. Ok, let's say an admin goes rogue and deletes something. OH MY GOD IT WAS DELETED! Except, it too can be undeleted. There isn't anything...anything...that an admin can do that can not be undone. Why the fear? It just doesn't make any sense. If an admin goes nuts and starts whacking things (users, images, pages) seriously out of process, then another admin can warn them, just like we'd warn a user blanking pages. If they refuse to abide by the warnings, we block them. If they unblock themselves, off to ArbCom they go and *whack* they get de-adminned. This isn't brain surgery. The admin buttons aren't important. So you can delete things. Big whoop. So you can rollback, yawn...we've got what, dozens of tools that can do that now? So you can protect. Uh, wow <cough>. --Durin 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Per my comment above, you are thinking about it from a very technical perspective. The community damage that admins can (and, in too many cases, do) cause can't be undone. -- Renesis (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could you cite some examples? Maybe there are. I just don't see how an admin can do something that either (a) can't be undone or (b) can't be done by a regular non-admin. --Durin 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree very much with substantially all of Durin's comments above. There was a period of some months during which there wasn't any effective way to deal with misuse of adminship. That period ended over a year ago, and the Arbitration Committee has shown a willingness to deal with actual cases serious misuse in an effective manner. There are, inevitably, going to be some bad admins who manage to slip through RFA, and the ever-increasing standards aren't going to change that. The higher standards adopted over time aren't demonstrably more selective, they result in an equally higher barrier for both good and bad candidates. Look at Yanksox' RFA - the !votes ran 104/4/7 and he had 8200 edits. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although being a sysop does not give you any higher authority, it is in ways a big deal because the extra tools could potentially seriously damage wikipedia, however I do agree with Jimbo's statement on another page.Regards - Tellyaddict 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• What serious damage? Everything, everything, that an admin can do is undoable. Block someone? You can unblock. Deleted an article? Undelete. Delete an image? Undelete. Protect a page? Unprotect. If an admin went insane and started mass deleting articles they would be blocked faster than a rabbit can run from a rabid dog. No serious damage would happen, and it would all be undone in rapid fashion. --Durin 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are ways that an admin can do serious harm (I can think of one that would need huge amounts of labour by sysops to fix or intervention by the developers for 1 minute of attack), but I'm not going to state for the sake of BEANS.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, objections to admin candidates rarely occurs based on worries that we don't know if they will be directly malicious with the tools but experience or competence. It is accurate to say someone acting in good faith cannot do much harm with the admin tools. JoshuaZ 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While technical harm is revertible and can be stopped quickly, an admin acting in good faith but with poor policy experience or a short temper for criticism can cause much more drama than a regular user. —dgies^t_c 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you remove the aspects of adminship having essence of rank and privilege, that vanishes. Admin should be renamed "janitor", and bureaucrat "minimum wage civil functionary" :) --Durin 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nilfanion and I discussed the potential serious damage issue that was best not to discuss in a public forum. He and I agreed on a way that could be handled, if it happened, such that the damage would be minimal. It's a low likelihood event in any respect. --Durin 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The only serious damage I can think of is if an admin unprotected the main page or something else highly visible. Of course it would be undone in a minute but a lot of wikipedia's credibility would be lost. Images of penises (is that the correct plural?) would fill the main page for a short while but no lasting damage can be done. I agree that all admin actions are undoable and serious damage is impossible. James086^Talk 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They've already been there, and it wasn't unprotected. That led to cascading protection's coming. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A user above said that if an admin goes on a rampage they could just be blocked. They cannot just be blocked.. They must be de-sysopped. Admins can unblock themselves (though they're not supposed to, but try telling that to an admin going crazy). --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are nearly always stewards available should such a thing happen. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct your attention to the speed at which Essjay was desysopped on meta (see "Requests for permissions" archives). Cbrown1023 talk 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is basically always a steward available for contact via IRC, if an emergency was to occur. Daniel Bryant 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

#wikimedia-stewards (or something like that :)) is probably the best place to find them (if you one you know isn't on). Cbrown1023 talk 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about how much power admin-ship *actually* has, or how much damage a pissed off admin *actually* can do. This is about how people (in this case the voters) percieve it. You can argue that with the wiki system we have, admins don't have any real power or special authority. Maybe you are right. But it doesn't matter if a lot of people still feel admin-ship is very powerful. A lot of people see adminship as a badge of authority (which it isn't really), proof of community trust (which it sort of is), and a sign that an editor is experienced and understands the wiki system. People also have a general perception that an pissed off admin who wants to wreck havoc can do quite some damage. Perhaps they're right, perhaps they're not, but it's a hard thing to prove.

It's hard to convince people at large to lower the standards for granting admin-ship when people rarely ever see people losing admin-ship (and even when it does happen, there's usually a big fuss kicked up about it). Perhaps that's because not many admins do bad things, and therefore we don't have many admins we need to demote. But the point is, there's a lot of attention to this getting-adminship deal, but the whole losing-adminship thing seems to be something that people don't pay attention to. And that's way i say adminship seems to be a one way street - you pass and you're an admin for good unless you do something really bad. --`/aksha 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To comment on Yaksha's statement, until I read this section of this very talk page, I thought admins were more aristocrats than janitors. There are probably others with the aristocrat theory in mind as well... Captain panda In vino veritas 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to observe that the 75%-80% threshold was never arrived at with any particular degree of analysis or discussion. It dates to a time when it was rare for there to be more than ten total votes cast in an RFA. User:Angela, for example, was made an admin on the strength of three support votes and no opposes. With so few voters and an environment where all the voters knew each other, there was far more pressure to work towards consensus and withdraw objections. Also, the early RFA environment focused mainly on readiness: candidates were not so much rejected as encouraged to wait another month or two. Some early RFA pages may be insightful in understanding the evolution of the process.

In general, at the time the promotion threshold was adopted, it was rare for RFAs to end up being close calls, and so the figure was chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Now the RFA process is essentially a voting system, where no real consensus building takes place (in the sense of people changing their opinions in response to what others have shared). So, the promotion threshold is important. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that users whose RFA pass with 75% are any more likely to pose a problem for the project than users whose RFAs pass with over 90% support. A review of the rare instances where the Arbcom has sanctioned administrators does not show any pattern in this area.

Accordingly, I would like to suggest that, as a community, we work towards a consensus to change the promotion threshold to 65%-70%.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing that's making me not be overly fond of this idea is that it is possible for over a third of the people commenting on the RfA to oppose it, but it still pass. I realise that's just a statistic, but it's a bit worrying, I think. However, your proposal is well thought out and I will give it some further thought before passing judgement on it myself. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like also to hear some rational for why it should be 65-70 specifically. You say that the "75%-80% threshold was never arrived at with any particular degree of analysis " but I don't see any analysis backing up your number. JoshuaZ 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It works on the German Wikipedia, which requires a 2/3 majority. Kusma (t) 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the German Wikipedia require people to renew their RFA? If we had something like that, then I'd support dropping the threshold below 75%, but not otherwise. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They have a formal recall and temporary desysopping process, which can require people to go through a new RFA. They do not renew the RFAs of admins that nobody complains about. Kusma (t) 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have stats on how many RfAs had 65-75% support? It think it would be worth examining these candidates as examples of who would have passed with lower standards, but failed under the current ones. ChazBeckett 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Assumming no one beats me to it, I could easily work out the change in the number of passes for any arbitrary threshold when I get home this evening. (Of course, one factor that one can't really account for is how people might change there voting patterns in response to a change in the threshold.) Dragons flight 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal, which drops support ratios needed to pass from approximately 3-4:1 to below 2:1. -- Renesis (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this proposal, which drops support ratios needed to pass from approximately 3-4:1 to below 2:1. We do not have enough administrators, and this is a quick way to allow more people to pass this process. Do you have a better suggestion how we can increase the promotion rates? I doubt that any easier solution than changing the threshold exists. Kusma (t) 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure we don't have enough? While it has been demonstrated that workload has increased, I'm not sure anyone has demonstrated that we don't have "enough", and I don't believe this to be the case. I think the current growth rate of administrators is satisfactory-to-good. -- Renesis (talk)

We promote as many per month as we did three years ago. The number of admins grows linearly, the workload grows exponentially. See Malthusian catastrophe. Kusma (t) 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that administrators "sanctioned by the Arbcom" are not the only ones causing problems. -- Renesis (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't 2/3 be appropriate? Even a 2/3 consensus would hardly pose a problem for the project in a general sense. It would however, give less weight to those who oppose as a result of personal bias' which sometimes can be arbitrary to the majority consensus. Why keep the few who think 5, 6 or 7 thousand edits aren't enough, stop an otherwise good editor from being able to help the project in a higher capacity. Serious issues with a canididates qualification would come out in the RfA any ways, and like many RfA's, consenus can change due to these issues. IMHO--Hu12 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that would be a problem, but it's not the case. How often do "a few who think 5, 6, or 7 thousand edits aren't enough" bring an RFA down to 75% but above 65%? If there are any RFAs that end up in that range, it is usually because of more serious problems, like civility. And that, to me, is one of the most important qualities of an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Support of 66% might be appropriate, but isn't just as arbitrary as 75%? Before we make any modifications to a generally accepted range, we should at least have some confidence that the new level is better. Trading one arbritrary standard for another doesn't seem like a wise decision. I'd like to see some analysis before supporting or opposing this proposal. ChazBeckett 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's arbitrary. Right now we have a dynamic where oppose votes are being given way too much weight. I have for some time sensed a power dynamic in failing RFA nominations. People come towards the end to a borderline nomination and realize that an "oppose" vote may well be a deciding vote but a "support" vote will not be. It's tempting to be the one who tips the scales. The oppose voters aren't trying to convince the support voters of anything because they don't have to. Lowering the promotion threshold would change this and increase the importance of convincing others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever arbitrary % levels that we wish to assign, the promotion rates will be largely unaffected in the long run. The problem isn't in the thresholds. The problem is in the perception that admins are held up to be god-like figures, and they are a truly separate class from other users. Further, that since there's not an *immediate* way available *right now* to stop someone from being an admin (other than steward) we just can't possibly reduce our standards here because then really bad admins would get through. You know, people like Karmafist (passed first RfA 53-2), NSLE (passed first RfA 71-1, and Yanksox (passed first RfA 104-4). Good thing we had the RfA system in place that we do, else they would have been made admins and we would have been in a real pickle! (apologies to those three people...I do not mean to say they are bad, but rather that RfA is singularly failing to filter out those that ArbCom forcibly de-adminned) --Durin 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, irony and all. Any sort of proposal that doesn't allow the broad community to vote for/against admins is rejected, and absent that, there isn't much we can do other than tinker with what we have. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think tinkering with what we have is going to lead us out of this mess. The pot keeps getting hotter, and far too many people essentially say "What problem?". --Durin 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a logical fallacy here. It doesn't follow that because three admins were promoted with strong support and later deadmined, that there is any conclusion that can be drawn regarding whether there would have been many "bad" admins that barely weren't promoted. The observation does not logically lead to the conclusion. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The point I was trying to make is that there is no apparent correlation between support percentage and ultimate performance once adminship is granted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

This is entirely unfair. We couldn't possibly have desysopped people who were not admins. That there are desysoppings is an inherent nature of the fact that we have sysops. Removal of that access right would continue completely regardless of what 'fixed' system we institued in place of the RfA that is currently producing so very many bad apples at such an alarmingly high rate as 12/1100/3 years... Splash - tk 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that something different needs to be done in the accounting of the "Neutral" votes. A large number of people have a tendency to vote neutral, when in fact they mean "I oppose, but I don't want to hurt your feelings." Right now, neutrals are factored out entirely as if the person made no vote at all. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What difference do you (Uninvited) perceive this causing though? How did you arrive at those particular numbers? Do they solve something, or are we just trying to lessen the weight of those hateful opposers? Splash - tk 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is the current system is incapable of weeding out "bad" admins (assume for the moment that "bad"=forcible de-adminned). Let's look at the cases of "bad" admins, and their RfAs (all such RfAs where there's a record of their adminship application at WP:RFA; some predate RfA and are not listed here):

• User:Freestylefrappe (Passed on second RfA), 38-11.
• User:Karmafist (RfA), 53-2
• User:Carnildo (RfA), 40-4
• User:Jtkiefer (Passed on second RfA), 43-3
• User:Everyking (RfA, 19-1
• User:NSLE ([[4]]), 71-1
• User:Marudubshinki (RfA), 21-3
• User:MONGO (RfA), 58-14
• User:Seabhcan (RfA), 22-2
• User:Husnock (RfA), 43-2
• User:Yanksox (RfA), 104-4
• User:Geni (RfA), 17-5

That's 12 admins forcibly deadminned for which we have RfA records. Of these 12, only 2 of these fell into the normal bureaucrat discretion range of 75-80% (all admins above 80% on their RfAs have been promoted). 2. That's it. 8 of the 12 got >90%. If anyone still holds the notion that RfA is doing a good job of filtering out potentially bad candidates, and thus we need to keep the standards high, it's terribly flawed reason. RfA does a very poor job of filtering out bad candidates, at least by these above measures. --Durin 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, a logical fallacy. How about you consider 1,141 admins, 12 desysopped. Seems like it's doing an exceptional job if only 1% of the admins that get through are "bad". Again, since we don't have any way to know how those with say greater than 50% support that were not successful would have fared, the conclusions are not supported by the observations. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a logical fallacy: a logical fallacy implies a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. You may be arguing that Durin's argument itself is invalid, but it is not because of the structure, but rather because of Durin's particular interpretation of the statistics. It is the difference between opinion and logic: you are of the opinion that Durin's argument is invalid; if Durin's argument were fallacious, it would be invalid, no questions asked. --Iamunknown 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to increase the bureaucrat discretion range, but I think it should be expanded in both ways. What do you think that nominations ending on 60-90% is in the scrutiny of the bureaucrats? So a bcrat could fail a nom with 85%, and pass a nom with 65% etc... _→AzaToth 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While I think that some additional discretion would be good, too much discretion will mean that we need a dispute resolution process for RfA (much as DRV is for XfD). —Doug Bell ^talk 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing discretion and controversy

• At the German Wikipedia (the second largest by edit count), there is no bureaucrat discretion. It's 66% up/down vote with suffrage requirements. I had extensive discussions with two people familiar with their RfA and the adminship pool in general there yesterday. In general, the adminship pool is regarded pretty well. They do have de-adminships, but they do so without any functioning ArbCom, and no Jimbo stepping in either, and it is rare.
• Interestingly, if you look at the history of this talk page, we get about 31 edits to this page per day (judging by the last 5000 edits). There, with 1/5th the number of admins, and 1/3rd the number of articles, they have 1/10th of the traffic (under 3 edits per day) at their RfA. There seems to be considerably less controversy there. --Durin 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• An interesting little paradox that I see at this version of RfA is that we have a very, very limited pool of bureaucrats. We expect ultra-high standards from them to pass RfB, and expect all power of determining consensus for single RfAs to be vested in single bureaucrats to act on their own, independent of each other. Then, we go apeshit crazy when a bureaucrat makes a decision that some think is against consensus. And we're surprised about this?
• The bureaucrats aren't any better at determining who will make a great admin or not better than anyone else here. The arguments presented with respect to a candidate at RfA are never enough to predict the future. Further, support votes in the vast majority express no particular evidence or opinion other than "support". So, what the bureaucrats are given to work with anyways is very, very limited. And again, the paradox; we complain when bureaucrats do something we don't like.
• People here are very bound up with the idea that RfA in its current form is something sacred, to be revered, and nothing...not any other system...could possibly do that which it needs to do. It's shocking that the other language wikipedias have miraculously managed to live on despite the obvious rampant problems their RfA system have which are direct, ongoing threats to their very existence since bureaucrats aren't entrusted to exercise discretion. --Durin 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The "bureaucrat discretion," to the extent it exists at all, is another artifact. The way it used to work was that there was no concept of "closing" a nomination. Developers would occasionally look through the page and make promotions, noting this fact on the page. Any decision not to promote was tacit. Others would then archive the page eventually. At first, the bureaucrats were like that too, and there was no expectation that an RFA would close at a particular time, just that they would be left open for at least 7 days. Bureaucrats would promote whoever they felt met the threshold, and didn't remove "failed" nominations. That changed around the point when Cecropia became highly involved, at which time the concept that bureaucrats were supposed to "close" failing nominations gained currency. Before long, it became tradition that only bureaucrats could "close" failing nominations, and that's where we are now. When the percentages started to govern, the "discretion" range was a tip of the hat towards m:Voting is evil. We should get rid of it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with many of the points Durin and UninvitedCompany are making here. The exceptional pace at which we are filling up the WT:RFA archives isn't really bearing useful fruit for the Wikipedia project. So at that point why not just eliminate all the controversy and go with a straight vote, perhaps except for discounting disruption such as sockpuppets. The current system does seem to be working as a %1 "failure" rate is about as good as you can get in a human process considering it is impossible to fully predict the future. And while I do currently put a large amount of effort into the few RfA's that are close to the discretionary range to weight the arguments, look for disruption, etc, I can't point to any hard evidence that the end result is substantially better than a straight up down vote, nor that anyone could make it so. But with the evidence that we are significantly wasting edits and time on controversy that we don't need, and no evidence that the result is substantially better, perhaps that means we should eliminate it. But since any threshold is essentially arbitrary, we could just stick with the 75% we have now or move to 66%. I don't see it making much difference which number is chosen. Then the few bad apples that do make it through (and they will in any system) can be dealt with as needed. - Taxman ^Talk 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is made into a straight vote, I believe that also would address a large problem with RFB. Namely, that people are scared of making more bureaucrats because of the potential impact a bureaucrat might have via his "discretion". If the expectation is fixed and rigid then there is a lot less ambiguity about what is appropriate. Dragons flight 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think the failure rate of this process is much higher than 1%, unless you feel that promoting qualified candidates is not one of the goals here. In fact, on nominations in the 70-75% range the failure rate is probably closer to 100% than 0%. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following table is based on the closing support percentage for 650 RFAs occuring during the last year. Dragons flight 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So if everything stayed the same, moving from a ~75% threshold to a 66% threshold would increase the number of successful RFAs by about 20% (ie. (49-41)/41). Dragons flight 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good analysis. I think changing the threshold would change voting patterns somewhat, both by discouraging "power votes" (i.e. oppose votes towards the end that sink a nomination) and by encouraging the "mild oppose" voters to actually oppose rather than declare themselves neutral. I would like to believe that this would not change the overall figures that much but would improve the quality of the decisionmaking. (I also realize that this is probably wishful thinking). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had two proposals very recently, one to decrease the threshold to 70% (so very similar to this one), and second one to use voting on a subpage to decide if to adopt any given RfA proposal (since plain discussions by themselves never lead anywhere). So, I propose that we have a formal vote on a subpage as to whether to lower the threshold, and if that fails, let's not resurrect this threshold lowering proposal again. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

One potential issue I see with the straight vote is the "Esperanza effect". You get a block of people that vote for their friends and those votes can overwhelm any reasonable opposition. Maybe this is more of a perceived problem than a real one, but I definitely had the sense for a while there that the Esperanza effect was not only real, but was getting to the point where it might start promoting poor candidates against community consensus. I like the safety valve of the bureaucratic discretion if for no other reason than to dissuade people of the idea that voting blocks would go unchallenged. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that's the idea, but we can't really use it now as it is. There is endless controversy any time anything is done outside the strict numerical guidelines. And the discretionary range is so narrow that we can't really fix many problems now anyway. If the type of thing you are talking about goes on, the best we can do is have people point out that such is happening and if there is general agreement there is a problem with an RfA then we can call for special treatment. That would essentially be the same with or without a discretionary range. The good thing about the way RfA works is people can take into account the reasoning of others and formulate or change their position accordingly. That will still be able to happen. - Taxman ^Talk 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Taxman, Durin, and I are all behind this maybe it's worth a vote. I would suggest that we shoot for a 66% threshold, since it has worked well at de: and there seems to be some support for it here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral and willing to step down/recalled from adminship if the community decides, the reason why chacor voted twice in my rfa was my fault and I apologize for this, Chacor contacted me in IRC right after he opposed my rfa via his NSLE nic, he was that I'm in rfa again, and I was thinking about the chacor account being strange as a new editor finding RFA so quick, I guessed NSLE was chacor so he said don't tell anyone and that he will use his NSLE account to support and cancel out the vote, I should have declined, but i wasn't really paying attention to the rfa anyways (had major arm surgery a few days back and was under the effect of painkillers and typing with one hand) so I ignored it, i wasn't following the rfa much thinking it was going to be another failure, it was nothing to do with blackmail and that kind of crap, it was Chacor decision. Sorry about this and I'll be willing to step-down from adminship and try again in several months if asked. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now the main opposition from chacor rfa is that he double voted twice in my rfa back in June under 2 different accounts. Because I knew about it during the rfa, I'll be willing to get recalled and try RFA again in several months. I want the community decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Whatever. Doesn't bother me. I might care more if he used two accounts to support you, but he used one to oppose and one to support (...). Opposes are given much more weight than supports, and you passed. To my knowledge you've been a good admin (which is really the only thing that matters). Summary: let's move on. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. We need more admins not fewer. You've done a good job and that speaks for itself. I think the apology is sufficient. If you feel penance is necessary, feel free to clear out some of the backlog at CAT:CSD. WjBscribe 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bbatsell and WJB: this is not worth revisiting. Bucketsofg 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, so one user cast a fraudulent oppose vote, but when you found out, rather than tell others, you let it slide when he countered it with a support? I suppose you could have called NSLE out for using sockpuppets, but I can understand not wanting to create huge drama in the middle of an RfA based solely on IRC claims and someone else's misdeeds. In the end, if anything the nonsense hurt your chances so I don't see a reason to overturn the RfA. —dgies^t_c 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The votes wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of the RfA and who would have believed you half way through an RfA declaring an oppose voter to be a sockpuppet of a (at the time) respected admin ? -- Nick ^t 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we really have too many? Perhaps we should simplify the system to basic principles, a) Can we trust this user, b) Does the user want to help Wikipedia as a sysop? Perhaps an RfC type style would be more better for RfA, e.g:

 == Do you trust [..] and why? ==
 * Because xyz has exerted very good knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies I have the utmost trust in xyz. ~~~~
 * I can not trust this user as he was recently blocked for vandalism. ~~~~

 == How do you think xyz can help Wikipedia? ==
 * Indeed I do, I believe he would be very helpful at [[WP:RFPP]] being able to un-/protect pages [..] ~~~~
 * No I don't. The user does not exhibit any requirement for the buttons. ~~~~

 == Do you believe xyz having sysop abilities would benefit Wikipedia? ==
 * Yes, I do. Allowing xyz the buttons would greatly benefit Wikipedia, xyz has shown commitment to the project, thus I have no reason to believe the promotion would not benefit Wikipedia. ~~~~
 * No I do not, I believe it would be a mistake to give a past vandal the buttons. ~~~~

An example of three questions, each with an example answer for an RfA, positive and negative. A system like this would make it more a consensus building discussion and make it much more easy for our bureaucrats to make the decision to promote, or not. Finally it would also enable us to phase out percentages. Matthew 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually like this idea a lot. The only thing I would do is add "yes", "no", and "other" subsections to each question, to make it more easier to sort. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is how I usually look at a candidate now. I am not as concerned about the person actually using the sysop tool as I am about the person being a trusted user. Surely, if a person is nominated, they will use the tools at some point or another. Given the backlogs that currently exist, more admins are needed. I, personally, I get irritated at the backlog at places like Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and currently there is a longer-than-average backlog at Category:CSD. How do you think this format would affect community involvement in the RfA process?↔NMajdan•talk 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only really see benefits, we must emphasize Wikipedia is built-upon discussion and consensus and not voting, presently we have supports/opposes and neutrals that give no reason as to why they take said action, I believe we'd see less of this. Also I do believe community involvement would be more productive if we could operate like this, finally it would be less about "supporting" or "opposing", but rather stating feelings and reasoning, thus the scenario of numbers would also be gone and bureaucrats would have an easier job of deciding if the user has community support, or not. Matthew 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a proposed guideline page (maybe "RFA based on question") should be made for the discussion of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

This has been suggested before... Splash - tk 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll advertise this again; anyone who thinks any given proposal to replace RfA is going to garner the approval of the needed supermajority of RfA regulars would be well advised to read, in full, this essay. --Durin 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, and so no system this group can create will be any good. Splash - tk 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I mean to say even if we came up with the perfect system, even if Jesus himself walked in and handed us the cup of RfA salvation, we as a group could not agree that it would be a good solution. --Durin 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As a possible counterexample, might I offer WP:PROD? Radiant is not Jesus (well, probably), but he did offer us an astonishingly good idea. The idea was roundly accepted, the opposition's concerns easily laid to rest and PROD continues to this day to be widely appreciated. Now, RfA group ≠ the AfD group in an exact sense, but in the broader sense, if 'The Group' can see the goodness of the one, then we might hope they could see the goodness of another similar thing in future. The problem you are after might be that we as a group cannot come up with such a solution ourselves, given an assumption that it exists. Splash - tk 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Radiant's a pig. No really! All hail our glorious savior pig! :) Sorry. Just couldn't resist :) Of note; WP:PROD did not replace WP:AFD, it only added to it as another method. The parallel would be considerably closer if we'd replaced WP:AFD with it. --Durin 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And here we go back to my problem. Prod was accepted, yes, but it's incredibly easy to reverse if needed; there doesn't even need to be a discussion on it. However, a proposal to change RfA is harder, because adminship is not easy at all to reverse. I highly doubt any proposal to change it will suceed without an easier process to remove bad admins, even if the bad admins are only theoretical. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That's because people are operating under the failed notion that admins are going to destroy the project or cause serious harm to it. We've been in existence now for 6 years. If an admin was going to cause great harm to the project, it would have happened already. Stop the fear. We can undo what a bad admin does, IF it happens. We're all sitting here in the closet huddled around a flashlight (torch if you prefer) terrified of the closet door opening and the boogeyman getting us if we dare let more people be admins. We've let >1000 people be admins and I don't see any nuclear bombs going off. --Durin 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
            • This is the idea that admins can reverse anything another admin does with sufficiently many mouse clicks, and I'm fairly sure it was set aside earlier on. The sociological damage a bad admin can do is, as some have ably demonstrated, quite high. They can cause much anger, inflame dispute, hand out enforceable threats, violate community norms that are in place to ease the relationship between the 'haves' and 'have-nots', gain significant upper hands over non-admins etc. All these things have happened (no, I'm not going to provide the diffs, since the ArbCom provide a handy store for them!). The 12+ desysoppings are testament to this fact, and there are more prior admins who narrowly avoided being desysopped for their troubles by giving the bit up themselves. The damage a bad admin can do is fundamentally not merely technical, and the reversal of such damage requires more than mouse clicks. In some cases, it costs us good editors or other admins. Splash - tk 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Deletions are easily reversed, and thus Prod is appropriate; admins' actions are easily reversed, and thus a Proposed-adminship-period is also appropriate. --Iamunknown 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While technically almost anything can be reversed on the wiki, as Splash points out, the damage that an admin can do to the community is considerable. Ill-advised blocks are the usual cause of this, although the mere fact that someone is an admin causes any poor behavior on their part to have repercussions that would not otherwise be present, even if said behavior is wholly unrelated to the admin tools. Admins also have access to deleted material which, if handled without discretion, could pose problems. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I believe a system like this could only improve things, firstly while it certainly makes RfA easier, it would, however, also stop possible loose cannons from slipping through the net as the emphasis is on discussion, not numbers. Matthew 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• And there are a few non-trivial things admins can do that are hard to rollback. However, that only matters if the change is so drastic that we're going to start promoting truly malicious admins. Contrary to what some people seem to think, we are not right on the threshold where bad faith people are just barely failing. -Amarkov moo! 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)