Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 101

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.

Mikegodwin's RfA was closed as speedy success in spite of the large number of oppose votes (the tally shows 74%, I hope it is right). It is appropriate that Mike Godwin got the tools. I'd just like to note that, per Cecropia's comment in the RfA, such ill-thought actions where the RfA is submitted even if it did not have to, and then it was closed as a success when it started failing, is bad for process. I don't think this should be repeated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To say it was "closed as success when it started failing" is inaccurate. I informed Florence of the situation, and she decided to act (presumably) as soon as she read my message. I do, however, appreciate your point. --Deskana (banana) 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I trust the timing was a coincidence. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The RfA was a bad idea, it put folks in an impossible situation. A sensible end to a dramagasm. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the proper end. Thanks to Anthere, and for making sure it was marked as a Foundation decision. The fact that it was failing when it was closed just highlights the fact that we should perhaps think twice before posting RfAs. -- Cecropia 00:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On what basis was it "failing"? --

talk

) 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

74% seems to be in the amrgin of promotion, being 1% off of the generally accepted and promoted 75%. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad it has closed as a foundation decision, it really is not a matter of trust as we don't know this person.

(1 == 2)

03:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself :-) He's hardly unknown to everyone! I've known him personally over a decade (which is why I did not vote in the RfA; conflict of interest/prejudiced view). You can trust him. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen so many people trust a lawyer they weren't familiar with (much less one they are). the_undertow ^talk 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you have. Prodego ^talk 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I have seen it all. Thanks! the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just hope for future reference if the Foundation needs to give someone admin access for their job duties, they just do it... let the community know at ANI or Pump, and move on with it. The RFA isn't really necessary as someone (sorry I don't recall who) pointed out; the sysop status ends when the individual leaves the position, as in the case of Danny.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The point was, if they had been elected by the community in a RfA, their sysop bit would not have been removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BradPatrick is still an administrator. He was given the tools as he was the foundation's legal counsel, but he's never given them up. I don't have a problem with that. --Deskana (banana) 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether BradPatrick should have to go through RfA after his resignation was discussed at the time (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 86#RFA for Brad?). Everyone who commented opposed the idea of an RfA as being process for the sake of process. I am inclined to agree. WjBscribe 09:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with WJB here: process for the sake of process is a waste of everybody's time ~

Anthøny

19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone who commented" excludes at least one (now former) user in that discussion. Let's not give the impression of false consensus; had I been there, I'd have agreed with an RFA, since BP was given the tools as part of his job. I'd expect MikeGodwin to go through an RFA if/when he steps down as legal counsel too, for the record. -- nae'blis 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would only expect him to step down if he ceased his employment if I felt it would benefit Wikipedia, if he is doing a good job as admin it would not be helpful.

(1 == 2)

13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that this shouldn't be repeated, but at least someone stepped in before we had to deal with our legal counsel failing RfA and getting sysop tools. It could have been worse, and now he has more incentive to use his adminship sparingly. -128.12.68.95 21:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a few things to say about SNOW closings...

1. I don't think closing them as early as people do is a good idea. RfA can be useful for feedback, even if the RfA is going to fail. Just because it's going to fail doesn't mean it shouldn't run its course, even if not for the full time. It's really important to remember that SNOW isn't policy or a guideline.
2. Secondly, if you're going to do a SNOW closure, please heed the instructions at
   WP:BCRAT
   , because all closed RfAs need to be filed in the archives, which people that do SNOW closures don't always do. Please also make sure you update the tally when you're closing it (I forget this all the time).

--Deskana (banana) 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And, if I may add, make the edit which is so edit-summary-cliched as 'Removing 'Voice your opinion' after closure. I saw one RFA that had that link removed several weeks later, and if thats what people are going to do (rmeove that link) then it should be done at closure. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's difficult enough to get bureaucrats to do that. Getting the general populace to do it? Hmm. --Durin 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Still, we must urge them to do it all the same :| ~
  Anthøny
  20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana. I think the such a removal is only really needed if editors start lobbing mostly insults in the oppose line. I really see nothing wrong with letting someone receive 45 or 50 constructive, polite oppose comments. I realize that is an extreme hypothetical, but you get my drift. Often a snow closure is simply a well meaning, but very inexperienced user. So long as people are not being mean in the discussion, it may benefit the editor to let the RFA hang at least a little longer. Hiberniantears 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is obvious that the RFA is not going to succeed, why bring out the knives? Turn it into an opportunity for constructive criticism and encourage the editor. There is also no need to pile on opposes in these cases, either. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I always close my snowballed RfAs properly (as far as the formatting goes), though I have to plead guilty to not properly archiving them. D'oh...
  As for users getting constructive feedback from an RfA, well, but that's not the primary purpose of the RfA system. Obviously, a proper RfA/RfB that is unsuccessful is an opportunity for constructive criticism (hell, even ones that pass can be), but we shouldn't let an RfA for someone with 200 edits stay open just so they can get feedback; that's what
  editor review is for (that's why {{User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA}} is so handy, if I do say so myself; it gives an editor plenty of alternatives to a spurious RfA). EVula // talk // ☯
  // 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with EVula regarding new users. In a case like that, the RfA can be SNOW'd when someone feels that there is no more constructive criticism to be said, but I believe people should err on the side of caution, rather than erring on the side of closing (which seems to be practice now). --Deskana (banana) 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say archiving, do you mean adding it to the unsuccessful nominations list? That list is way out of date, and {{

P

00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That page is out of date because people don't update it. Not updating it because it's out of date causes a bit of a catch 22 situation. --Deskana (banana) 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But why do we have the list if we have a cat as well? That's why it isn't updated; because there's an easier and more logical way to do it. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The category doesn't tell us the tallies of each RfA, why it was closed (withdrawn, failed, etc.), or show any subsequent successful RfAs (if someone has made five attempts, the category will only show four pages). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through my contribs, and am double-checking every RfA that I've edited (which is most of the recent ones) to see if the failed ones got listed. I'm finding a bunch didn't (and, more surprisingly, I still had about three dozen closed RfAs watchlisted). I'll try to finish up tomorrow night; hopefully the "it's out of date" argument will be much weaker when I'm done. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the interest in Elonka RfA 2 by numerous editors with significant experience, I believe that including an explained reasoning for the closing in Elonka's RfA would be appropriate no matter what the outcome is. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I supported, I have recused myself from closing, however. Andre (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that will be a very close call, and either way will upset someone. I think all RfA's that arent obvious cases should have a reasoning from the closing crat. It stops all those calls of crats basing it on personal judgement, and shows the actual reasoning. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It stops no such calls since as often as not it shows quite clearly that the bureaucrat is indeed basing it on personal judgment. Or what would you call this: "I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him." [1] Haukur 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

P

00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. The promotion rationale for Ryulong was probably a low point in b'crat history and in fact this is precisely why the chat concept has some merit: had Raul made that comment in the chat, someone would have had time to point out to him that it was laughably inappropriate. Of course, in cases such as Elonka's, Gracenotes' and Danny's, any decision is inevitably viewed as catastrophic but making it a collegial decision can minimize the ensuing drama. Or am I being hopelessly optimistic? Pascal.Tesson 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The "minimize the ensuing drama" part may be hopelessly optimistic. Nowadays one can create wiki-soap operas at a whim. You just need another editor, a piece of info, and a talk page. —Kurykh 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your comment deeply offensive and will now block you for a week. :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will promptly unblock.
(it's not real wiki-drama until there's a wheel war. obviously, you need three editors, not two) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Three people create a ménage à trois. —Kurykh 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And four a cabal. MastCell ^Talk 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal.

Oh yeah. Sometimes I forget. :) MastCell ^Talk 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the part where I indef both of you for "wheel warring" and then protect your talk pages, my talk page, disable your e-mails, and post a slanted but strenuously argued thread on AN/I. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the part where you all get unblocked by discussing it on an unlogged IRC channel. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The percentage is now 71%. This is well in the range where nominations fail. While numbers don't tell the whole story, and the bureaucrats have a discretionary range, that one is 75%-80%.

I don't care what the discretionary range is or what particular process is used to close adminships. But whatever system is used, I think it has to be respected and consistently applied. Very few RfAs passed such a low percentage, and almost all of them (if not all indeed) were dubious (including Danny's RfA). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As of this instant it's not 71% anyway. 139 support + 2 neutral changed to support = 141. 59 opposed + 1 neutral changed to opposed = 60. 4 neutral. 141+60+4=205. 141/205=68.8% support. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that neutrals figure into the denominator. I believe it is '(support)/(support+oppose).' I could be wrong. O rly? Ya rly. the_undertow ^talk 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is correct, then the current count makes: 141+61=202, 141/202=69.8%. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Viridae^Talk 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrals are disregarded except in close calls. I think this has slid far enough in the past few days that it is no longer a close call, at least with the current numbers and arguments.--Chaser - T 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here, and say that anything the 'crats consider to be in their discretionary range is by definition a close call. Whether this will end up inside or outside that range I don't predict.

GRBerry

14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not have another Danny incident. I personally supported Elonka and I think she would be an excellent admin. However, the bureaucrats should never promote anyone whose support is below 70% at time of closing. We need to reverse this trend of taking power away from the community and giving it to the bureaucrats. This should be a community decision. Walton^One 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Walton, 99% of RfAs are closed as what you would deem acceptable. Therefore, there can't be a trend. --Deskana (banana) 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

99.9% of people don't die in car accidents. Are you telling me the data set of those that do is too small to see trends? We've had more than 1200 successful RFAs closed and who-knows-how-many unsuccessful. A large percentage being "acceptable" doesn't mean the unacceptable data set isn't large enough to see trends. -- Renesis (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point, probably partially because I didn't word it well. My meaning is that people seem to be afraid of the Danny RfA happening over again. The reason it happened with Danny is because he was an admin before, and as inappropriate as it may have been to promote, I really can't see that happening here. --Deskana (banana) 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You and I probably had different interpretations of Walton's fear. I interpreted it to mean that there seem to have been growing numbers of RFA's closed on a Bureaucrat's "whim" (I would call that a "Ryulong incident", given the closing message on that RFA). I think this point is open for debate. However, I will agree that a specific "Danny" incident is, as you say, unlikely to happen. -- Renesis (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, am I the only one with the feeling that the rule of thumb >80% pass, <75% fail and else think it out has somewhat moved down over the last few months? Even if we set aside Danny's case, I think we've seen an increasing number of RfAs pass close to and under 75% and b'crats have clearly started to show that anything above 70% is still within their discretion range. I hope no one will see this as an attempt to send b'crats a message in favor of Elonka but I feel it would almost be time to update the relevant note in the guide to RfA. I think it's correct to say that a majority of the community has expressed the sentiment that RfA was perhaps a bit too difficult to pass and perhaps this has slowly lowered the bar. In any case, I'd be interested to know what others think on that subject. Pascal.Tesson 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet passed at under 70% and I believe he opposed here. I'd be interested to hear his opinion on the cutoffs. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the interest in Elonka's RfA has just surpassed Danny's RfA... 291,983 bytes in comparison to 288,879 bytes. As said before the argument about percentages, a 'crat chat will probably be needed. --Dark Falls ^talk 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to some of the comments made earlier, I believe that there has been a trend towards giving more power to the bureaucrats. Renesis has correctly interpreted my fear. It's true that 99% of RfAs are not closed in a controversial manner, because 99% of RfAs either clearly succeed or spectacularly fail. But we need to clarify that the bureaucrats' discretionary range does not go any lower than 70%. Anything below 70% is an automatic fail. The only exception would be if a bunch of sockpuppets and/or trolls turned up and made pointless comments (which is why I think we should have a 100-edit threshold for voting on RfAs, as they do on Spanish Wikipedia). Walton^One 14:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic failure? We don't use bots, no such thing is possible. A fail is determined by the first crat that grabs it and calls it that, right? Have we not already had promotions below 70% on the grounds of "Well, I think this candidate will do alright"? I'm fine with crats using lots of discretion, but only if they also use that discretion to remove the bit from those who turned out to be ill suited. So far no crat has ever been willing to do the whole job. Friday (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter of willing, lack of ability. Bureaucrats do not have the ability to undo promotions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a bureaucrat wheel war would get ugly. Captain panda 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're only saying that because it's never been done. Read what the stewards will do- last I checked, they will unpromote based on community consensus if an appropriate representative of the community makes the request. Here, we have perfectly suitable representatives, called crats. If the crats asked a steward to undo a promtion, do you really think the stewards would refuse? Crats are trusted members of our community for this purpose. Friday (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You've all somewhat missed the point of what I was trying to say. The only justifiable reason to make someone a sysop is that they enjoy the full confidence of the community, which is the sovereign body on Wikipedia. Bureaucrats are not the

Jedi Council. They shouldn't decide who should be promoted and who shouldn't. That decision should be left to the community itself. Walton^One

15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine in theory, meaningless in practice. Someone has to judge consensus and actually do the promotion. These people are the crats. There are probably few, if any, editors who enjoy the full confidence of the community. Clearly, there's a line to be drawn somewhere, and we let the crats draw it where they will. Friday (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The RfA has been closed. Looks like the lengthy debate over Wikipedia's schoolyard politics is on its way. — Deckiller 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• [ec] The RfA was closed as no consensus, with no crat-chat. That was entirely anticlimactic. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is not with the closure itself, but the childish behavior of both sides at the expense of Elonka's adminship. This is why it is imperative for users to do one of two things: (1) apply for RfA before being extremely active, or (2) submit a plea for Wikipedia to grow up (fat chance). But alas, Elonka does have plenty of room for political improvement (but so do the scores of people acting like children in both camps). — Deckiller 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec x2) Yeah, what a letdown. But good call from the Cecropia: the RfA had slid down quite a bit towards the end and I don't think there'll be any sort of controversy on the closure. As for Deckiller's comment, I agree that the RfA process might be particularly inept in cases such as Elonka and I really think we should add a "forgive and forget" section to
    WP:AGF. This reminded me a lot of Danny's and Gracenotes' RfAs and we can only hope that such RfAs occur infrequently. Pascal.Tesson
    15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Perhaps I'm being harsh by generalizing with the word "childish" (as many supports and opposes were solid), but WikiPolitics is something that concerns me greatly. — Deckiller 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • See m:wikipolitics. It isn't inherently a bad thing that we have these wiki-political discussions; on the contrary, it's essential that we carefully scrutinise the actions of those who exercise power. Walton^One 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Indeed, which is why I find it very surprising that Orderinchaos' gross lack of judgment is
          being shrugged off so easily. Surely such an incident would have derailed his RfA quicker than you can say "meatpuppet" and I'm not sure he can still claim to have the community's trust. Pascal.Tesson
          17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see RFA !votes being followed by comments on the users' recent inactivity. While on a wikibreak, I too once googled "WP:BN" (out of curiosity, withdrawal, boredom, whatever), saw a name I recognized, and rushed to give my support. Luckily this particular RFA saw zero "Opposes" and no one questioned my input. Users could be following en.wikipedia while editing in other corners of the wikifoundation, or while not editing anywhere at all. A name they are familiar with might prompt them to post a comment (whether pro, con, neutral, or general), inspite of recent inactivity. I don't think anyone with experience regarding a particular candidate should get the feeling that their input isn't welcome, regardless of how active they have been in the immediate past. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with tagging !votes for brand new accounts, but I don't recall seeing anyone tag a comment in the way that you mentioned. Examples? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[2] and [3] brought me here. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Three looks compromised, 4 is just a note, which I would personally not have left. I don't believe this is common practice, except for new accounts. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think in some cases, an editor suddenly appearing with no other recent activity might suggest canvassing, though there certainly should be no presumption that canvassing has occurred (and it is questionable in my mind whether it should have any effect even canvassing is shown, as long as it is not the candidate doing the canvassing). -- DS1953 ^talk 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in either case, this is what we pay promote the bureaucrats for. When you think abotu it though, it's 2 votes out of 200, they probably won't make an impact. I see what both sides are saying though. Wizardman 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[4] wouldn't be considered too highly, since the user makes no mention of the sudden return, and because of the vandalism. However, [5] seems legit to me, since the user noted in their support what's going on, etc. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine the claims of canvassing - is telling an on-wiki friend off-wiki that you are going for a RfA canvassing? I know i'd like to tell my wiki friends (when I get some) if they were on wikibreak. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(<--)Eh? Who canvassed? I see nothing along those lines... Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Just to clarify, I'm not worried about the validity of votes or outcome, and I agree, that's why we have b'crats. If there's a canvassing problem, then it should be addressed directly, not by implication. My concern is with the users who have to face these comments on their inactivity. See it this way, someone's RFA may have triggered a user's first edit in weeks or months. While here, such users might take a glance at their watchlist or other pages they're interested in, and before you know it, they could be back contributing to en.wikipedia. Maybe they already felt disenfranchised or disgruntled when they left - they should feel welcome when they choose to return, whether it's article space, an RFA, an MFD, or Jimbo's talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity should not be commented on a user's "vote" (I rarely, if ever, see any sort of comment of that nature left on a support vote). If the voting editor has a less than amicable history with the nominee in question, that should be noted since it would indicate a biased vote. However, if someone opposes, but has not edited Wikipedia in some time, I do not see it appropriate to discount the quality of their opinion simply because of their lack of involvement with editing Wikipedia in the time prior to voting.(sorry if this reads like psychobabble) --Ozgod 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are great members of the Wikipedia Community. They are users who are trusted with the tools of an administrator, to maintain the value of Wikipedia and many are grateful for this. However they should not feel that they have authority over other users. Please remember that admins are not the police force of Wikipedia.

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

86.138.208.31 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.... I dont get this :).

Ds.mt

12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at contribs... seems to be a drive-by trolling incident. Nothing much. Jimbo's quote is arguably out-of-context nowadays, compared to 2003. – Chacor 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a post from Jimbo from 2003 that's the origin of "Adminship is no big deal" quote. Since this is quoted ad nauseum in RfAs, I don't think its inclusion here adds much. Chaz ^Beckett 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not feed the trolls. Archive it off. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well at least its here, it was originally posted on

Ds.mt

13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's quote here is hopelessly outdated; indeed, if he were to "go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops" these days, I would probably leave in protest at this gross abuse of power and circumvention of the proper processes. Wikipedia is a much bigger community than it was in 2003, and it is essential that we must be governed by community consensus, not by one individual's whim. Also, adminship is much more of a "big deal" than it was in those days; previously, deletions etc. were determined by a straightforward vote, and admins were therefore not as powerful. In today's Wikipedia, there are only two acceptable circumstances to promote someone to adminship; if they have passed RfA successfully, or if they resigned for non-controversial reasons and want their tools restored. Anything else is an abuse of power, no matter who it comes from. Walton^One 13:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda why

Ds.mt

14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think things are working just fine as is. If Jimbo really wants to do that, it is his call, but is has little to do with this talk page.

(1 == 2)

14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he'd do that now - the quote was from 2003. And it isn't "his call". Wikipedia belongs to, and is governed by, the community as a whole. He has no right to override community consensus on matters of admin promotion, which is solely the prerogative of the community. Walton^One 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the blanking of this thread by Deskana, I think that's a bad idea, especially coming from a bureaucrat. Yes, on Wikipedia we can edit things (big difference compared to mailing lists), but that does not mean we should be quick to edit and wipe out discussions from talk pages. Especially that this discussion has its point. Let it get archived in due time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's already been discussed on Deskana's talk page. Walton^One 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you all seem to have misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that the current method for selecting administrators should be changed as it is quite good and conforms with establishing consensus. I was only trying to make a point that many users these days, thrive for adminship simply for the power and authority, while admins should only be standard users of the community with a few extra tools for maintenance. If I was disrupting wikipedia or offendign anyone by starting this discussion, then I do apologise. I do admit that the way I started the discussion was a bit inappropriate and I apologies for this. I also apologise for the change in ip address as it is a dynamic one.81.158.202.40 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO anyone attaining adminship for the "power and authority" is going to be deeply disapointed when they realise it's just some extra buttons after all! (with due respect to all admins and candidates) I'm sorry 81.158.202.40 but I can't see how you are furthering the goals of wikipedia with your comments. They see to just be a vague "attack" at recent succesful (and indeed unsuccesful) admin candidates which is not really pleasent. Pedro |  Chat  15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not attacking recently successful candidates. I am happy for them. Admins do a great job on wikipedia and they are necessarry. But I am making a point of the feelings of authority which develops due to the current ways of wikipedia. As I said before I do not feel that the way admins are selected should be changed. I am simply saying that they should be standard, respected and trusted users with admin tools. And this is stated on Wikipedia:Administrators. If you want me to back off then Ill do so as its clear that alot of people disagree with me and agree that Im just a bug trying to destroy the Wikipedia Community.81.158.200.32 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In fairness that response was reasoned discource and my thanks. Can I ask that perhaps you register an account? I am now going off line so my lack of further participation is not me being ignorant but being away from my laptop. Best. Pedro |  Chat  15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you compare the english wikipedia to the german wikipedia, you know (and anyway), you guys are doing just fine here. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I removed this comment in error, but at the time all evidence pointed towards this being trolling. With that clarified, I am happy the reversion to my edits. Please note I did this as an editor, not as a bureaucrat or admin. --Deskana (banana) 20:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected Elonka as several editors are still adding to the comments and have had to be reverted. The protection is just to give everyone a chance to simmer down. We need the page to stand as closed for archive purposes, as usual. -- Cecropia 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As closing approached, the consensus on this candidacy was truly ambiguous with thin interest and discussion. I ask the community to please do a little more dog work and vet this nomination to produce a clearer expression of community sentiment. Thank you, Cecropia 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this has been extended, yeah it's a low turn out RfA - but there does seem to be a consensus to promote. I can't see what 48 more hours is going to do exceot force people to comment - they've had enough time already. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to make sense, more discussion is a good think in most cases. 71.37.246.103 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If I were given to irony, I would say that the community consensus was that they found the RfA boring. I certainly don't want to see every RfA raising great passion, but we have enough well-meaning participants here to give such this RfA a little more work. Encouraging the community to give definitive consideration to each RfA improves the process. -- Cecropia 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced it was required here. I'm not sure how you can say that with over 35 participants, there isn't enough to determine a consensus with. Yeah, it wasn't a

WP:100 entry, but theres still opinions there that show a consensus to promote. Maybe people did find that particular RfA boring, but there's still plenty of discussion there to go through. Ryan Postlethwaite

18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Count me as part of the consensus that it was boring. ;) I looked at it several times but never felt like putting in the effort to form an opinion.

GRBerry

19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber have anything to do with this extension? I have to admit I had ignored this RfA until the extension prompted me to see this editor's involvement. Hiberniantears 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No cause and effect. I was executing policy based on bureaucrat judgment that goes back years. -- Cecropia

I agree with Cecropia's judgement here. Extending the RfA should help to better determine consensus. --Deskana (banana) 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Diez2, extension of an RFA also serves to show controversy, and controversy is far more likely to draw more opposes than additional supports. -- Renesis (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The acceptability of offering ones self for

Assuming you mean prohibiting making the offer of recall in RfA, I see no harm in it, especially since you and others are prepared to challenge users who raise it. I don't think we need a policy on it; it's unlikely to be a critical issue in anyone's decision-making on whether a candidate is trustworthy or not. As for the 'not enforcable' aspect, well, what about all the promises candidates make of the worthy pieces of work they will do when mopped. How many actually fulfil these promises? I've no idea, but they're not enforcable. --Dweller 10:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A mandatory community-based recall process (such as the one used on the German Wikipedia) would be good to have. The voluntary mechanism we have is still better than nothing. It cannot be strictly enforced but presumably people lose reputation by not upholding their word on it, as with anything else. Haukur 10:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is suggested often, the consensus has been over and over that arbcom is doing a fine job handling the desysopings. The whole point of the recall process is that it is voluntary, it shouldn't be enforceable. It is supposed to be mostly meaningless beyond the integrity of the person making the offer. I oppose any mandatory community recall for admins, again, for the 6th time in a year. Most recall attempts I have seen are a small group of editors who are pissed off about something, and they don't have a case for arbcom.

(1 == 2)

13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? Among admins afraid to be held more accountable? The reason this is "suggested often" and comes up "over and over", to use your words, is that there is no consensus that ArbCom effects a sufficient, effective and timely check on admins. Other Wikipedias already have more options in place and we would do well to emulate them. Haukur 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase, "it doesn't work in theory. It only works in practice." Sound familiar? If not, I'll know why this is coming up... -- nae'blis 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it ever worked in practice?

(1 == 2)

13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I stongly disagree with a recall procedure. I think arbcom does a good job making the tough decisions. All it would take is one admin who does something an influential person does not like and the torches and pitchforks would come a-charging. It does not mean they did something wrong, just means they pissed of the wrong person. Alot of the work is ugly work, and makes people mad. I think it is important that administrators be able to make tough decisions without fear of a lynchmob asking for there head. If they do go to far, that is what arbcom is for (and they are far from a lynch mob in my opinion). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I respect that Arbcom will remain calm and judge people based on evidence and policy and not charged emotions.

(1 == 2)

13:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a mischaracterisation of the current process to say that it is pitchfork-y or lynch mob-by. I oppose mandatory recall, but support voluntary. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that it currently is, however saying if it became mandatory, that anybody could request an admins recall, there would be lots of lynch mobs out after admins who do good work, such as the many FU admins, that alot of people dont like teh work they do. If mandatory recalls were instated, I am pretty sure there are plenty of people who sould line up with pitchforks for here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "has it ever worked in practice?" Several times that I am aware of. (This seems to be a recurring question. Perhaps this should be a faq linked from CAT:AOR??) Mostly it was one or a small group of disgruntled editors, and when the process started, there were not enough folks who would certify under the criteria the admin being recalled specified, and the recall failed. That outcome is a success, because it shows that the process can't be easily subverted by trolls. One time, the recall succeeded, the admin in question asked to be desysopped by the stewards and was. After a period of reflection and recognition of the issues that led to the recall, the admin in question stood for RfA again, and was passed. Some of the supportive comments, IIRC, came from people who had asked for his recall initially. That outcome is a success, because it shows that the process does work to remove admins (with integrity) who are problematic or who need some time to reflect.

Recall is not for all admins. (although I note that the membership has been fluctuating near 100 admins for some time now, that's a small but significant (7%??) minority of the total population...) I oppose making it be something that a prospective admin is asked to commit to in order to gain supports during the RfA, and I oppose making it a mandatory process. We have ArbCom for that... ArbCom is the recourse if an admin says he is recallable, and then goes back on his word later when controversy arises. As stated before, I suspect ArbCom would not look kindly on wiggling out of ones word. I would like to admit bias in this regard, I was one of the people who first worked on the mechanics of the process with

User:Aaron Brenneman and who has clerked several recall efforts (and who is willing to do so in future if needed). ++Lar: t/c

13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Records of past recall requests. Also linked from CAT:AOR. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, recall works about as well as the people who volunteer for it. A quick look though shows no one (imo) that I would think of recalling, so we have to keep that in mind as well. No need to formalize it. Wizardman 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not as though we have a backlog of admins needing desysoping that arbcom cannot keep up with.

(1 == 2)

14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Its not the like

CSD backlog. And its not like they can hide when they do something blatantly 'bad' -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from, oh, covert sockpuppetry, harassing low-profile users, quiet but persistent wheel-warring, inapproriate administrative actions with breaks in between... not all problems are as big as deleting the main page. It's often the problems that start out small that end up snowballing into disasters. We should always look out for each other. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have a point, but all it takes is review of contributions, or a report to

WP:ANI for the user's treachery, if you will, to be discovered. But you are right. There are those that hide in the shadows, and we should always be on the lookout. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If this were implemented, how would vindictive and frivolous recalls be avoided? Isn't this a recipe for creating a backlog of admin recalls? Again, what is wrong with the present process, that this "solution" fixes? Banno 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

With the caveat that I oppose mandatory recall so that this is just me talking about how it COULD be done rather than me advocating that it SHOULD be done... Perhaps a page could be taken from the current voluntary process. Making the bar to having a recall certified significant enough that one disgruntled user would not suffice to start the process, (6 users with considerable experience to certify the recall petition, as many current voluntarily recallable admins required is not a bad bar... if you can't find 6 users you're probably a crank and the admin is probably doing their job) and have the petition result in a further process (a re RfA with a 51% requirement, or an RfC, or a remanding to ArbCom, or something, not an immediate desysop, so there's still another check on things even if you can round up 5 other users (or howevermany)... ) would tend to weed out cranks. That has been the experience with (the limited sample set of) the current process. So... I don't see this as a valid argument against mandatory recall. What I see as a valid argument is that it should not be something imposed on admins ex post facto. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• My proposal up above seems like a much better way of doing recall. Like I say, it is difficult for admins to pass RfA twice (I've only seen this happen when someone voluntarily requests reconfirmation, and people are beginning to oppose for that too). -128.12.68.95 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing who's editing from this account, but that comment is set up to be a little misleading. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether I should reveal who I am when I made that comment. Reworded. -128.12.68.117 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whether ArbCom is an effective check on admins is beginning to be a political question. If a substantial minority of ArbCom sympathizes with a disruptive admin, she can get away with anything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not even really sympathizing with a disruptive admin. The problem is that, despite what it's supposed to be and what people claim it is, Arbcom is starting to succumb to excessive IAR along with everyone else. The arbitrators have never actively condoned disruptive actions that I've seen, but they have decided that one side was right, so their disruptive actions weren't sanctioned as harshly. Anyway, now that I've said that, I don't think anyone is claiming that there is a big problem with corrupt arbitration. Arbcom has made bad decisions, but I don't claim that there is a system which will avoid such mistakes. The problem is with the cases that they can't even consider, because there's no sanctionable abuse to be had. -Amarkov moo! 03:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haukur, can you (or someone) give the details of what they do on the German Wikipedia? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If your worried about arbcom, then you should take the to arbcom.

(1 == 2)

03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(Comment directed at A.B.) The German Wikipedia uses a system for promoting administrators by promoting all RfAs above 66% percent support and not promoting those below. Captain panda 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe their system is a clear up-or-down vote, right? None of this consensus/b'crat discretion sort of thing? —Kurykh 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What about recalls? How do they handle them? --A. B. ^(talk) 04:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kurykh, it is just a vote. No crat discretion or anything like that. And to A.B., I don't know about recalls. I don't think it is anything different from here, but I am not sure. Anyone else know about it? Captain panda 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA has not reached consensus. There has been a lot of discussion in this candidacy and a lot of rancor, as well. As I read it, there is much room for the candidate to improve her standing in the community in order to approach a future RfA. -- Cecropia 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But it also shows once again that these RfA camps are getting ridiculous. Sometimes I think strict criteria (like FAC) would help matters somewhat; it would give the B-crats an easier job to separate the grudge or ridiculous opposes (and perhaps even certain supports?). Then again, some may feel it would ruin the "spirit" of RfA. — Deckiller 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Strict criteria are an interesting idea. For example, if we were to stipulate 2000 edits (1000 in mainspace) and 6 months' service as the fixed experience criteria, it would actually reduce editcountitis; users would no longer justifiably be able to oppose anyone who met those criteria on the basis of inexperience. It would also reduce confusion for newbies who discover RfA and put in a hyper-premature request (I made this mistake myself back in October 2006). We could add a list of basic criteria to the top of the RfA page, and state that candidates who did not meet these criteria would not be accepted and would be de-listed. (However, obviously, this would have been irrelevant in the Elonka case.) Walton^One 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On another point, I congratulate Cecropia on an excellent and correct closure. Even though I strongly supported Elonka, the outcome of the RfA was clearly No consensus. Having an elitist "crat chat", where a small group makes a decision and other users are excluded, is never a good idea. Walton^One 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Commons has a set minimum requirements for admin candidates (200 edits and 2 months of active participation), and it seems to be working out fairly well. --Boricuaeddie 16:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the conominators I agree the 'crats got this one right. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Walton's comments about 2,000 edits (1,000 in mainspace) and 6 months, and how that would be helpful for the process. We could also add on a two-month time-out between RFAs. Bearian 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

6 months is a long time - for reasonably dedicated editors like me, and potentially hundreds of other great contributors, that locks them out. I agree with the 2K edits - only one or two RfA's have passed with under that number, so it's a good idea in that respect. For the time, I would recommend 2 months or 3 months, preferrably 2. You can learn a lot, especially if you were an anon before or did a lot of reading before signing up (like me). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add: I STRONGLY disagree with the idea of requiring 1000 mainspace edits - that is rediculous, administratorship is about the maintenance jobs, why should mainspace contributions have anything to do with this? Maybe 1K (or less) wikipedia-space edits, that would be to do with adminship. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, adminship is not all about maintenance. That's like saying the janitor doesn't have a voice in community matters, essentially a "shut up and clean" mentality. Mainspace contributions give you a feel for what being an editor is like, and how to deal with them and their editing patterns appropriately. -Kurykh 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship doesnt give any other tasks for editing, just maintenance. Therefore adminship is about maintenance. The administrators themselves are also editors, so they get both. The actual sysop bit only gives them maintenance ability, not special editing rights. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in saying they do not get special editing rights. No one here does (except

WP:OFFICE). However, you seem to be stating adminship does NOT require mainspace experience. If I don't trust you as an editor, how can I trust you as an admin, wielding "the maintenance tools"? (hypothetical situation intended) -Kurykh

21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that RfA minimum requirements are a solution in search of a problem. We don't have a problem with too many RfAs, so why limit them? Andre (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you summed it up perfectly - RfA isnt backlogged for crats, they handle it fine, and they could handle a doubling of the number of rfas. So why cut down on the number of potential great users, acting in good faith? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the idea of minimum RfA requirements, though maybe 2000 edits and 4-5 months would be better, we've had great admins who were promoted with under 6 months experience before. However, this way those good faith users don't get shell-shocked when their RfAs are SNOWed. Wizardman 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Andre: I don't think it's a problem with Bureaucrat overload, but minimum requirements could actually save some ill-prepared users from running for RFA, getting slammed down, and subsequently leaving Wikipedia amid a feeling of rejection. -- Renesis (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need actual limits or requirements for that. A simple comment on the page like, "usually several months of experience and over a thousand edits are required, but anyone can apply for RfA," or something, should be fine. Even that may not be necessary, as the sorts of new users who apply when they're too new often seem to ignore what's written on the RfA page anyway. Andre (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, If you want to throw something like that on the nomination page, I'd support it. Make it known that if you lack experience it's doubtful you pas, but say it in a way so that nothing's off limits and you can still do it if you want. Wizardman 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with "1,000 mainspace edits" -- not because the mainspace is unimportant, but because that is a ludicrously high number for most patterns of editing. And the mainspace is the one place where we really shouldn't inflate editcounts -- ideally, we want each edit to have hours of research behind it, and this criterion would punish people who actually do that. If you're going to try to fix RfA with standards, don't try to enshrine editcount inflation in a rule! If we roll back editcount inflation a bit -- and yes, this will seem shocking to people because it's so far outside of the Overton window by now -- a reasonable minimum would be 1,000 edits with 200 in the mainspace. rspeer / r@@dsr 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Truer words have never been spoken. --Folajimi (leave a note) 16:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing some of the rancor surrounding the Elonka discussions, and then reading Walton’s [6]comment, I really got to thinking on what matters in this process.

I think time in the project is more important than edit count, as it will reveal a far larger sample of an editor's personality patterns, and energy to remain involved than simply making 10,000 edits over a two week period (although that tells me an editor is spending way too much time couped up in front of one website for me to trust them with any kind of rational thinking). Now, in the case of the Elonka debate, you see how time + edit count can really hurt you if you have a well established set of personality traits (conversely, it can also really help you, depending on the traits in question). Should an editor with thousands of edits over a period of years be held accountable for an outburst long ago? Again, this probably depends on the nature of the outburst, and whether there was ever an attempt at remorse or reconcilliation… but I digress.

I honestly think a six month + 500 edits is a viable bar for sysops to get over in order to have an RfA. That said, I think people can probably come up with a set of equally viable exceptions to this rule, and thus I believe that after a little discussion, you could have a rule of “time+edits (with exception to these instances)”. My reasoning for this is as follows:

• Time: Time allows you to establish a pattern which gives the community the chance to know you. Since most of us will never deal face to face, seeing how you edit over time is really the only way to assess your ability to handle the tools responsibly. Six months is a reasonably long period for an electronic community, and is probably a very long time when considering how dynamic Wikipedia is. Over a six month period, an editor will be able to demonstrate any number of telling patterns which will inform you as to whether or not said editor would make a fine admin. It gives an editor the opportunity to poke around, make mistakes, and demonstrate if they can learn/receive polite and impolite tips from others in the community. Now, are there editors ready and willing inside of six months? Yes, criteria for supporting somone inside that time frame can easily be established, and cited upfront in an RfA.

• Editcount: Edit count can tell you a lot about an editor, but it does not give any indication whatsoever on the quality of the individual edits. 500 edits, an entirely arbitrary number which I just pulled out of thin air, gives you some semblace of what an editor is all about. 500 probably seems pithy to most of us, but when you really give it some thought, 500 thoughtful, hefty, and diverse edits are of far more value to this project than 50,000 edits tagging for speedy deletes. If I were to really take a stand on edit counts, I would actually suggest an ‘’’editcount maximum’’’ within a timeframe, simply out of concern for an editor’s health. Returning to my point, with a view of at least 500 edits, you will be able to tell where someone’s interests lie, and whether or not they have a need for any kind of admin tools.

Well, I have not really delved into the “other litmus tests” idea, but if anyone can think of something… bring it up! Hiberniantears 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• 50,000 speedy tagging edits is just as important to the encyclopedia as 500 'hefty' edits. Edits do not have a 'value' associated with them other than "is it helpful" or not. Beyond that, any attribution of any special meaning to edits is worthless.
• Also, whether an administrator candidate "needs" the tools is totally irrelevant. The question is whether they can be trusted to use the tools appropriate. This idea that "need" must be demonstrated has become vogue of late and generated a ridiculous amount of hoop jumping and hand wringing. Enough of it, please. Whether an administrator performs five actions a year or 5000 they are contributing as an administrator. There's no special bar here. The issue isn't usage, it's trust. Stay focused on that. --Durin 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, if it can make you feel any better Durin, the idea is not en vogue. It is cited from time to time but the spectacular reversal of DrKiernan's RfA and the ensuing discussion clearly show that the vast majority of RfA participants using that argument recognize its flaws when shown the light. Now it's true that the argument does come up and in many ways one can easily understand how it may seem sound to RfA newbies. But it's up to us to point to the relevant discussions and educate RfA participants. Pascal.Tesson 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, its not what I'm talking about... I'm looking for some set of standards to discern patterns that support trust, and moot the "too new"/"not enough edits" discussions.Hiberniantears 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... let me moderate my own words to say I actually agree with Durin's two points. I don't mean to imply 50,000 tagging edits are devoid in value, but rather mean to point out the extraordinary value which can also be found in 500 edits, and how a low edit count can still lend the community a sense of trust. As for need, I agree this is silly as well. Hiberniantears 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I find it strange that this discussion focuses on low contributions or large amounts of low import contributions. Elonka certainly picked up some of her edit count by tagging, but she also was a major contributor to
  WP:100 before I stepped up to the plate for her, because that's where I figured this one would go. Two patterns emerge for prominent editors who aren't already sysopped: either they sail through with overwhelming support or things become very threaded and rancorous. Look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley_2 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny: it is not particularly easy to mopify someone who's known for more than Wikipedia site editing. I don't suggest that's the only factor, but it's significant, and perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is how to foster or mentor this type of person better because the word I'm hearing is that we're losing out on good talent because of it - most people who would bring that caliber of skills and experience to the table just aren't willing to put themselves through the mill. I don't have a magic solution for that dilemma, and I suppose there could be plenty of Wikipedians who don't even agree with my reasons for thinking there's a problem, but I'd like to open the thought for comment. Durova^Charge!
  19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) As I said earlier it would be nice if Wikipedians learned to forgive and forget. The fact is they don't and many RfAs have demonstrated this despite the usual "but this happened X time ago" rebuttals. I'll concede that some of the opposition on Elonka was bewildering and Danny's summary judgment was particularly disappointing and surprising given that the same issue of forgiving one's past mistakes undermined his own RfA. Still, users who don't trust Elonka because of incidents that many consider as ancient history are honest in expressing their distrust and the latest RfA does indicate that a sizable chunk of the community feels that way. Perhaps that chunk is overrepresented because of the process' nature, but this is difficult to judge and under these circumstances promoting her would likely have been drama-expensive. Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a forgive and forget. Editors can learn from past mistakes, but all to often these mistakes brand editors preventing them from achieving a successful RFA.

♥Love

20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I take no issue with the outcome of this particular RFA. What I mean is I'd like to see more proactive measures so that other prominent editors don't shy away from applying. It's easier for a college freshman to become an administrator on this site than for an established expert. I'm proud that we have young sysops; I'd also like to keep the door open to experienced talent. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Not that I want to go all Citizendium on y'all but retaining experts is important. We can indeed be proud of having competent teenage admins but we have to face the fact that the vast majority of teenagers do not yet have the required finesse, temper and communications skills to succeed as an admin. (Although teenagers who have been admins for a while are certainly miles ahead of their classmates when it comes to conflict resolution.) Pascal.Tesson 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Need has been well hashed and found valueless. Editcount has been reasonably well hashed and found that under 1000 really you have no hope (if we are honest to ourselves). I'm sorry, but it's true - however magnaminous it may be to say that you would support an editor with 800 edits I doubt in truth we would whole heartedly. Time is interesting. Bear in mind time / edit count is also an oppose issue - an editor that has been here for 36 months contributing 60 edits a month will still struggle - again let us be honest to ourselves about whether we would support such a candidate. What I see happening at RFA these days is editors and commentators forgetting that this is voluntary work. I'm sorry if this sounds like old hat but the key thing is surely simple trust as evidenced by personal interaction and a proper review of contributions via the tools provided. If you can't make up your mind from that simply don't comment (!vote) - it's not mandatory. Pedro |  Chat  19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I agree that edit count doesn't necessary mean much. I have somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000 edits in like 4 or 5 months of consistent editing. Someone else could have made all the same changes as me and have an edit count of only maybe 2,000 edits. I'll go through an article and make two dozen small edits in a row. I do this to avoid possible edit conflicts ('cause ain't it bitch when you spend 30 minutes editing references throughout an entire article or copyediting various sections only to get an EC when you go to save?!), but others will do all these changes in one edit. Also, some editors are better about using the preview option to check their work whereas I'll make a mistake and add another edit to my count when I have to fix it. Therefore, 5,000 edits doesn't necessarily make one editor more qualified than another with only 2,000 edits.
• Additionally, to respond to "Also, whether an administrator candidate "needs" the tools is totally irrelevant." I don't see how that's irrelevant. If it's no big deal and just extra tools, why go through all the trouble if you don't even need them? I've been told a couple times that I could have a successful RfA, but I don't know what I'd use the tools for. I'm not interested in XFD, AIV is well-covered, page protection is covered. I'm in admin training to get an idea of what might interest me, but nothings come up yet. I guess, I just don't see the point in becoming an admin if you don't have a need for the tools. All admin really is, right?
  ♥Love
  19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• With that said, I think there should be a balance. A candidate should contribute constructively and consistently for enough time to reasonably be able to grasp policy, guidelines and tradition as well as to show an ability to work in collaborations and deal with conflict. And, in my opinion, should have a need for the tools, otherwise, it just seems like a title.
  ♥Love
  19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lara - just to pick up on one point with respect.

WP:CSD is not "well covered" - I have seen attack pages lasting hours and clear copy-vios mutiples of hours. Need is irrelevant. If a trusted editor gets the tools and uses them but once a month positively this is a good thing. As per many previous discussions, they do not rust, they do not cost money to give out and they can, at the end of the day, be revoked. For what it's worth I used to hold the view that there needed to be a demonstrable need. But after reading so much reasoned argument by others via this page and the RFA main page I changed my mind. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat 

20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Pedro. Thanks for your reply. I stand (well, let's be real) sit corrected. I guess I would use the tools. Regardless, I guess I can see your point... I don't know. It just seems like going for admin without the need would be for masochists. Personal point of view, I suppose. :p

♥Love

20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

LaraLove, come over to

WP:COIN. If those 92 unresolved cases aren't enough to change your mind, then you can dive into the bot generated list of vanityspam suspects located at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult. Jehochman ^Talk

20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lara, it's all good. I agree that accepting/requesting admiship if you are not prepared to use the tools would be slightly pointless. Your personal point of view layed out above in honest and clear fashion (like everyone else's) is what helps make Wikipedia build consensus and further all of our work and aims. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a not to Pedro: not that this matters much to the discussion but while

WP:AIV is well under control. In fact, when I became an admin I once went there to get block-practice and I remember just sitting there waiting for reports to arrive. I'd click on "block user" then read carefully the instructions and double check I was doing things right. By the time I was ready to confirm the block, I'd get a "User already blocked" warning! In the end, I resorted to doing the RC patrol myself to get to vandals before they were reported to AIV... Pascal.Tesson

20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

UAA is best for block practice - even offensive names can stay there for minutes. Also, CSD does need more help, as does COIN, SUSPSOCK, RFPP, etc. There is always a need for more admins, as wikipedia is growing. The issues arent going to go away with more users, but they can with more admins. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot)

21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Jehochman hit it on the nose: some of Wikipedia's janitorial areas are seriously understaffed. That's the main reason I make a priority of admin coaching and, if you'll look at my record of nominations, you'll see how serious I am in that belief. This site is growing faster than its sysop pool and has been for some time. We do need people with the right skills and temperament who are willing to step forward. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as Durova points out, is distribution of admins rather than total number. You can get a quick response in many areas (AN/I, AIV, RFPP), but some important areas are hopelessly backlogged.

WP:COIN are probably the worst. Adding more admins would be most helpful if they were interested in working on those areas, and I've generally given extra leeway to candidates who can reasonably be expected to work in them, or on images. MastCell ^Talk

00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need people who are interested in working in

WP:AIV where you check a few specific things and block the vandal (or not). Instead those areas need people who can look at a situation in depth and deal with ambiguity. Recruiting admins for specific tasks is not the way RfA has been done but it's something that could be worth discussing. Raymond Arritt

00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN is unique because cases often reside their for quite a while because the situations need monitoring. What is especially ratifying about COIN is when we can engage a disruptive editor and pull him back from the brink. Jehochman ^Talk

00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that if we have sufficiently many admins then the easy, mindless admin work becomes scarce enough that they actually get involved in more complex things. I often go to

CAT:CSD (easy, mindless) but when it's sufficiently low, I help out with the image backlogs (way more tedious). As for the really difficult stuff, I think a few admins are wisely leaving the task to people who really know what they're doing. As Durova points out, recruiting admins to work at SSP and COIN is probably easier to do on an individual basis and with sound advice from regulars. Pascal.Tesson

01:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing with COIN and SSP, is that non-admins can perform a lot of the work, and just ask admins to perform the admin requiring duties. It still slows down other admins, so having admins doing it is the optimum. As Durova said, our sysop pool is not growing fast enough for our user base. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(←)This is starting to make me think I should run. SSP looks interesting. I might check that out. Anyway, the more I read the more I think there are too many editors being overly picky. I've only recently started !voting in RfAs, most of which have been withdrawn, so I thought I must not be adequately reviewing the nominees, but many of them I've worked with and really think would be great. So it seems even more unfortunate to me now that they failed.

I note that my brief statement on the idea of fixed RfA standards has generated a lot more discussion than I expected. To clarify, the figures I stated were just plucked out of thin air as examples; I wasn't necessarily saying that those would have to be the figures chosen. As to the reasons for having fixed RfA standards, I think it would be highly beneficial to new users who don't understand the RfA process and put themselves in for premature RfAs. When I made that mistake back in October 2006, I was very hurt by the failure of my RfA and almost left Wikipedia. The same kind of thing has happened to many other users since. So I would propose the addition of something along these lines to

• Candidates for adminship must have had a registered user account on Wikipedia for at least 3 months, and must have made at least 1500 constructive edits (excluding edits to their own userspace). If you do not yet meet these requirements, you are advised not to apply.

Obviously, the RfA process would still be contentious - many users with five-digit editcounts are still opposed for reasons of incivility, carelessness, etc. But this would eliminate no-hope candidacies, and would therefore spare the feelings of newer users. Walton^One 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a solution looking for a problem to me. It's been rejected before, by the way. --Deskana (banana) 11:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be tough to roll this out as a standard - but as a strong suggestion for RFA hopefuls, I think it would be excellent to have it on the page. --Ozgod 11:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have relatively the same feeling as Deskana, and I think the solution to the problem isn't to raise the standards but to make RfAs less intimidating...The question is how? --Dark Falls ^talk 12:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cover the page in fuzzy pink unicorns. There is nothing less intimidating than a brigade of fuzzy pink unicorns. --Ozgod 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrrghh... Unicorns have horns (scary...). We should decorate it with little flowers.File:Dainsyng.gif --Dark Falls ^talk 12:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I read that as "Unicorns are horny", and now I can't get that thought out of my head. Greaaaaat... --L-- 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, RFA can be extremely intimidating for those who do not know what to expect, or do not expect a backlash. I see a lot of editors who are relatively new to the project ( minus the arbitrary three months ) get opposed, sometimes more harshly than they should be. I like Walton's suggestion - but to go in and make it a mandatory might be hard to pass by a lot of the editors here. However, listing it as a suggestion for prospective sysops I think might help deter some premature nominations. Making the process itself less intimidating? That is a tough one - when you put yourself up for that kind of public scrutiny, there really is no way to soften the process. Use Crisco, maybe, but it will still be tough. --Ozgod 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall suggesting the last time the "toughness" of RfA was discussed that we try to reduce the harshness of opposes rather than trying to discourage requests. Of course that was rejected. There's an element here that seems to see it as their prerogative to make whatever comments they like on requests, and who also seem to hold the attitude that people making premature requests are somehow wasting the time of commenters here. If we're looking to change expectations, I think we should look to change the expectation among some that anything goes here. --

talk

) 12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, are we looking at the right problem? Will a new user get more upset at a failed RfA than a user who put a massive amount of time and dedication into Wikipedia? If we look at the statistics, will a new user actually be more likely to leave as a direct result of the RfA? --Dark Falls ^talk 12:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#Things_to_consider_before_accepting_a_nomination already cover all of this anyway, for the those that are challenged by words this image linked from the guide is clear in what is successful. Gnangarra 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in such prerequisites. Failing an RfA is not the end of the world, many current admins ran for their first RfA to early and failed and it helped them become a better admin later by addressing specific issues.

(1 == 2)

12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I remember being absolutely devastated when my first RfA failed, and very nearly leaving Wikipedia. Admittedly, though, I did stay, and the desire to pass the second time around motivated me to contribute extensively. So I guess both sides of the argument make sense. Walton^One 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it is impossible to evaluate the feelings of those who failed an RfA and then left in their disappointment. Even running over all the failed requests and seeing who is still editing, or the more laborious seeing how soon after a failed request did an editor cease editing, will only give a rough indication of how hard the process is on the confidence of an editor. LessHeard vanU 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) It seems to me that too many editors are taking RfA too seriously. Maybe I just don't get it... or maybe I get it better than most. It's a set of extra tools. That's it. But, I think, it's also status. Jimbo may have stated some years ago that "it's no big deal" and that may be noted on occasion in current RfAs, but even if it isn't authority, it appears to be status. In that respect, I don't think there's anything that can be done to "soften" the process for users who have put a lot into Wikipedia. A failed RfA is a failed RfA. No matter if it was the goofy hair cut, the out-dated outfit, or the girlfriend that only rates a 6 on a scale of 1-10, he didn't get into the club... and that's all that matters.

As for new users that apply, that just seems immature and power-hungry to me, so I don't really care how they feel after they're told that... I'm sure that sounds horrible, but I'm just being real.

I am highly offended at the comment ..that just seems immature and power-hungry to me. I applied in October 2006 when I was a fairly new user, because I had never seen the process before and had no idea what the standards were. My RfA failed, and quite rightly so - I had fewer than 500 edits and did not have enough experience to be a decent admin. But it still hurt. I don't believe I was being "immature and power-hungry", or anything of the sort. And the comment I don't really care how they feel, is, with all due respect, demonstrative of a very bad attitude. Even leaving aside simple human decency, would it be a good thing if lots of new users were driven away after a premature RfA? No. We always need to recruit new contributors, and being helpful and considerate to them is the only way to do that. Walton^One 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean to offend you. It is, however, my personal point of view... I just don't get it. Perhaps I should not have voiced that here. I am glad, however, that it did not run you off from WP and that you were able to succeed in your next RfA. This is a good opportunity to gather information, I think. What were the opposes to your first RfA? Was it mostly just a lack of experience, and if so, why did the fail hurt? Meaning, from what did the disappointment stem? Was it because you really wanted the tools, the title, the status, or was it embarrassment or just the fact that it was a failure, period? Note that I'm not implying anything with that... I really don't have a bad attitude. Possibly I just lack empathy on occasion.

♥Love

17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, and I apologise for insinuating that you had a bad attitude. The opposes to my first RfA were not all that harsh, and I certainly don't blame the opposers - I was hurt mainly because I didn't understand what was going on, and I saw it as a bad reflection on my time as a Wikipedian. At the time, I had little encouragement; however, I had an editor review in January, and from then on started actively contributing. Eventually I was nominated for adminship in April, and succeeded - but even there, I was hurt by a couple of the opposes. I think you, and other people at RfA, should remember the fact that every single oppose vote is a judgment on a human being, and can mean a lot to them. That's why I rarely oppose RfAs, and I try to be civil and tactful in my phrasing. Walton^One 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot support a nom that I don't feel would be a good admin from the information available to me, but I try to be considerate in how I oppose. Perhaps I should object less, however. I may be too strict (considering the conversations above).

♥Love

19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also don't think that "immature and power-hungry" should be used for all newcomer's intentions when applying for RfA, it lacks
  Mailer Diablo
  09:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I acknowledged above, it's a personal opinion and I did not mean to offend anyone. Additionally, I've not used that as reasoning in any RfAs, although it's been my opinion in one very recent one. In that RfA, I worded my opposition as politely and constructively as possible. Again, I apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my comments. I just don't get it. That's what I call "a personal problem". :)

♥Love

04:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I thought I might want to point out that historically we did pass candidates with less than 3 months' experience. -
  Mailer Diablo
  09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  Historically there would be the case that a contributor arrived on WP close to fully formed (somebody with an research/library/archivist background, etc.) to the standard of admin, and took only a few weeks to familiarise themselves with the WP practices and policy. Given the relatively fewer contibutors/admins then the individual would have quickly been recognised for their qualities. I would suggest that an editor of similar background could still do the same today, but there is a greater hurdle to climb in that, since the project is so much bigger, then it is more difficult to know the applicant and therefore more difficult to judge suitability. However, with good nominators and a well presented application it should still succeed. LessHeard vanU 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an obvious group of people who could fit such a description: admins or experienced users from other Wikimedia projects. Granted, many of them who have an interest in this project have already come over here and are admins, but there are still many such users out there. --

talk

) 10:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would personally like to see this graph extend to users who have more edits than the image shown here, I think you would see a sharp decline like users with less than 1,000 edits. — Moe ε 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The graph does point that out the x - axis is number of edits, by looking I presume that there must have been an editor with 700 odd edits that past during the period of the graph. Gnangarra 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)