Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 35

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.

Can I encourage people who have been nominated, either self-nominated or by someone else, to spend a little more time answering the three questions? This especially applies to people who haven't been here for the typical duration expected of a candidate, and for people with fewer than 1 000 edits. Having more detailed answers allows people who might usually oppose due to low edit counts or other similar reasons might instead support. I don't really think a one line answer can go into that detail about a potential admin's interests when they become an admin or their contributions up to that point. What do other people think? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if people want to sabotage their RfA's by writing short answers to the questions, it's up to them. It just shows how serious (or not) they actually are about Wikipedia and Adminship.

x

19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FireFox. I personally started my question answers about 3-4 weeks before I nominated myself, and let them sit for a bit and edited them again a few times before posting them. I wanted my answers to be well thought through. If others slap down one or two sentences, and don't seem to take much time considering them, well, thats their choice and they run the risk of making whatever kind of an impression such a response makes. Evilphoenix 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not always - a person might not know what a good length might be. Sometimes if you write too much, people might just lose interest and stop reading it! A length guideline (or telling candidates that they should examine x points in their answer) is not unreasonable. Enochlau 02:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." -- Blaise Pascal. (Kim Bruning 21:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

I think that more questions are the answer. Such as "what do you thinks is concensus genrally(2/3 or 3/4?)" and "when would you overide it? What if 1/2 say delete, 1/4 say merge and 1/4 say redirect?" Also, when do you protect pages?". Any comments.

I think more questions might work, but not those questions. We shouldn't ask anything that involves numbers, because if numbers aren't specified in Wikipedia policy, asking administrators to specify numbers would end up creating a de facto standard here, which is not what we're on about. Also, asking questions that are merely procedural, I think, are rather useless, as we'll just get people summarising the policy pages. Enochlau 05:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right, any question asking about specific consensus numbers is a bad idea, you're either too high or too low and one group or another won't be happy. What I'd like to see is evidence of a nominee's recent activity in admin type areas....there's always backlogs in

Rx StrangeLove

06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see how those numbers would be devisive.

I do like your idea about question 1. While saying what you would do does require knowledge of what admins do, saying what you did do helps to see who is ready to walk right into adminship without a lack of experience.

Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M}

16:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I could care less about the questions. The first question is especially pointless, and the other two don't tell me a whole lot about the candidate either. Frankly, I don't care that much if the candidate answers the questions, and I certainly don't approve of this newfangled requirement of expecting the candidate to write extensive essays on what are essentially useless questions. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I delisted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Private Butcher because the user seems to have left (or at least has some problems). Would a bureaucrat please close the nomination. Broken S 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a bureaucrat for that. It's just like non-admins can close AfD's, but only if they result isn't delete. Non-bureaucrats can close RfA's, but only if the result isn't promote. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I figured that might be so, but where are the instructions? I have never closed an RfA. Broken S 23:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bleh I don't know the template, it was created pretty recently (but then again so was the nomination template...) just ask Nichalp or UninvitedCompany. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To bad about this fellow incidentally. Marskell 00:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame. I believe he's a recovering addict, who suffers from terrible depression. By the way, I wish people wouldn't keep piling on the "oppose" votes once it's clear that an application is going to be unsuccessful, and especially when it's clear that the candidate has personal problems. In the six months that I've been on Wikipedia, this is the post I feel least good about. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Ann you've had a change of heart since then, and I applaud you for it. I fully agree that it's unnecessary, if not downright evil, to pile on oppose votes after an obvious failed nomination. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

this makes me feel really bad for him, I'm afraid that RFA was probably a very bad experience for him.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

How many good users do you think we lost due to having a bad RFA? Borisblue 07:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Given how high standards have become now, we should be careful about turning away good people. Would it be nuts to create an intermediate usergroup between Registered and Sysop ("Moderator"?) - perhaps without blocking ability or whatever? (This is easy in MediaWiki 1.5, I think.) Then good users who look likely to be good admins can be recommended for that status instead, rather than just denying RFA (which must feel like a pretty unpleasant rejection from the community). Alternatively, grant adminship on probation (for a month, say); use the nomination talk page to collect discussion of whether to de-sysop a new admin - this might ease some concerns based on giving powers that are so rarely revoked. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you, my RfA was MUCH harder than I thought it was to go through, even though people had nothing but nice things to say (it resulted in a three week wikibreak). As for an intermediate step between user and admin, I was thinking a while ago when ITN on the main page was never updating, how about giving some users the right to edit protected pages (and no other powers except that and perhaps rollback). They would be instructed never to edit page that has been protected due to an edit war, but they could freely edit things that are protected due to vandalism, such as the main page templates and other pages. I don't think that a huge elaborate process should take place, just that if an admin sees a user who never vandalises, he asks him wether or not hed like to be a "Trusted user", and if so, the admin would make him that. No vote or anything, just an admins good judgement (it isn't like it's a huge power or anything. Aslong as a user is found not to be a POV-pusher or vandal, this shouldn't be to much of a problem). Ofcourse, if he abuses his power even once, any admin should take his powers away. What do you guys think? gkhan 12:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that conflicts with the basic philosophy that pages should be protected as rarely as possible. And bestowing powers in such an ad hoc way smells like a recipe for trouble, particularly if you think about the implications of needing to regulate removal of same in cases of abuse. If we want more powers for Trusted Users, the automatic move power bestowal process seems a better model (all but most recent 1% of accounts, AFAIR). Rd232 ^talk 13:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Why not let users know about
   user scripts
   ?
2. PB will be back. I'm sure of it.
3. The users who choose to actively participate in the RfA process are constantly in flux. At any given time, the RfA process seems to reflect the current cohort of users who wish to become more involved and recognized in the community by participating on RfAs.
4. I feel that generally the RfA process has become much more stressful, and much more vicious. Compare the RfA process here with that on say, the German Wikipedia. Even if the comparison may not be entirely valid, there is a noticible difference. Generally, I feel that one factor on why the feedback on certain candidates become progressively negative is because sometimes we have a tendency to uncover "flaws" when we want to find them. The Wiki seems to be slow to forgive at times. --HappyCamper 22:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, do not prematurely remove admin nominations. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_34#Consensus_Regarding_Pile-Ons, which lacks concensus. If a nominee wants to withdraw their nomination, they can. --Durin 14:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "consensus" is best gauged from actual practice. Nominations are regularly removed prematurely if they stand no chance of success. I removed PB's nomination because it stood little chance of success (though not nil) and had clearly caused him a great deal of stress; it seems to me that stress-prevention, where possible, is in the community's best interest. I consider it unfortunate that users pile oppose votes on to nominations which are clearly unqualified or otherwise failing, but as long as they continue to do so, I will continue to remove said nominations. — Dan | Talk 15:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• So actual practice determines policy? If not, would you please direct us as to the policy that covers delisting RfAs that are going poorly? Removing PB's nomination might have been in his best interest, and it might not. At least one nominee whose RfA was going very poorly was mad when it was removed prematurely. You are presuming that you know the inner thoughts of each nominee whose RfA you prematurely remove. A more balanced response is to suggest to the user that they withdraw their nomination. There are multiple reasons for retaining RfAs that are going poorly. Whether a user is becoming stressed over their RfA is not the only interest in play. If this "actual practice" is policy, then I suggest we open a poll to determine what should be done; it is and has been open for debate. Relying on "actual practice" to summarily override that debate is (unless you can cite policy), I think, less than we could hope to be. --Durin 17:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

An open poll might actually be a good idea. I'm sure I have read somewhere, though, that nominations can be removed if it is clear that they will fail. I'm personally in favour of removing them. I remember the case of the candidate you refer to, Durin, but I think he was unusual in wanting to prolong the agony. And, as far as I recall, Dan agreed to replace it, since he requested that. I think also that it was quite appropriate to remove PB's nomination, since he had left a note on his userpage saying that he was leaving Wikipedia. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann is correct. In the case of GordonWatts, his nomination had received many more oppose votes than support, and I removed it to prevent a pile-on. He requested that I relist it, and I did so, believing that it should be his choice; however, several other bureaucrats demurred, and the nomination was quickly unlisted again. He continued to persist in requesting adminship and wrote various lengthy messages to Jimbo, all to no avail. In any case, he is certainly the only candidate I know to have protested at the removal of his candidacy, and (not to make presumptions, but) in doing so he probably damaged his future prospects for adminship (see here and the following sections for extensive discussion of the matter). As for a basis in policy: the instructions have read for a long time "Nominations that will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will." — Dan | Talk 20:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll outline my rationale for retaining failing RfAs again:
  1. If the nomination was done in good faith, it's reasonable to assume the nominee has the ability to remove the nomination themselves if they so choose. In fact, some editors have done so.
  2. Even in failing nominations benefit can happen. A failed nomination can teach a nominee in what areas they need to improve before their next nomination. It can serve as a template on things to improve upon. Prematurely removing an RfA from consideration deprives the nominee of that resource potentially leading to a future nomination going poorly because their earlier nom was removed before everyone could comment. For an example, view this comment from a nominee whose RfA was likely to fail [1].
  3. Early removal of an RfA presumes that all RfA voters check on
     WP:RFA
     frequently. I don't think this is the case. We leave nominations open for 7 days for a reason. Supposed problems with a candidate might be in error. I'm aware of at least one case in which a nomination was beginning to go poorly due to low edit counts vs. total time on project. I contributed earlier on to the discussion to show people a graph which showed contributions had been mainly within the prior few months, and their numbers for the entire time should probably not be considered, rather their contributions compared to the few months in which they'd been contributing in earnest. If I hadn't contributed earlier on to that discussion, that nomination might have gone poorly and might have been prematurely removed.
  4. A failing nomination can teach all of us about problems with the process. I cite Wikiwoohoo's RfA in which nobody could come with any reason to oppose the nominee except on grounds of editcountitis. I did not support the RfA, but I did challenge people to come up with other grounds on which to oppose. The fact that nobody could is quite telling, and should teach us all something about the process.
  5. If we are willing to put in place a policy regarding negative pile-ons (in essence, a speedy delete of RfAs doomed to fail) then a reverse policy should be considered as well; speedy promotes. Just considering such can serve to highlight the errors in a speedy delete notion. A speedy promote policy would be absurd. For example, look at NichBush24's RfA. This nomination was 36-0 a day and a half into the nom. I placed one negative vote, and assumed the nomination would still sail through. I was wrong. The nomination later failed 43-23.
  6. Theoretical situation: A nominee is placed for RfA. Within hours, a group of friends agree to populate the RfA with oppose votes and rapidly turn the RfA to 1-9 against (or maybe worse). Maybe their reasons are valid; maybe they aren't. A bureaucrat, on good conscience, would need to evalute each individual vote as the RfA proceeds to see if good faith votes are actually ruling against the nomination. Is this done? Regardless, even if it is done, a nomination that is going poorly suffers from perception problems. This could influence people not to vote, or worse vote oppose just because others did.
  7. Some nominees are not having their feelings hurt by an RfA that is going poorly. We are judging for them, without their involvement in the decision, that since their feelings are being hurt we must act. This policy is based on a lack of evidence; it presumes bureaucrats should act to prevent hard feelings without evidence that any hard feelings are being created.
  8. At what level do you decide an RfA is going poorly? 1-3? 4-13? 7-18? Where is the line? Is it communicated somewhere to nominees? I don't think so. I believe the line is arbitrary, and is variable depending on the bureaucrat. This variability can, in itself, lead to hard feelings. The policy, what there is of it, is not clearly delineated. If you delineate it, there needs to be a rationale for the placement of the border, as it were. Else, it's purely arbitrary and subjective.
  9. Since the policy is not clearly delineated, we have had people who are not bureaucrats, and even not admins who have removed nominations that were failing. Was this improper? Who knows. The policy doesn't say if it is or not.
• In the face of the above reasons, the only reasons I have seen put forward for premature removal are:
  1. Desire to not cause the nominee to have their feelings hurt by a nomination gone awry.
  2. Desire to prevent the community from developing a sense of discord within the RfA process.
• I submit that the first of these two reasons can be addressed by educating the nominee on how their nomination can be withdrawn if they desire such. The second of these two reasons can be addressed by fostering productive, constructive input from frequent RfA voters; perhaps an education page on what an RfA voter should consider, and how they should act in the process. --Durin 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Durin, why not apply for a bureaucratship then? You seem to be so passionate about the process. --HappyCamper 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd successfully nominated Thames to adminship (28-3-1), despite him stating that he didn't have time to do admin chores. Now I see another guy, Sfoskett running on the same platform Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett. I don't want to see new policy formulated or anything, but I'm just curious, what do you all think of lazy admins, candidates who say they don't have time for admin chores? My take on it personally is that as long as I'm confident a candidate won't do harm with admin tools, I don't really care if he only goes on RC patrol once a year.Borisblue 06:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm something of a lazy admin myself these days; I became an admin ages ago, and I don't really have much time any more. I don't see why I shouldn't remain an admin, though, and by extension I don't see why somebody else shouldn't be. More generally, I don't like how hard it seems these days to become an admin (particularly those who insist on some absurdly high edit count) --Khendon 06:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well personally I wouldn't vote for someone who says they dont plan on doing any admin chores, why else would they want admin? Notoriety? Too block users at will? As far as edit count.. ugh, I can't stand those discussions. I don't think it's harded to become and admin though, look out how many there have been in the past few months, it seems like were filling up a whole ship of 'em or something. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that the quality of a user's edits would be used to determine if a user was to become an administrator rather than using a user's edit count. Mark 02:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I treat the "admin chores" in the same way I do page editing; when I have a few minutes, I'll dig around for something I can do. Sometimes this is editing a page, sometimes it's involving myself in a talk page, sometimes it's protecting a page, and so on. What I'm getting at is that I do all these things sporadically, and I don't think that reduces their individual value, or mean I shouldn't be an admin. --Khendon 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that in the past month or so my use of administrative authority has tapered off to very little. I also rarely edit. Kelly Martin 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, I've noticed a pattern in both Thames' and Sfoskett's RFAs: Durin comments about their "laziness", both receive some initial oppose votes because of that, and then suddenly the tide turns and they receive an avalanche of support votes. It seems, bizarrely that the easiest way to pass RFA is to get 'outed' as a lazy admin! Borisblue 07:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Shhh, everyone will hear you :) Yea that is kind of weird, maybe others feel its comforting to think they won't have trigger happy admins? Dunno. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If I get elected to arbcom I promise to take it easy. INSTANT SUCCESS!!!!

T | @ | C

I'll cut and paste my comment from Sfoskett's RfA here: I'd rather have someone trusted to use admin powers doing so occasionally instead of not having them at all. Consider it this way - suppose you have $50,000 in the bank, and someone offers you a gift of cash, but it's only $50. Do you turn it away because it's too little? Even if Sfoskett makes minimal use of admin powers, any use he does make will surely benefit Wikipedia, so why deny him (and the rest of us) even a minimal benefit?  BD2412 ^talk 13:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite. As long as you've demonstrated the necessary skills and experience to drive safely, you get a driving licence; it's not conditional on promising to drive a lot. Adminship should be the same. Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412, and similarly I'll post the comment I made on Thames' RfA: what does it matter if he won't have much time to do admin chores? It's not as though promoting him takes up a place someone who has more time might get; there's no limit. If he also does a little, that a little less work everyone else has to do. I don't believe there's any reason to deny a trustworthy editor admin rights. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

To extend the comparison with driving, as an admin you can always stop dead in the road, pull out your cell phone, and call the cops (WP:AN, Village Pump, Help Desk) to ask, "I'm thinking of making a left turn here—besides slowing down and using my turn signal, is there anything else I need to do?" You can look out the window and see that there's been a massive shisnowstorm on WP:AN/I and say, "I really don't want to go out in that, maybe I'll stay indoors today and catch up on my housework."

Admin drivers can choose their vehicles and terrain. You can do the very necessary–but uncontroversial and straightforward–lawn tractor work: rolling back obvious vandalism and that sort of thing. Not every admin wants or needs to participate in the complicated and contentious stuff. I would support someone for adminship if he had shown good judgement in the past, made efforts to fix honest mistakes promptly and with good humour, and didn't seem likely to try to overreach his abilities in the future. We need admins who will mow the lawn and tend the garden—admins who can drive lawn tractors and delivery trucks, not just armoured personnel carriers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

All these analogies are hurting my head. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I view it in terms of tics on Elephant's back: there's enough blood for everbody right? Conversely, there is the astronaut criterion: would you trust a kid with a model airplane to be an astronaut? No, you wouldn't, no matter how much he loves his model. This reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon: why did Patty move the football away from Charlie Brown all the time? And why, if adminship is like a football (arguably it isn't, but just suppose), should we hold the ball back from anyone? "Sometimes we should" you might say, and you'd be right. But still. Marskell 15:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The metaphors in this section are more useless than a weasel in a cardboard shirt. Borisblue 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, that is a simile.  BD2412 ^talk 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to compare this situation to an analogy and a metaphor. Because the admin is like the first part of the analogy, it can be compared to the RfA that it is in. A metaphor works in a similar way, one part is analogized to the other. And then analogies are like metaphors, but that's a simile.

P.S. If that didn't make sense, don't worry. It didn't to me, either. :-)

Is this becoming ENG 101 or something? Keep this up, and I think we should BJAODN these literary devices, and enshrine them as "Tips for the Aspiring Admin - How to Tend the Wikipedian's Good Garden" --HappyCamper 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I really dislike the connotation of this section. "Lazy" is a word that carries some heavy duty negative impact. In my votes where I voted oppose because of a lack of frequent participation of a nominee, I did not cite "laziness" as a reason. I do maintain, and will continue to maintain, that I feel an admin needs to be active to be an effective admin. I am intending on writing my rationale up on a subpage of mine, since this stance of mine is questioned periodically and I would like to avoid repeating myself. I do not see something inherently bad in suggesting that admin nominees be frequent contributors to the project, and I do see a number of positive benefits. My stance on this point is in good faith. Barring more persuasive (to me) arguments against it than the above, I expect I'll continue to support this stance. --Durin 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I archived the exceedingly long list of Archives to an Archive at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives. Cheers. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

S

22:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Only if the archive-archive is aware of its own

Gödel number. (apologies for the lame-ass math joke) gkhan

22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, when is a bereauocrat going to close up my RfA?

Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M}

02:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey MTG, it's spelled Bureaucrat (like beautiful). Or you can just say B-crat. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha, Redwolf schooled me on the spelling of Bureaucrat too, don't worry VoA. And I agree, the old proccess was WAY better. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It took me ages to learn to spell it, until I had to write it out over and over for a Signpost piece on them. the wub "?!" 08:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually disagree, I actually think the new process makes perfect sense. But I've never made a nomination in the old system, so I can't really compare. Borisblue 03:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• We just need a clearer statement on the main page directing people to the /nominate page for nomination information.  BD2412 ^talk 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That nominate page makes the process seem more like a process, with clear steps and guidance, I just wonder how it should be reworded for simplicity.

Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M}

03:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the current system is less than ideal and can be confusing and that it would probably be easier to either make people do it manually rather than just using the boxes to do noms and such, or have instructions to do it manually on the same page.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 03:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as it is simple and works. I used /nominate for my RfA(which still needs to be closed:)!), and I was quite confused.

Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M}

03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well before I looked at it , I just assumed it would be harder. The wording definately needs to be changed, but the "idiot" buttons sure do make it a lot easier for the ones who muck up the "copy/paste". I don't really care which way is used, I think with a little bit of reading, it's all "easy". «»Who?¿?^meta 03:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote an intro section which (hopefully) clarifies things.  BD2412 ^talk 04:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The new procedure is mostly ok, but since the questions are not mandatory, I don't think people should delist if someone doesn't answer them.

Kim Bruning 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, when a member of the arbcom adds a listing here pursuant to an arbcom decision, it's probably not a good idea to revert him (grin) →Raul654 00:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom referrals are a special case, and probably shouldn't be reverted. But the delistings are meant to prevent the "Oppose until the questions are answered" votes we were getting. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been Neutral til answered in my experience. Durin recently said to me that the policy reads they must answer the questions, but I'm totally against this. If someone doesn't wanna answer the questions, there's no stand alone literal POLICY stating they must. Policy dictates they must accept the nomination however, as we won't op someone who doesn't want it ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it actually says explicitly anymore that nominations without the questions answered will be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I shouldnta de-listed it, which I realized after I had, but by then I'd already been reverted. Sorry Raul. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Tsaright, we all make mistakes. →Raul654 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a better compromise would be to replace the boilerplate questions (with no answers) with a small explanatory notice when a arbcom referral or other special circumstance takes place? (Although in an ideal world people would not blindly oppose due to no answers without reading enough to realize why there are no answers :) Turnstep 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Information on De-listing

I offer the following information only as information for those who may have recently come to the RfA discussion page as a result of Stevertigo's RfA. I do not assert that the following policies apply to that nomination, I only wish to make clear why certain procedures have generally been followed on RfA recently.

• Kim Bruning commented above: "The new procedure is mostly ok, but since the questions are not mandatory, I don't think people should delist if someone doesn't answer them. "

• →Raul654 pointed out that the listing in question was added at the behest of the ArbCom, which does make it a special case.

• Christopher Parham then commented that "I don't think it actually says explicitly anymore that nominations without the questions answered will be removed."

As a consideration for discussion,

         {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME}} ----

(from this revision, dated October 7, 2005.)

RfA standard procedure for some time now has been to require the questions to be answered and the nomination accepted before being transcluded to the main page. A discussion in procedure change to require nominations to be accepted before being transcluded to the Mainpage occured here. Further discussion occured here. Several RfA's have previously been removed from the RfA page, with the given reason being both that the candidate had not accepted, and that questions had not been answered:

1. [4] (unaccepted)
2. [5]
3. [6] (questions unanswered)
4. [7] (questions unanswered)
5. [8]
6. [9]
7. [10]
8. [11] (questions unanswered)
9. [12]

With one recent exception, where Titoxd removed a nomination that was accepted but the questions were unanswered [13], and Redwolf24 replaced it, asserting that "they only have to accept, they dont have to answer Q's yet", [14], which does seem to contradict the previous precedent.

I offer the above information only as information for those who may have recently come to the RfA discussion page as a result of Stevertigo's RfA. I do not assert that the preceding policies apply to that nomination, I only wish to make clear why certain procedures have generally been followed on RfA.

Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall the policy discussion that led to the assertion that there is a consensus to remove nominations where the candidate fails to answer the questions. Answering them is optional, and a small number of candidates have either failed to answer them or deliberately deleted them from the RfA and still passed. I object to this new requirement; at the very least, let's have a poll on this issue so that I can find out if there is anyone other than myself and Kim Bruning who feel that this is unnecessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I link you to this discussion (linked above), which I assert has a consensus that the nomination should be accepted and the questions answered before a nomination is placed on the RfA page. In my mind, it also holds that pages should not remain listed unless questions are answered, and that has been the practice on the page for the recent time period. That does not mean that the issue cannot be reconsidered, I am simply trying to assert that there was a discussion of this and a reasonable consensus for that action, at that time. Further, I am not asserting that said policy of removing unaccepted and unanswered nominations applies to Stevertigo's RfA, I am merely discussing the process in general. I personally haven't noticed any candidates that have refrained from attempting to answer the questions, or have removed the questions, but I am sure you have been observing RfA longer than I. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Steve's nomination. It's clearly going to fail. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's come here from the ArbCom, and his adminship hinges on it. It's not fair to remove it without an order from the Committee. I'm going to reinstate it. -Splash^talk 12:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to let the nomination remain until Raul654 removes it. He added the nom and since he's a bureaucrat and a member of the ArbCom, he's in the best position to judge when/if it should be removed. Carbonite | Talk 12:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The committee should have bit the bullet and made the decision themselves or, at least, made the "instructions to the jury" much clearer in adding the nom. Marskell 12:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I violently agree. Subject Stevertigo to public mauling is exactly the sort of thing the ArbCom are supposed to prevent. I can't believe the Committee seriously thought there was more than one possible outcome. -Splash^talk 12:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that the ArbCom actually said "Stevertigo...shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" (bolding mine), I'd suggest that his listing by Raul is pretty much invalid and could be removed without waiting. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, I think Raul is in a better position to judge than any of us. The whole point of the ArbCom's ruling was that an RfA would decide whether Stevertigo retain adminship or not. It's already obvious that the RfA will fail. Arguing over whether it should have been a self-nom or not seems rather pointless. Carbonite | Talk 12:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing with the RFA-c nom. Raul nominated Steve to confirm his adminship. The RFA-c is failing miserably, which means he definately does not have the support of the community. has anyone asked Raul if he would like to continue with the RFA? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been worthwhile for the ArbCom to follow our revised procedure here? Give the candidate a chance to accept or refuse the nomination, and also give Steve an opportunity to comment on the RFArb or anything else he wishes to mention...before the RfA is listed on the main RfA page. Obviously a refused nomination would in this case result in loss of adminship. Let it be Steve's choice to either bow out gracefully or risk a potential public roasting. I hope the ArbCom would consider following such a procedure should they carry out a remedy like this in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Should they carry out a remedy like this in future." Hopefully they don't. "The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed." Here they are treating RfA as a last resort—that's not what RfA is for. You can call it reaffirmation of his adminship, but tacitly its a referendum on his behaviour. They should not have brought it to this forum. Marskell 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Bringing this matter here was out of line, and doomed to failure. But for me, the main reason it showed bad judgement on ArbCom's part is that the people here at

WP:RFA are being expected to go through the entire ArbCom case to gain an understanding of what has transpired such that they can make an appropriate vote. I don't expect most people will do that. Quite a number, I am sure, are seeing that he has been the subject of an RfAr and will vote in opposition. It is akin to having a court case conclude against him, and then having a jury which was not present during the trial read a transcript of the trial to determine his guilt. <tongue in cheek>Maybe we should start an RfAr against Arbcom?</tongue in cheek> :) --Durin

14:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think having the community reconfirm was a good idea, but I think he should have been given the option of just giving up his adminship with no hassle, instead of going through RFA and inevitably losing painfully. ~~ N (t/c) 14:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And actually, I think this would have been more in line with the spirit of the ruling that he bring it here himself. If he had chosen to bring it here, then he could more reasonably be expected to deal with what's been thrown at him. If he had chosen not to, de-admining could have gone ahead without the fuss and ill-will that has emerged. All-in-all, a poor call. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo has always had the option to voluntarily request to be de-admined. In fact, I suggested this option on his talk page before the ArbCom case was initiated. I agree, it would have saved a lot of time for everyone involved and would have avoided a lot of fuss and ill-will. Carbonite | Talk 14:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to have Stevertigo being grilled here; and I agree with Marskell completely. It shouldn't be brought here. There will obviously be many oppose votes based on his Arbr, so the result will anyways be skewed. Arbcom should specify if they want a public hanging of Stevertigo. Over to Raul. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I enquired some hours ago whether a public hanging (or mauling, in my words) is what the Committee were seeking at the bottom of

WP:RfAr#Stevertigo's RfA. I remain hopeful that the Arbitrators may clarify their intent. -Splash^talk

15:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • (Late insert): Indeed, Stevertigo "may not deserve it" either —please keep that in mind. ;) -St|eve 05:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support --
  (?)
  00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. It's disturbing to think that fifteen people voted oppose when Stevertigo had not accepted the nomination, in all likelihood had no knowledge of it, and had had no chance to withdraw. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This was not a standard RfA, in fact it was far from normal. I don't really agree that the ArbCom should have used RfA to decide the case, but once the nomination was posted, there wasn't anything distubring about opposing. Stevertigo had over two months to "withdraw", by voluntarily requesting to be de-admined. He paid attention to the proposed decision and had full knowledge of what the ArbCom was considering. The remedy may not have been ideal, but my sympathy for Stevertigo is rather limited in this case. Carbonite | Talk 01:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's one of the factors I took into effect when closing it early, had he accepted it and said bring it on then I would have been more reluctant, however he was just being slammed there and generally it is allowed if not encourged to remove a nomination where continuation would clearly result in hurt feelings.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 01:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jtkiefer's decision to remove the nomination early, but I am disturbed by Ann Heneghan's ease in criticizing those (like me) who voted to oppose. This was not a normal RfA. Stevertigo was already an administrator. If one abstains from voting on a nomination that hasn't been accepted, the nomination will be removed, and the subject will not become an administrator. If everyone waited for Stevertigo to accept the nomination and he never did, he would remain an administrator. To me, removing an abusive administrator is more important than avoiding hurt feelings, although I would like to respect both if possible. This probably could have been done better, but Stevertigo had three months to do this voluntarily and he refused. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, I don't wish to criticize anyone in this case. On reflection, I think it would have been more tactful if I had waited a few weeks and then made the general point (without referring to Stevertigo) on this page rather than placing my comment on his RfA page and the ralated talk page. The general point was, of course, that I wish people wouldn't keep adding oppose votes when there are already more oppose votes than support votes. If I expressed that offensively, I apologize. I agree that removing an abusive administrator is more important than avoiding hurt feelings, but as I pointed out, the oppose votes went far beyond what was necessary to remove him. While I'm not comfortable with the oppose votes still coming in now, at least, at this stage, Stevertigo has accepted the nomination, and has thereby accepted any potential loss of face that may ensue. What I would like to see is a complete changing of the rules or the system so that it will no longer be possible to oppose (or support) an RfA before the candidate has accepted. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there wasn't anything wrong with opposing the RfA. The RfA and the entire ArbCom case could have easily been avoided. Had Stevertigo apologized back in August and de-admined himself, it probably would have been a fairly minor issue. In fact, it's likely that an RfA to regain adminship would have succeeded in the near future had he chosen this route. This course of action would have saved many users lots of time and effort and Steve would have come out looking much better. Carbonite | Talk 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing at all disturbing in editors reviewing the ArbCom case for themselves (since the Arbitrators weren't willing to do this for us), taking into account the rest of Stevertigo's and then voting accordingly. The implication that there is something wrong with opposing when you find a candidate you do not think should be an admin is more disturbing, particularly in what is very plainly a very special case such as this — and especially when cast in the accusatory language of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo. I personally, do not agree with the delisting since it terminates any possibility that things might change, and any possibility that Stevertigo might accept and be able to persuade his opposers. I do not think that community consensus over delisting comes into it, since this RfA was mandated in an ArbCom ruling, and such rulings are binding. The community does not have the luxury of choosing to what extent a ruling applies and RfAs last 7 days. The Committee made a grave error, and it needs fixing, but they have all the power they need to {{sofixit}}. -Splash^talk 01:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)\

And it's of course your right to disagree, however as noted above he had a chance to give up his admin rights voluntarily which he chose not to. Also if there was any chance of him convincing enough users to gain consensus to keep his adminship then the RFA should have been kept up and open, however the fact that that a consensus of users agreed that there was no chance of this happening warranted a closing to prevent hard feelings.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 01:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, when you say that he had full knowledge of what they were considering, does that mean that he actually knew it would involve being put through another RfA, or does it just mean he knew he might lose his admin status? I'd have had less sympathy for him if he had just been desysopped. And I do think that when the decision was reached, he should have been the one to decide whether to go through with the RfA, or to be foribly desysopped at that late stage. I'm concerned that it happened when he wasn't around – check his contributions – that he wasn't in a position to refuse or withdraw, that he hadn't accepted his nomination or answered the questions, and that people still continued with their oppose when it must have been obvious that their votes were not necessary to ensure his failure. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The proposed remedy was voted on for three weeks while Stevertigo commented on the talk page. It was quite obvious what the outcome of the ArbCom voting would be. He had months to decide that he wanted to withdraw and chose not to take that option. Personally, I don't believe that the nomination should have been sent to RfA at all. Steve should have been de-admined and allowed to reapply through RfA at any time. Carbonite | Talk 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Carbonite. I have now read the proposed remedy, and see that he did indeed have notice that this was likely to come. Of course, it was unfortunate that he was away from Wikipedia at the time that the voting started, and, as I said above, I'd like to see a situation where it wouldn't be possible to start voting before the acceptance. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I have listed this on

Actually, this might have been a bad idea. If you check Stevertigo's edits, you can see that he has not been here since the 21st of October. Most likely, he was not aware for his "new RfA". I think that we should redo this nomination, according to the rules: create the subpage, wait for Stevertigo to accept/decline/whatever it, let him comment and answer the questions, and then the community can start the process over again. What we have now is not fair. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no reason at all to redo the nomination. There is overwhelming opposition to Stevertigo remaining an admin, as seen in his RfC and RfA. The ArbCom should simply de-admin him and let him reapply for adminship whenever he chooses. Carbonite | Talk 12:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

note

As per the arbcom ruling and my request on

I have only yesterday taken a look at the RFA understanding its creative use as a "remedy" in my Arbcom case. Ive just today been able to read through most of the various comment, and it seems to me that I should have at least had an opportunity to comment on the RFA (as many neutral/comment votes sought my input), before it was closed. While Jtkiefer and others claimed that the RFA was just becoming a forum for people taking "potshots" at me, I disagree with his rather partisan view of my case, my RFA, and later his motion/request to deadmin (See User talk:Jtkiefer). Now that I have some bearings on what has been going on, Im requesting that the delisting be found as inappropriate and premature, and that I be able to comment on my own RFA, per the Arbcom's decision. The claim that the removal 'was just doing me a favor' is flaccid: I could equally claim that the motion to close was designed to minimise criticism of the RFAR decision, and any ensuing embarrassment for the Arbcom in crafting its apparently unpopular remedy.

I dont care about potshots. If you have formed a reasoned and informed criticism of me based on the case or any past behaviour, I will earnestly accept your criticism and your opposition to my "reaffirmation" (a term the Arbcom no doubt borrowed from Stuart Smalley). But if you have just stopped by to chime in with chimeras and personal attacks, then (by my own personal tally) I will not consider your vote sincere. Allow me to make my own case to "the mob" in an appropriate timeframe, in accord with the Arbcom ruling. The community can then move on deal with the Arbcom and its decision. Sincerely, St|eve 04:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC) PS: WP:RFA/SV/N

Hello Steve, the shortcut [[WP:RFA/SV/N] currently points to a redlinked page, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo/Notes. Typo, or are you perhaps writing something up at the moment? Regards encephalon 05:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Its there now - Im just going through each comment and making annotations. -SV

According to the quite recently adopted new practice for RfA, a nomination should not be listed until the candidate indicates acceptance of the nomination (in the space allotted near the top of the page). So I suppose if you edit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo to do the latter, you could simply relist the nomination yourself, if that is indeed your wish. -- Curps 05:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Quite recently" sounds like a joke. I'll consider your suggestion for tomorrow. -SV

PS, you've created quite a few acronym redirs:

WP:RFM/IW... I'm not sure it's a good idea to create such abbreviations for every individual RfA and RfC... and when "Surly Vogon" is nominated for admin, will we make WP:RFA/SV a disambiguation page? :-) -- Curps

05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This comment belongs on my talk, not here. But I get your point. (I was thinking more of when Slim Virgin goes up for an RFAR.) :) -St|eve 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Per Kelly Martin's comment above, I'm starting a poll to determine what everyone thinks about the new delisting rules. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please add your name with #~~~~ to the section you agree with:

Support

(Keep new rules and allow delisting if nominee does not answer questions)

1. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. To be clear, there should be no question of "delisting", as no RfA should ever be listed until the nominee accepts the nomination and provides at least cursory answers to the questions. This may indeed be coercive, but even though adminship is no big deal, it is nevertheless a privilege to be earned. Besides, I've never seen a serious admin candidate decline to answer the questions, and doubt I ever will.  BD2412 ^talk 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Per  BD2412. I also agree that any RfA candidate declines to answer the questions at their own peril, but I think it is within reason to wait for the questions to be answered to begin the voting process. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
4. I support the current (new) rules. Only list if the candidate accepts and answers the question, and only delist if the candidate declines or withdraws the nomination. — JIP | Talk 12:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

(Go back to the old rules, and delist only if the nominee does not accept the nomination)

1. See m:instruction creep. Questions should not be mandatory. Acetic'^Acid 07:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Yep.  Grue  08:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Yeah - although I doubt if they'd be promoted with no answers to questions. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
4. yep. *opens beer* (King of the Hill reference for the humor impaired)  ALKIVAR™ 09:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
5. I think that if the nominee does not answer the questions it is their fault and they'll get less supports for it - it's up to them if they are serious enough.
   x
   09:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Indeed. --
   Communicate!) ^<Contribs
   > 11:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Yerp. No need. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
8. There is only in the rarest of cases a need to delist before the end of 7 days, and almost never if the delister is not a bureaucrat. Bureaucracts decide the outcomes of RfAs, and delisting is a pretty clear decision of outcome. -Splash^talk 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Making the questions compulsory is too coercive. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
10. A lack of answers is an answer itself. Turnstep 00:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
11. I don't think there's a need to require answers. They'll run into a brick wall if they don't but there might be a situation where it's not needed.
    Rx StrangeLove
    03:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Mmmm. I think it was a good experiment, but I think the other way was a little better. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/Other

1. Do these rules include delisting early if the candidate seems assured of defeat? --
   (talk) Contribs
   05:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Voting is silly. --Carnildo 06:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. I'd say delist only if there is no obvious evidence that the candidate has accepted the nomination (e.g., it might be worth checking the nominator's talk page). Making the questions a requirement is stupid. Right now we have a nice, simple definition of what we want in admins -- "trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policy." I see no reason to add a requirement that they be able to articulate the contributions they are most pleased with. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm.

1. t
   08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, I'm with what Filiocht said below; I'm sick of polls. I think putting a little number next to my name and quarantining it in its own little section with similar votes discourages discussion. (Oh wait, that's what an RFA is... :-) Just thought I'd point it put, don't mind me.

   t

   00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Voting ≠ consensus. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. I think a poll is premature at this point. For one, I'm not at all sure what we are being asked to vote on. When putting the question, please be specific. Two, please don't rush into a vote without asking for debate and allowing for amendment and shaping of the question. Jonathunder 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   A split poll indicates a lack of consensus, which is why I asked for a poll. I personally think that this proposal was railroaded through without consensus, and I wanted verification that my suspicion was correct. It would seem that it was. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   It absolutely was, as my attempts to oppose it ~12 hours after it had been proposed were ignored. Apparently consensus had formed all while I slept. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just to be clear; I oppose the proposal, but I'd rather not be asked to vote in yet another poll. I'd prefer discussion. My own view is that all RfAs should be allowed to run their full course unless the mominee withdraws. However, I also feel that nobody should be proposed without first getting their agreement to accept on their talk page or by e-mail. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Must change my
   D&D alignment to neutral-evil Lectonar
   10:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ermm... I'm kind of confused now. Are we voting polling about whether to 1) not let RfAs be placed on the page until the candidate has accepted, 2) or whether to require that the questions be answered? It appears to be unclear to me. In either case, I do apologize if the proposal seemed railroaded through, but it appeared we had a consensus on the page with no opposition, so I was
  S
  00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  My personal oppose is to oppose any reason whatever for delisting before the end of 7 days, except is blatantly obvious cases of either bad-faith nominations, declined nominations and other similarities. -Splash^talk 00:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  Would you agree that, rather than making provisions for a declined nomination, it's easier to just wait for the nomination to be accepted before it is posted to the RfA page? After all, this would prevent both joke nominations (such as

  Kappa's last nomination).  BD2412 ^talk

  03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  Now that sounds fair. The questions are just extra, but accepting the nomination is already mandatory in order for it to run its course. This would also prevent awkward surprise nominations (like my first nomination). Acetic'^Acid 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think that would be alright, although much of the time it doesn't make a whole load of difference. I am basically quite strongly opposed to any early delisting once an RfA has begun, whatever the reason, short of obvious bad-faith, a withdrawal or a bureaucrat's decision. We create bureaucrats for their judgement in handling RfAs, and I dislike the devolution of that power to one random editor's discretion over when a nomination is 'likely' to have failed. -Splash^talk 14:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, well put.

Rx StrangeLove

14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Also agreed. As stated by myself in prior discussions here, I think it is a bad idea to remove RfAs prior to the end of the 7 days, unless they are made in bad faith. I'm also opposed to bureaucrats removing them, but feel less strongly about that than random good faith editors prematurely removing them. I feel very strongly that a nominee should be given the opportunity to voluntarily withdraw, rather than forcibly withdrawing them. Forcibly withdrawing has lead to problems in the past, and even now with the (albeit unusual) Stevertigo nomination, which was removed early and put back up. --Durin 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Durin, pretty much exactly. Forcible withdrawal does more harm than good. If the nominee wants it removed, they can easily say so, and it will be done. Friday (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts

1. Frivolous nominations.
2. Candidate declines nomination.
3. Candidate requests a delisting.
4. Admin questions not answered within 5 days of accepting nomination. Voting should only start after candidate has answered questions.
5. Spoiled nominations. Excessive controversy results in irreparable damage to the voting process.

Klonimus 07:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Some responses

1. Who decides? Better to let run its course.
2. The rule is (or should be) do not list without pprior candidate agreement.
3. The only valid one, IMHO.
4. No, questions should be voluntary. Let the voters make up their own minds about lack of answers.
5. Let the candidate decide.

Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What I think

1. Only list an RFA once the User has accepted the nomination.
2. Only delist an RFA once the User has withdrawn the nomination. encephalon 04:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As this apparent flux in the delisting policy comes in the wake of my RFA, Ive made some comments and requests with regard to the appropriateness of my delisting. (See #Inappropriate delisting)-St|eve 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• There's been an ongoing debate about when to delist from before your re-RfA came up. In concur with Encephalon's suggestions. --Durin 15:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Email_campaigns

I think AE's RfA has shown very clearly that RfA is broken. Whether or not the campaign against AE is motivated by religious bias (I feel it was, but there are only a handful of votes that explicitly cite his religion as a reason to oppose), there have been at least two campaigns to motivate users to vote against this user.

I think this vote is tainted, but more importantly, it goes back to this issue that RfA is broken. Guettarda 13:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Do you think that without this "campaign" he would've been promoted? In what way does it break RfA? I don't understand at all.  Grue  14:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say. He has 58 support votes - but many of them may be in response to the opposition. The problem is that people are campaigning to oppose this editor. I was shocked to get an email from someone I had never heard of before this RfA, calling on me (and others, it was a transparently mass email) to oppose this editor. Campaigning for votes is considered an abuse of process, and usually draws more oppose votes than it generates support votes. The opposite process, going out and campaigning against a nominee, skews things similarly, but much more effectively, since each oppose vote cancels out 4 support votes.

A spam campaign, off Wikipedia, is much worse because it is invisible to the community at large.

The point isn't AE's RfA. I trust you (Grue) to make a fair vote. I don't trust every editor to do so - especially in this case, where they have been votes motivated by religious bias. Given the disproportionate weight of oppose votes, any campaign against an editor taints the process. Guettarda 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that RFA is broken. It may do with some tweaks, yes but in fact, I think it may be one of the most well-oiled processes in WP namespance.Borisblue 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How so? If people are launching spam campaigns to oppose editors, I'd say the process has been shown to be fatally flawed. In addition, there have been quite a few contentious RfAs recently in which it would appear that people are not basing their votes on the idea that adminship is no big deal. So, if adminship is no big deal, but people vote as if it were, the process is broken. Now, if people are launching attack campaigns - another flaw in the system is shown. This is not about voting, it's about consensus - consensus as to whether we know this person well enough to trust them with a few minor tools and one major tool - the ability to delete images. Guettarda 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the big picture: by and large, reliable editors are getting promoted, unreliable ones aren't. No backlog, but a steady stream of admins is being turned out. The process is working fine. Borisblue 14:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll suggest another scenario - AE's RfA will probably get defeated this time and may come up again two months time. If I am one of the guys who are violently opposed to him, this is what I will do - Create three new accounts, one each from home, work and a friends dial up line. Make 50 edits from each in three different fields, and be careful that I use a particular account only from one place. When the RfA comes up again, I'll have three oppose votes ready. If three people do that, the RfA almost certainly won't go through. What can the current process do to prevent this ? Tintin 15:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't even have to do it from separate IPs - CheckUser takes up too much time and uses too many server resources to run on every controvertial vote. Guettarda 15:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the bureaucrats are well capable of sifting through an RfA to weed out inappropriately made votes. This is what we promote bureaucrats to do, and for the most part I think they are doing a very good job of it, with only occasional errors. AE's RfA is rapidly become the most voted on nomination in the history of RfA. It's not there yet, but it's well on the way. It is certainly (by far) the most opposed RfA since June (assuming all oppose votes are non-sock puppets). In my recollection, it's certainly generated the most debate. I think it's safe to say that AE's nom is an exception, and not the norm. Using such an exceptional case to identify problems within the RfA process is not a well based argument. --Durin 15:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

David has scratched one sockpuppet vote already. Guettarda 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of you can support someone like that, let alone allow them to have adminstrative powers, he'll run around deleting any articles that aren't attack peices on christianity--Sir.Salmon Fish^{The First} 15:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like the weeding out process to be transparent. I can't remember seeing a bureaucrat mentioning in an RfA what votes were counted and what were not (usually it doesn't matter, though). Tintin 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Doing that would subject the bureaucrats to a hail storm of hate mail. They're doing their job, and doing it rather well. --Durin 15:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Fine. I hadn't realised that it was a deliberate decision to exclude it. Tintin 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the breakage. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there needs to be community input in the administrator-selection process, and in a community this large discussion alone is insufficient, and voting or a vote-like process is needed. Do you have a better idea? ~~ N (t/c) 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's broken for a number of reasons, but the relevant fact here is that, while solicitng "support" votes is generally a self-correcting process, soliciting "oppose" votes is not. Since such a tiny proportion of the community votes on any nom, a relatively small number of votes can swing the process one way or another. Guettarda 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Everybody knows where RFA is, so if they don't vote it's because they don't want to. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to prohibit soliciting opposes. ~~ N (t/c) 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A large number of those 'support' votes look awefully fishy to me, but I doubt any beurocrats are going to see it the same way, anything to defend this state of wiki:affirmative action, god forbid an editor who was actualy a christian, survive the same process--Sir.Salmon Fish^{The First}File:Salmon.gif 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[This user has 14 votes and is probably a trolling sock - Guettarda 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)]

I get concerned when good editors get upset in RFAs. Sadly, some have even left the project. Is anyone else worried about this?Borisblue 14:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a concern certainly. I think it might be a good idea to have a very prominent link on the nomination page to a subpage that concisely lays out the potential consequences of RfA, what the user should expect, how the user should be prepared, etc. This should not be provided as an obstacle to nomination, but as a guide. Beyond that, I don't know what more we can do. I don't think we should be responsible for user's poor reactions to contentious RfAs, assuming we do the above. Some users are just ill-suited to being an admin. We might be able to head some of the off before they go up for RfA, but once they are up for RfA we can't control what happens nor should we. --Durin 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to write exactly what Durin said. Anyone coming up for RFA should steel themselves for a possible pounding by all the POV warriors with whom they have ever collided, and accept it--as best they can--as an inevitable part of being part of this huge and chaotic community. A lot of good editors who stay away from controversial articles still go through 40-1, or so, while now almost anyone who has been brave enough to tackle Israel-Palestine or Bush-Kerry or Lilliput-Blefescu or whatever, will likely be subject to oppose votes, and sometimes downright nasty comments. A subpage giving warnings and advice on how to handle the stress of RFA might be a good idea. Antandrus (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are some good points, Durin. I'd support having an "RfA Guide" that would explain the process and potential complications. I also think that a user fit for adminship should be able to withstand a harsh RfA. If the candidate starts lashing out at users who challenge them or act in an incivil manner, they're probably not ready to be an admin. Carbonite | Talk 15:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I slightly disagree with any worry about this, specifically in regards to Zereshk. Zereshk, IMHO, overreacted and called the oppose voters the bad guys. He was definitely not civil, and voters were calling him on this. He also was insulted that a voter called him on his lack of experience with using Wiki code. While Zereshk may be a valuable contributor, he may not be a good admin candidate. Durin is right: we shouldn't be responsible for user's poor reactions to contentious RfAs. I edit conflicted twice, so I think we're all on the same boat. Linuxbeak | Talk 15:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That's four of us now that think the RfA guide might be a good idea. Pending time availability today, I'll craft something. When I've got a rough draft, I'll let you guys know about it here. In the meantime, I'd certainly welcome input on what should be on it. I do think it's important we keep it concise; one of the things I do in my professional job is web development, and an age old maxim is keep it short or expect it not to be read. --Durin 15:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you counted me as one of the four, but let me throw my hat into the ring just to be sure. Yeah, I think this is something that is way overdue. Good on Durin for volunteering. Borisblue 15:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Five :) --Durin 15:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Might as well get started on a title. Wikipedia:Advice for administrator nominees?Borisblue 15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • How about simply
          Wikipedia:Guide to RfA, similar to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion? Carbonite | Talk
          15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think the idea of a guide is a good one. As to what it includes, well links to some of the harsher RfA's would be useful. In answer to Borisblue, I think that if an editor leaves because of a failed RfA and/or get upset at their RfA then they probably don't have the temperament to be an admin. CambridgeBayWeather 15:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  I concur, but they could still make good editors. Some good editors have left the project because of bad RFAs, and WP has lost good contributors because of that. Zereshk has 5000 edits for instance, though thankfully he isn't leaving the project. My main example is User:Rl. I feel guilty because I voted oppose on his rfa. He was a good editor, but we've lost him for good now.Borisblue 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just as a point of data; over the last 35 admin nominations, 12 have been withdrawn early. That's 34%. Over the preceeding 207 RfA noms, 22 were withdrawn early. That's 11%. This is a bit paradoxical; we recently changed the nomination process to make it a requirement that nominees accept their nominations prior to being posted on WP:RFA. This was done in part to reduce the number of nominations that were withdrawn. I'll try to get to work on the guide. Maybe that will have a reducing effect on the number of withdraws. --Durin 17:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've retitled this section with a more appropriate title. This might draw more people's eyes to the discussion in this section. --Durin 17:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hear hear. Happy to contribute from the perspective of a user who has recently had an unsuccessful RfA. The Land 17:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Modifying Carbonite's suggestion, I've begun working on

Durin, great contribution, as always!! Preparing oneself mentally for the RfA journey is a really good idea. Being nominated and then thrust out "naked" into the open can be a very humbling experience. I might add that you may wish to include a section on RfA ettiquette discussing such matters as advertising your RfA, campaigning, er, uh, voting on your own, etc. Noting that there are no rules against such things, but they often land the candidate in an ill light. I'd love to see the draft when you post it. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 17:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool stuff. I've scribbled some thoughts down at User:The Land/RfA Guide; hope they are of use. The Land 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, making it a subpage of the RFA page makes more sense than making it a page by itself, as per Durin's original suggestion. Borisblue 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guide? Borisblue 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Precedent examples? --Durin 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  There's a first time for everything :) Actually, in your first comment on this section you said it would be a subpage. Not a big deal for me, though, I'd just thought it would make more sense since the guide would be intricately linked to RFA. Borisblue 19:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I found some precedent but I think it's not a good one to follow. For quite some time now, there's been a general opinion that subpages are bad, and linked articles are better. I've created the guide as per convention of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and others. --Durin 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• In considering issues for the guide, I've come to realization that there's perhaps need for two articles. One would be something along the lines of Wikipedia:Advice for administrator nominees as suggested by Borisblue. Another would be as I suggested, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. WP:GRFA, starting with suggestions by RobyWayne (RFA Etiquette), is as a mental concept for me greatly expanding. What does concensus mean? Should you avoid pile ons? What's the policy on early withdrawals? How do you withdraw? etc...etc...etc... I was hoping for a far more concise guide directed strictly at potential nominees as per the original discussion this section. But, I see now that there's potential for both and reasons for both. Thoughts? --Durin 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you need two pages. Why can't the first just be a section of the second? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I definitely think it could be. In fact, that's the way I'm structuring Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship (working on the draft now). My concern is as I noted above; "keep it short or expect it not to be read". But, perhaps there's so much text in this section you didn't read that ;-) Seriously, I think part of the goal needs to be educating would-be horribly failed nominees as to the likely result of their nomination. Having a looooong document for them to read is unlikely to result in that effect. Regardless, I think Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is a good idea...even its focus is less about advice for nominees than about the process in general. --Durin 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I caught it, but perhaps I am simply underestimating the length of this guide. Or have some sort of shortcut to just that section. Or have that section near the top where people might notice it. I can't wait to see what you come up with. Have you looked at User:The Land's subpage yet? There are a couple of decent points on there. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I completed the draft
  WP:GRFA. LV: Yes, I used substantial material from User:The Land's subpage. Note that I used a style guide whereby "voters" is replaced by "contributors" to steer people away from the notion that RFA is an election, as it is about determining concensus, and not an election. Feel free to edit what I put in the draft; this should be a joint effort to help improve the RFA process in general. As you can see from the page, it is already quite long and I can easily see it getting significantly longer. That's why I was suggesting a secondary page of more direct advice that was short, concise, and very to the point. I don't think the guide as it stands will help to reduce the number of withdrawals that we are seeing, but I think it's a worthy project to help the RFA process improve in general. --Durin
  21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In my rather unsympathetic approach to RfA, I think that any good candidate for adminship should already know all that before they go ahead with a request. I suppose it may serve as fair warning to editors likely to be unsuccessful, however. -Splash^talk 14:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen a number of noms that are virtual "a HA! Gotcha!" because some nominee did not follow process (for example voting for themselves when in fact voting for yourself/your contributions is perfectly normal elsewhere on Wikipedia), or made some other "error" that is not outlined in any instructions on RfA (such as campaigning, or putting a link in your signature to your RfA) but is standard practice in the RfA process. One does not need to follow RfA for a few months in order to be a good administrator, nor should we expect anyone to do so. Catching them on errors is hardly beneficial to Wikipedia. Instead, I think we should be working to prepare people appropriately for the RfA process and adminship in general rather than laying traps for them to trip over. --Durin 15:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Case in point; User:Babajobu (RfA) just lost a support vote because he advertised his nomination on IRC. There's no statement anywhere that he should not have done this. Yet, he's lost one vote and will probably lose more because of it. That's entirely unfair to editors who are not familar with RfA who are up for nomination. --Durin 18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As stated above, the delisting was inappropriate as I had not been online for a few days and had not formally accepted the nomination to begin with. So according to the rules of RFA, the automatic nomination by Raul456 was invalid. I likewise have not had a chance reply to the various "potshots" directed at me, and this RFA had become the forum by which criticism of the RFAR decision (to remand it here) was given attention. I do not think it is appropriate for me to modify the page myself, as it is listed as an "archive," so now I humbly ask that a third party relist me on WP:RFA, modify

Stevertigo, while I feel for you in terms of the RFA being a slugfest against you, I don't think it's appropriate to start yelling at the Arbitration Committee (specifically, Raul). I know you're upset, but think of this positively. This is the time for you to rebuild trust from the Wikipedia community. Cater to the community and you will be catered to in turn. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This depends on your definition of "trust." If you read my diffs and know my work on controversial topics and my ability to write and reason with as full possible fidelity to NPOV, then you can measure my level of "trust" based on that information. If measure "trust" by my presence on IRC (which I dont use), or through pictures of me hugging wikipedians at wikimania, or by barnstars and personal notes of support on my talk page, then we might have some disagreement with regard to our operative definition of "trust." IAC, its not my intention to embarrass the Arbcom —others are free to comment on the wisdom of that decision. Its my intention to make my case to "the mob" and answer each criticism directly about my conduct and my status as a sysop. I dont see how that should be controversial, or construed as "yelling." I simply think that if there is to be some review of my character, there must be appropriate responsiveness and dialogue. The Arbcom (see talk:proposed decision) was not appropriately responsive, and my presence here is the result of that unresponsiveness. I sincerely request that the community extend to me the ear that the Arbcom did not. -St|eve 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated the RfA. --Michael Snow 18:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as making the nomination for you, yes, that was a mistake -- mea culpa. However, "This is problematic, as (I suppose) the "beaurocrat" referred to is Raul, who likewise made the nomination itself" - this is almost certainly a reference to Nichalp's removal of the nomination [15]. I should probably state clearly that outside of the arbcom case (the extent of which is available on the proposed decision page), my only involvement in this was to make the nomination. I did not vote, remove it, or even render an opinion (which was requested by several people). →Raul654 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your newfound responsiveness, but what does "me aculpa" mean in this context? The decision was to make no decision, but rather instead to "throw it to the mob" as others have said. Was this a product of decisiveness and clarity or simply an engineered means to "tar and feather" someone with whom you (collective "you") have some disagreements? Would it not have been less embarrassing for you to be appropriately responsive during the actual Arbcom case? I understand you feel reluctant to admit to mistakes, and that is indeed forgivable. But your "me aculpa" is besides the point and is merely the last in a comedy of errors that could have been prevented. Please forgive me if this RFA has become a learning experience for you. Me aculpa. -St|eve 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's
  Mea Culpa. --Durin
  19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends where you stick the a. -St|eve 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Steve, you're not going to like hearing this, but I think part of the problem is that you're argumentative. No one has treated you unfairly, and even when we try to give our opinions to you, you hold us in contempt and have to argue tiny minor points such as "me culpa". Focus on what you need to do: regaining trust. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course Im going to assert that attacks on my character are improper and unsubstantive. I dont see how your claim that I'm "argumentative" has any bearing here. If I argue point by point in a rational (albeit at times sarcastic and pointed) manner, then Im called "argumentative." If Im away from a computer for a few days and dont get a chance to respond, then I'm called "unresponsive."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't has similarities to unfair treatment, though you make the blanket claim that "no one has treated" me in such manner. While I appreciate your understanding of the time element with regard to the remedy, I would appreciate it more if you did not limit your public criticism to me alone, as I am not the one who crafted the remedy to follow the RFAR. There are many ways to gain trust —among them is simply representing oneself earnestly and truthfully —even in a mob justice situation. Being argumentative is only superficial aspect of my character and conduct —those who consider it to be a symptom of abusiveness are making a superficial rather than substantive judgement. -St|eve

21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It keeps getting reverted even though I filled out the page--Lapsed canadian 21:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Because you are playing about. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what Theresa means it that she or others consider you to be a troll, and that any reverts of a so-called "trolls" edits should be considered valid. If Im mistaken in my interpretation, it is no doubt in part due to Theresa's curtness and lack of explanation. -St|eve 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation is essentially correct except that I consider him to be trolling rather than consider him a troll. This is some kid having fun that's all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How about just stating in the edit summary why the nomination is being reverted, instead of using the rollback button, which is for vandals only anyway? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I should have done that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

(......)

With the quasi-exponential growth of Wikipedia, I'm not sure if that will ever happen. More readers → more vandals → more admins chasing the vandals... Titoxd^(?!?) 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship is a position of trust, not a coterie. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep. As long as the right people are given adminship, there's no such thing as too many. Friday (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, adminship is no big deal. If we have a million great editors who would make good admins, we should have a million admins. There is no need to have a cabal... er, limit. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at

WP:CP for example. We need more good admins, a lot more. Plus what Nichalp said. Martin

18:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. If the right ones are being appointed, we can never have too many. Unfortunately, it really feels as if the vandals have been outpacing the admins as of late. I suppose I need to get back to writing that semi-protection proposal I've been drafting.  :-( Hall Monitor 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well put, everyone. I catch vandalism on my watchlist every single day. That's vandalism that blew right by RC patrollers, even though there are usually a lot. We can always use more trusted people with admin powers. Antandrus (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia's editor base seems to be growing by about 10% per month. That would suggest that we need to grow our admin pool by that much just to ride herd on the project. Of course, there are a number of confounding factors.

• Not all editors and not all admins are still active. There's no real way to get rid of an account once it has edited, and admins who go dormant usually aren't desysopped. Even though we have more than 600 nominal admins, I suspect that quite a few rarely visit the project.
• There is an arms race between the persistence and ingenuity of our developers and vandal fighters and the determined vandals. Having more admins means that it's more likely that a serious troublemaker (vandalbot or the like) will be stopped quickly, and it also means that many people are able to help clean up things like page move vandalism. Usually the vandals are just background noise, but there are short periods of time when we need all the good admins we can get.

Since we don't seem to have any problems right now related to having too many admins, I'm inclined not to worry about it. If we get to a point where there is a problem, I expect the matter to be self-correcting as it is with bureaucrats—people will get much pickier about their candidates, and will oppose on the grounds of sufficient supply. Possibly there will evolve a finer-grained privilege management structure (for example, the proposal to grant rollback privileges to some editors without giving out the full admin toolbox.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I see no reason to slow down the process by which we are making admins. I've been keeping track of statistics regarding this. One of the stats I am keeping is how many edits there are per day per admin. Average over the length of the (short) study is 137 edits per day. There have been no extremes from this number, and it is not getting worse. Thus, I don't think we can conclude that the number of admins is too great or too small, assuming that Wikipedia is in a state of good repair. Rather, I think we can conclude we are making admins at a proper pace to keep pace with the increasing number of edits per day. That said, I think there are a number of scalability issues in general with Wikipedia that are not being properly addressed. Small case in point;
  WP:RFA. At the pace that the number of admin noms per week is increasing, the number of nominations per week two years from now will be >120 nominations per week, assuming linear growth (which is optimistic; Wikipedia growth has been anything but linear). --Durin
  19:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is no downside to having more admins, as long as they're good community members. Some would say it's the wiki way to have everyone be an admin and then take away privlidges when warrented. I'm not going that far, but as soon as it can be determined someone is trustworthy, my opinion is they should be an admin.
  Tedernst
  21:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think that the optimal (i.e. idealistic but unrealistic) situation would be to have every dedicated, good-faith, dependable editor be an admin. The more good people we make into admins, the less problems we'll have from vandals and the like, the smoother things that require admins will run, and the less danger a mistake by an individual admin or 'personality problems' will pose (since there will be more people empowered to review and reverse it.) Obviously, there are reasons why we can't spread adminship quite that widely... we need time to determine who fits the critera, for instance. But there's no reason to ever worry about having too many admins, beause our optimal case would be to promote all qualified individuals. --Aquillion 21:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

(......)

In that case your concern should not be "when will we start to slow down the rate of new admin creation", but "are admins getting accepted more easily than they once were". We always want as many potentally qualified people as possible to apply for adminship; and we should expect, given that the candidate pool remains of a constant quality, that the percentage accepted remains about constant as well. The fact that this ensures that the rate of admin creation will ramp up as Wikipedia's rate of growth increases is a good thing as long as our standards (as represented in the percentage accepted) remain the same. Maybe we should get statistics on the percentage of admin candidates who are accepted/rejected each month, to track trends... --Aquillion 22:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This may be a bit ad hominem, but I must say I'm rather dissapointed in someone who just passed the bar discussing a possible cap. C'mon, what if we capped it a month ago? You wouldn't be one... please, no cap suggestions. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Judging by RFA history, it is in fact somewhat more difficult to become an admin than it was in the past. So I don't think there's a problem here. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

How many Admins do we need? All of them! :-D  BD2412 ^talk 22:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)