Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 120

Archive 115

←

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Archive 125

RFB standards

It looks like there's a fair amount of support for lowering the standards of promotion at RFB. As it looks, the current situation now is that above 90% is a pass and the upper 80's is a discretionary zone. The proposal in front of us right now would make it 85% for a pass and 80-85% as a discretionary zone. I know the comments covered more ground than that but I don't think there's as much support for anything lower (I could be wrong and that's something to still work out). Personally I wouldn't have a problem with 85% pass but am doubtful about confirmations happening closer to 80%...but single percentage points start to get a little nit picky.

So with that said, I have a couple questions. Is there a reason for lowering the standards? Is there a problem it will solve...chronic backlogs, diversity of opinion etc? Or is it just a fairness issue? I see a lot of people saying they are too high but I don't see a lot of reasons why they think that. I'd like to see a little more thought put into what we're trying to do by lowering them, and what the consequences might be if we increase the number of bureaucrats significantly. And would we raise the number significantly if the standards are lowered (would more people be elected automatically just because the promotion standard is lowered?)

I happen to like the "no significant opposition" threshold but that's never been defined very closely. I also think a smaller group of bureaucrats helps us rather than hurts us...RFA is contentious enough without a wider range of bureaucratic opinion thrown in when discussing consensus, reconfirmation etc. Personally I see a danger in having bureaucrats out of touch with a significant minority of editors when it comes to RFA promotions, but others may not see it that way. But I do think that should be a consideration during this conversation. RxS (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would personally support a change/statement of the threshhold for RfB to be 85% pass and 80% discretionary. Any lower than that, and I'd want to see neutrals counted as oppose (or 50%, but nobody agrees with me on that). I don't believe that lowering will lead to many more bureaucrats, but it will lead to more bureaucrats, and as Wikipedia grows, the number of b'crats should grow, albeit slowly. We're currently making about 4 b'crats a year, and that seems a little too slow given b'crat attrition and the increase in RfAs and bots. Argyriou (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As a synopsis of my treatise above, I agree with the 80/85 zone (which translates to between 4:1 and 6:1). I agree with Argyriou as well that I don't think it will cause many more b-crats, but more importantly, I disagree with the concept that there should be opposes based on the number of b-crats. People need to eat, sleep, work, etc. Having more crats would be a net gain, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we would automatically get more bureaucrats by making the standards more reasonable. If I'm not mistaken, Riana is still the only pass of the recent RfBs under a new standard. As far as why - you're right, I think, that there is no backlog at the moment. On the other hand, losing one active 'crat could cause a huge wave of backlogs because there are so few. There are a bunch of 'crats, but few that actually do 'crat related work. Also, increasing the number allows for a greater benefit from inter-crat consultation - as WjB noted when he closed the ^demon RfA, there was no one available during the close window to discuss the problem with him. Lastly, I think you're right in that this proposal isn't engineered to solve a pressing problem. The issue of a fair and reasonable pass standard is enough by itself - even more so when you consider that there has never, in the past, been a community derived passing standard. There have been discussions before with no outcome, and there has clearly been no support for 90% in those discussions, yet 90% continued to be the standard used by the 'crats. I'm curious, to tell you the truth, whether the current crats are even willing to recognize a change based on this discussion. Dan's comment on the 'crat discussion page for the Riana RfB would seem to indicate that they won't, and Kingturtle's comments suggest a similar feeling. Avruch ^T 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that Riana's isn't the only one that might succeed. The Rambling Man already has. Captain panda 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

TRM had 97% support; his promotion has nothing to do with the new standard, as he would have been promoted even if this discussion wasn't happening. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the standards of consensus just be the same? Naturally, when commenting on an RfB, you would be more cautious in supporting them than you would in an RfA. By removing the higher consensus standard, the overall standards will still be a great deal higher than adminship standards. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's always been something that's pecked at my brain for sometime. If consensus is what determines the outcome of RfA and RfBs, then why should there be such a disparity in the statistics. It is generally known that one is held to a higher standard than the other, and this is how Wikipedians are expected to vote/discuss. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Wisdom, there's a very long post above that noted that very fact . -- Avi (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, it even has data..or is that original research? : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a long semantic debate but I think there is a train of thought that there are different kinds of consensus. You may or may not agree but the point can be reasonably made. But having said that, RFAs and RFBs have never been judged under the same standards and at least one RFB standard is "no significant opposition". I think that's worth preserving on some level. RxS (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but is it not true that, by the very nature of the issue, discussing semantics is unavoidable? AGK (contact) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but we don't have to discuss semantics to agree that there are different kinds (or strengths) of consensus. Unless you disagree and think that there's only one kind of consensus, at that point we'd have to agree to disagree because I think that discussion would give me a headache ;) RxS (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to get err...semantical about things - The current terminology is erroneous anyway. What occurs in both a RFA and RFB is not a consensus, but a majority vote, followed by a level headed decision by a crat. I know this is redundant and has undoubtedly been said hundreds of times (probably several in this discussion alone), and it falls nicely place with the whole "different kinds of consensus". I think I have a headache now. : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please not encourage the modern misunderstanding of what the word semantic actually means? Semantics is the meaning that words have. If what words mean is considered to be a minor diversion in a discussion, rather than at its heart, then every discussion is doomed to be a waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion

Given that we've recently held a bureaucrat discussion on an RFB, I've created a short piece explaining the purpose and process of bureaucrat discussions. I'm intending it purely as a descriptive, not a prescriptive piece. Please have a look, and improve it as necessary. Warofdreams talk 02:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't agree with any of the 5 discussion outcomes. Dorftrottel (harass) 14:18, March 10, 2008

RfB < 90% ?

FYI, the discussion and poll regarding the Proposal to make passing rate of RfB < 90% has been given its own page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. Please chime in. Kingturtle (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas for enhancing the SQL RfA report

1. reinstate the colour coding we had on the previous report, showing clear/lack of consensus by numbers
2. an additional column, showing total participation so far. I dunno about others, but when there's a lot of RfAs open, I may choose to ensure I participate in "low volume" RfAs close to closure (as well as ones where consensus is iffy)

Anyway, just a thought. Or two. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the colour coding is an excellent suggestion; as for total participation, don't you feel the existing Support/Object/Neutral columns suffice to give the reader a indication of participation levels at a glance? скоморохъ 12:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, good point - I had considered that, but didn't explain. So, here goes :-) I thought that anything that could help spotlight the problem I've just posted to VP about (ie low participation, in 'crats zone, closing soon) would be advantageous. And I reckoned that as a no cost solution to a possible problem, why not? --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the old report did not color-code until an RfA with more than 0 !votes dropped below 20% or had 20 !votes in total - maybe a similar system here would work. An un-coded RfA would automatically be one that would require additional input, I would say - especially if it's made it to the end of its time. RfA's can't be relisted for further discussion, at present - so, I agree, more eyes are worthwhile, and an objective system such as this would not discriminate between the 19-1 candidate or the 1-19. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer user:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. Can't we tweak it? Kingturtle (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with the sole exception that the Tangobot report does not include RfB's. Now that the deluge has subsided, it might be a non-issue, though I believe it would come up again whenever we have a new nom for Bureaucrat. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I had asked Tangotango to add RfB to it, but I withdrew that request when I learned of the other automated report. But maybe we can ask Tangotango again to make the necessary tweaks. Kingturtle (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea at all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tangotango has said in the past he will not be updating it, so it's not much use asking. I'm sure SQL can fix this one up. Majorly (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, before anyone goes all firefox on me, my IE is non-negotiable, meaning I can't change it even if I wanted to. The SQL box is blcoked from view by the table of contents. The good news, I can see the archive box now. But all I see on the SQL box is numbers, no names (left column hidden). Anybody else having the same problem? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably me - I was working on formatting the various templates so that all were visible. Let me try something, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, I can see everything fine now, thanks UEZZ! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure people are aware, SQL's gone on Wikibreak. Please read the message on his talk page carefully before attempting to leave him a message. Let's hope he gets back soon, with good news. --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. Pretty much the whole report, is still configurable by templates, if anyone wants to change whether there are colors, etc. As an aside, I never really intended the User:SQL/RfX Report to be used, in it's current form... It was mostly a work-in-progress, and a buggy one at that. WP:RFBR is the only stable report I've been publishing (additionally, the RfX report, runs on toolserver, and, can become quite lagged, due to replication lag.) Anyhow, if you'd like to add colors, or whatnot, the appropriate template that creates the individual table rows is Template:Bureaucrat candidate. I'll make the wikitable more customizable shortly, but, I'd still warn that that report is not stable at present. (By the way, thanks, for giving everyone the heads up, Dweller, I'da felt bad, not responding for a few days :) ) SQL^{Query me!} 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot, as to the second suggestion, I'll implement it in a bit, good idea! :) SQL^{Query me!} 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB Week?

Conservative as I am on these matters, I am increasingly of the opinion that RfB does in fact present a double hurdle in terms of tough standards and a more universal demonstration of confidence. From our experience of RfA, we know that one way of dispensing with the more arbitrary standards is to have RfAs where they turn up and get stamped upon (eg the 1FA lark that quickly died). So the obvious 'solution' is to fairly regularly have RfBs and try to work out as a community what we do and do not accept as good rationales. One way to perhaps lower the 'activation threshold' for victims at RfB (sorry, did I voice that?) might be, for the next N months, to set a week in advance in which RfB nominations are actively encouraged, with an assumption that this will mean basically no RfBs at other times.

This gives people time to prepare and consider, and also takes away the question of 'when' is a good time to plump for an RfB (and removes the 'now is a bad time because of <political event X>' rationale), and creates a comfort zone in which noone is taken by surprise when RfBs turn up, and noone can be accused of bandwagon jumping. To further reduce loading factors, candidates would be encouraged to prepare their nominations offline, to prevent gun-jumping, and any gun-jumpers would have their entries removed at opening time. There would be no nominators, either, as is customary for RfB and prevents canvassing in advance. There would be no immediate limit on the number of nominations, but if they became overwhelming, we could think of something.

We could make things even easier, by then saying that any (the majority, probably) of unsuccessful candidates are by assumption added to month (now + X)'s list, unless they explicitly withdraw. That takes away the "too soon" thing, for smallish X, and people will get accustomed to returning to RfB.

Once we've overcome some of the RfB interia and uncertainty surrounding support/oppose rationales, we can quietly abandon the RfB Week. Which by then, might have faded away anyway as people become more confident. I'd suggest week beginning Monday 7 April 2008 as the first RfB Week, being a month after the conclusion of this month's. Splash - tk 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think RfBs should always be encouraged. The reason there are so few RfBs is because of the level of difficulty and scrutiny involved. I am hopeful that the bar will be lowered, but I am not hopeful that the level of scrutiny will be lowered. Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as a solid idea. It would be particularly useful if there were a generally agreed upon number of required bureaucrats. Then it would function in substantially the same way that the recent MILHIST coordinators election did, with people being able to !vote for at least enough candidates to fill all the positions. Getting people to agree upon a "set" number of bureaucrats might be problematic, but I think there probably could be general consensus on "at least X or at least Y more" in advance. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the bar will be lowered, but I am not hopeful that the level of scrutiny will be lowered. - I don't think the level of scrutiny should be lowered for anyone. Whether you're scrutinising the right things or not is, of course, entirely a different issue. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about an RFB week after the (northern hemisphere) summer of 2007 rush of RFBs, but I kept quiet. Maybe the idea's time has come. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the periodic encouragement of people to send a few noms through so they get the attention they deserve, better chance of more good people getting the tools, etc, but I'll never support removing someone's nomination just because they made it out of the pre-prescribed times. People should always be free to nominate when they choose. - Taxman ^Talk 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think scrutiny is a valid justification for a high pass rate at RfB discussions: one can still be scrutinised at 75% the same as at 90%... AGK (contact) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said? By 'gun jumpers' I meant people who try to rack up support on a skeleton RfB for the monthly week in advance of the monthly week, and present a 'complete successful' RfB on day 1. People can run an RfB whenever they like, of course, and start it in the conventional way. I imagine that with a monthly week, the rate of these would drop below the current rate. Splash - tk 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AGK, that's why I mentioned them separately. Lowering the bar and lowering the scrutiny are two different things. Sure we should have scrutiny when evaluating RfAs and RfBs, but I think as time goes by candidates undergo tougher and tougher scrutiny. It sometimes gets to the level of vetting a Supreme Court Justice nominee. OK, maybe that's hyperbole, but I hope you know what I mean. I think the level of scrutiny dissuades editors from trying an RfA and especially an RfB. Kingturtle (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lowering the bar and lowering the scrutiny are definitely two different things. We can lower the bar to X% from the traditional 90% while still examining the candidate as in-depth as before. Useight (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Displaying SQL's RFA report

The RFA report currently obscures most of the archive box on my computer screen. I'm sure other people have the same problem. Someone who has expertise in wiki page design should move SQL's report left or down from where it is. Thanks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 08:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Special bonus for the first person to say "Get a better browser then". (could be wrong but I bet it works in FF) Pedro :  Chat  08:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In before anti-IE flaming. Works fine in my FireFox. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You missed the "get a better browser" comment - no special bonus for TEH GIGGY. Figured it would be an IE issue (I'm on IE 6, but my home machine has 7 and the same issue) Pedro :  Chat  08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Get a better browser Pedro! I get bonus now? Yeah, that would explain it - it didn't work on my IE 6 either. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I recently updated the report to right-align the numeric columns but it shows up fine for me in FireFox, Safari and IE. Anyone else seeing this problem? OK, I see the problem now. It's only when you are in low-res mode, 768 x 1024 or lower, right? Nothing to do with my change then. Ronnotel (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Screen res. 1280x800 and still hides the box .... :( Pedro :  Chat  15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1400x1050 as well. What formatting differences between this and the older (tangobot?) tally might be causing the problem? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdenting - If we reverse the order of the report and the archivebox, the archivebox becomes readible - but that's just more space between the page header and the actual discussion. There has to be a way to get the table of contents and the report to sit side-by-side - doesn't there? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's overlapping on mine as well, I thought it was just an IE6 problem. Useight (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the suckish nature of IE, you'd be very easily forgiven for thinking that :) AGK (contact) 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I shifted the templates around, so now the Report, Shortcut Link, and Archivebox sit side-by-side-by-side - but it's still ugly as hell. I invite any formatting advice on the matter, as I'm at a loss - but, for now, everything is readable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, I managed to track down some code that did the trick. The Bureaucrat's Noticeboard didn't have this problem, so I looked there to find out why. This is the result - the ToC and Report are side-by-side, which brings the discussion that much closer to the top of the page. If there are no objections, I think this will work for the time being, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a change had alreay been made, but it was showing a lot of white space for me in FF, so I changed to what looks good for me in both FF and IE7. Lara❤Love 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we still need more bureaucrats?

Obviously, (as his nominator) I welcome User:The Rambling Man's success in his RfB. Equally obvious, there are some users who have a long-standing belief that we don't (and didn't!) need more Bureaucrats. However, thinking about what happened regarding Riana's RfB, the following observations struck me:

• Apparently, we currently have 12 "active" Bureaucrats. (I think this needs a {{cn}} tag, especially as I'm not sure if that's 11+TRM or 12+TRM.)
• For most of the debate, 7 'Crats participated
• 1 more came in at the end.
• 4 were unavailable for one reason or another (NB that's not a criticism)

While I'm inclined to agree with those who think that the 'Crat workload doesn't demand further RfBs, I for one would be far happier if there were more 'Crats available to debate when these contentious issues come along. Looking at Tangobot's RfA report yesterday, there were several that were 'in the zone', one of which already closed with a need for a consensus judgement. If that had needed a "'Crat Chat"(© Dweller, 2008) we could probably expect no more than 7 or 8 'Crats to be available, especially as the 'Crats rightly feel that they owe it to candidates and the community to come to their decisions quickly.

I'm not saying that more voices necessarily equals better decisions, but I am saying that they'd improve the chances of the best quality of debate and therefore the best decisions.

I'm also not saying that we should dilute the quality of the 'Crat body by appointing willy-nilly any old person.

All I'm saying is, I think we should continue to seek more Bureaucrats and not be satisfied with just TRM being elected.

What do you think? --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My take on it was that a 'Crat is someone who has (a) been around long enough and (b) shown themselves to be sensible and trustworthy enough to garner a consensus of support. This is independent of how many are able to do, or currently performing the role. Given that I feel the 'pedia works best if more folks are doing a range of tasks, having more crats means crats can do more editing and admin stuff as well as crat stuff. Hence everybody wins. In other words, yes there is enough but more makes it better for everyone, and it boils down to judging the candidate on their merits and not flat out opposing on the rationale there are enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that arguing that we don't need more bureaucrats is analogous to the argument at RfA of "no need for the tools". The tools don't cost money and they won't rust if not used. It may be hard to make an argument that we demonstrably do need more bureaucrats, but it is very simple to refute the argument that we do not. Pedro :  Chat  10:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We need more trusted people in trusted positions. That's all I'll say on this :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with what has been said. In my opinion, the more the better, and teh fact is that no "old person" is going to pass the RfB process anyway ;) In all seriousness, I think constant encouragement should be given in order to keep a semi-regular influx of RfBs coming. After all, if as many editors as we say at RfA are prepared to "risk" an RfA, why aren't admins willing to "risk" an RfB? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Based upon my own recent experience, the requirements are so high (in terms of both percentage and to have avoided upsetting anyone, ever), that most admins think "why bother?". I know I won't bother again. RFB is double loaded - not only is the pass percentage ferociously high, but users who participate in RFBs attach higher, often ludicrous, requirements of the candidate. Opposes on the most specious of reasoning are commonplace (co-nominating someone unpopular for RFA, having an opinion differing from the norm on reconfirmation, whatever). Bureaucrats only have three extra tools - +sysop, +bot flag, and user renaming. None of which should be beyond most of our current admins to use appropriately. I think the requirements we as a community have attached to RFB are less because of the power of the extra tools (which is pretty minimal), and more because of the perceived status jump from A(dmin) to B(ureaucrat). Because those extra tools aren't particularly of influence in terms of editing (all three are "meta" tools), and because the scrutiny is so high, and often unfair (q.v. Riana), most admins really don't see the point, as they know they'll fail under the current criterion of 90%. Too much grief, too small a chance of success, too little to gain. Neıl ☎ 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Neil here in that bureacratship is connotatively viewed as promotion from adminship, and should therefore by default require only the very best to fill the shoes. I personally view bureaucratship as purely a different position from adminship, with different roles and responsibilities, not higher, or, for that matter, lower. Just different. If we drop this aura of "wowness" from cratship, I think it'd benefit everyone in that we'd be more lax in choosing new crats and in that way more people would try out. On that same vein - perhaps instead of lowering the bar to pass an RfB, we just need to review our perspective on both the process and the position itself. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree AD. I have often found the term "promotion" to be inaccurate at best and devisive at worst (meaning gernally promotion from "editor" to "admin" and also admin to bureaucrat). We are talking about being granted extra tools. If an employer gives a member of staff a new laptop and a mobile phone when previously they had a pad of A4 paper and a loud haler they have not in certainty been promoted. They do, however, have some new tools. I know this is a weak analogy, but I do feel that "promotion" is a word with connotations on Wikipedia we would not wish, and that seem to me to be against the concept of egailtarianism that a wiki is supposed to be. Pedro :  Chat  12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, should Bureaucratship be viewed as "Just a little bit of a big deal" as opposed to Adminship? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:DEAL is probably the second most incorrectly quoted thing on WP, after WP:POINT. Being an admin or a bureacrat is no big deal. It doesn't make you "special" or "better". The tools (or more accurately what you can do with the tools), on ther other hand, are a bit of a deal, which is why the aren't granted on sign up. At least, that's my take on it. Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why having more would cause problems. Better to have redundancy than insufficiency. Viridae^Talk 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, perhaps I am a glutton for punishment, but I do plan to resubmit myself to the guantlet in a couple of months, after I (hope) I have fulfilled the respondents' request for more visibility at RfA. But yes, the process is more difficult perhaps disproportional to the tool additions, which is one of the motives for the current discussion about the requirements, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good for you Avi, and I hope you do run again - for me, as I won't change my opinion about reconfirmation RFAs, I doubt I'll ever try again. Neıl ☎ 12:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mm. I'm pretty sure people will not have changed their opinions of me in the next 6 months, given I made an apparently irredeemably huge error in judgement and was given very little to improve upon, but a large number of people on my talkpage have urged me to think about it. We'll see :) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan to run for bureaucratship again too, but not for a good few months first. Acalamari 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As do I, for that matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will I try again at RfB? I'm not sure at this point. I guess we'll see, since recent events elsewhere have really made me think on this matter. Wizardman 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage each of you to try again. There's always Bureaucrat work to be done. Cheers! Kingturtle (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The section title is a false dichotomy. We do not need more bureaucrats or admins. But having more of both would be nice. (Otoh, we do need more editors to help us fill gaps we currently have little coverage of). I think also that these kind of debates, apart from coming around more regularly than the phases of the moon, are too heavy on worn rhetoric, and light on ... light. Jimbo's "no big deal" quote especially is used as an appeal to authority as if that settles anything at all. Also, this strange notion of !promotion, to !coin a phrase. Editor → admin grants new powers, new decision making capability and the ability to control, delimit and, with skill, direct the behaviour of others. In most parts of the real world, you'd get a nice new job title for such a change as well as the pay rise. Yes, they are also 'just' cleanup tools, but the fact is that very often that is not the only manner in which they are used (viz. WP:ANI, WP:AN, etc). Then, admin → bureaucrat lands you with the task of deciding on the recommendations of a large collection of people on a key personal question of 'trust' and that coupled with an ability to not cause volcanic eruptions more than absolutely necessary - and knowing how to manage them in advance of them occurring. Again, you'd get another new job title in the 'real' world. In debates such as these, we'd do better to be honest with ourselves about the actuality on the ground, than to ritualistically genuflect at imaginary altars. Splash - tk 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats almost a year ago, and I still believe in the basic premise of that essay. However, we do have more active bureaucrats than we had then, so it takes some pressure off of the situation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We most certainly do need more admins. Backlogs dictate a need. And I don't see why having an abundance of bureaucrats is an issue as long as they're all respectful of their position and refrain from abusing the tools. The "we don't need more 'crats" oppose to a well-deserving candidate is... shall we say silly (in place of a more accurately descriptive, yet inappropriate alternative of your choice). Lara❤Love 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA participation needed to offset canvassing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to anonymously contact users encouraging them to oppose Benjah-bmm27's RfA via the Special:Emailuser function. The full extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained for sure, though investigations are ongoing. In order to dilute the effects of this attempt to manipulate consensus, I would ask as many users as possible to look at this RfA and evaluate the candidate. To this end, I have extended the RfA so that it has a full day to run. Please take the time to visit this page and provide a fresh perspective on the candidate. I would like to express my thanks to those users who approached me having received the emails in question. I strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA that give rise to suspicion that this part of an organised campaign of advocacy to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention. WjBscribe 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Glancing down the list of sigs in both support and oppose, I do not see many unfamiliar names; on both sides there are plenty of well-established editors in good standing. Unless there is something deeper at work among these editors, I do not think canvassing is having any meaningful effect. Though there are 3 supports just now within 3 minutes of each of other which might be considered unusual but is perfectly possible; I hope this has not been IRC'd or something. Splash - tk 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought those 3 supports were prompted by this very thread (and the similar ones on the WP:AN noticeboards). Black Kite 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Without wish to get into a tangle about it, I'd say that the title of this section is closer to 'reverse' canvassing than I'd like us to get. Splash - tk 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Splash, the sock has targeted established editors - that's the point of the canvassing. I suspect they got my name from Cobi's RfA as I don't really comment on a lot of RfAs anymore and they said they were writing to me as "a regular contributor to Requests for Adminship". They said, "I would !vote strong oppose, but I have a conflict of interest in this RfA, and therefore feel it would be improper for me to vote." Apparently their desire to not do something "improper" does not extend to creating a sock to spam other RfA contributors to try to sink someone else's RfA. Sarah 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Said the same thing to me. Acalamari 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict statement, busy thread here :)) - One of those statements was prompted by this thread, yes. However, I like to think that the specific form that statement took, that of support, was made on the basis of having reviewed the statements the nominee made, particularly questions 10 and 12. And I'm far from certain whether 18, and possibly 19, are really necessary questions, although I did like the answer to the last above. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to pipe in and say that my oppose !vote was completely due to his lack of Wikipedia namespace edits and was not influenced by the e-mails the sock is sending out. Useight (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is what the opposers on my RfB meant when they said I was not active enough, because I didn't get any one of those e-mails . -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone run a CU on the account that these emails came from, to try and work out who is behind this? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think email accounts always disclose the user name. Usually we can tell from the email address, the subject, or the signature, but there could always be WP:BEANS I don't know about. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser attaches username in the "from" line of the email. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One account was identified and blocked but they were editing from what appears to be an open proxy. No IP connection to any other account. WjBscribe 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The one that e-mailed me was User:Avrumd, who has been indefinitely blocked. Useight (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one that emailed me, too, Useight, and it has already been checkusered (see Will's comment above re open proxies). Sarah 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A very apologetic unblock request at User talk:Avrumd. Without re-reading the discussion, if I recall correctly, we agreed he was a sockpuppet of someone? In any case, his story seems unlikely and I advise an admin to reject it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. He sounds like he really wants to right his wrongs. Perhaps he deserves a second chance. Useight (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, but unlikely things happen fairly regularly. I can't see any real objections to giving him a second chance, based on the evidence I have. if there is clear evidence of sockpuppetry, that would be different, though. John Carter (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, that account has two edits and it edits from an open proxy. No one starts a new account, creates a userpage and talkpage and then starts mass emailing people about RfAs. That isn't the person's only account and the use of proxies to add to the subterfuge only casts further doubts on their claim to good faith. Still, as we do not at the moment seems to be able to identify the puppetmaster's account, he/she remains able to edit as usual. All that's been blocked is a throw away account and the IP from which it, and apparently only it, edited. WjBscribe 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did say that he'd been editing for a long time as an IP, which would give him time to become familiar with what RFA is and how to e-mail editors. It would also have given him time to create the conflict of interest he spoke of in his e-mails. Seems to me there are a couple of different possibilities here: 1) Sockpuppet account of another user; 2) Experienced IP editor noticed the RFA, created an account, and started e-mailing. But, then again, when you throw open proxies into the mix...Useight (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the discretionary range, really?

On my RfB, I got some opposes for saying that the discretionary range was more towards 70-75% than 75-80%. Fair enough, we've always said that it's been 75-80%. Do we actually follow what we say? I went through every single RfA of the past 18 months, and here's something I noticed:

• Successful RfAs, below 75%: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hemlock Martinis, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ericorbit, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zedla
• Unsuccessful RfAs, above 75%: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

Ten successful RfAs below 75%, some quite a bit lower. Only one failed above 75%. I found this very interesting. Does this mean that we don't actually follow our supposed discretionary range? Where is it exactly? 75-80, 70-80, 70-75, even somewhere else? I just find this very odd that we talk about the rnge being one thing, yet we don't seem to even follow it. If anything 75%'s a pretty rigid number in itself. Where is the discretionary range, and do we need to move our idea of where it is to where it seems to already be? Wizardman 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was 70-80%, for those who like votes. Daniel (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. if it were in fact 70-80, then I'd like to know why so few rfas seem to traverse over the 75% line, as quite a few of the ones above were under 70% anyway. Wizardman 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh man, not this again. But I always figured the discretionary range was 75-80%. Of the current RFAs, there are two at 70%, one at 72%, and one at 74%. I've always thought these would be considered "no consensus." Useight (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean though. I always figured it too, but looking at the evidence and how these current RfAs may play out, I find it very hard to believe that it's actually the discretionary range. Wizardman 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion as expressed as my RfB is that whilst RfAs are not votes, the community's expectations are generally that RfAs below 70% will not succeed and that those over 80% will. I'm not sure that trying to demonstrate whether or not a discretion exists by looking at whether or not it has been exercised is a great idea. Having a discretion means that there are cases where bureaucrats could close the request in a particular way - not that some must do so. The fact that a crat closed a request in one way does not mean that they did not consider closing it in a different manner. But if we are going to look at this statistically, it might be useful to also find out how many RfAs in those 18 months fell into the ranges you are looking at. WjBscribe 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice to future RfBs; say 70%-80%, like Will did. That way you satisfy reality and the standards that some users like to cling on to (as was shown in Wiz' RfB). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the RFAs in the 70-80% range should require an extra close look regarding the quality and strength of the !votes. Useight (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my assumption for how it proceeded for that range, especially between 70-75% - which I believe is probably happening as we speak with Cobi. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Yes, you read right! I don't know if this one has been proposed before though. Confirmation of admins certainly has, and has failed. I'd like to propose we reconfirm bureaucrats. Why? We have determined they are supposed to be extremely trusted users (heck, there was an unofficial 90% expectation of support for what is a job that simply involves using a calculator, more even than an arbitrator). We lose arbitrators after 3 years, and they supposedly hold a similar level of trust. Additionally, we elected all but 3 of our current bcrats in 2006 or earlier. They may have been approved with community approval in 2004, but today is a lot different. Admins are admins, and their decisions are reversible. But bureaucrats' decisions are not, generally. This is why we should keep a pool of, say up to 8 bcrats that are fully trusted by the current community and are up to speed with the current norms. Every other position of such trust isn't permanent: as I've said, arbitrator, board, steward etc. Please also read my comments on this page for more of my thoughts on this. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the re-confirmation of bureaucrats root out perfectly good 'crats and then leave the community with limited users (to perform in CHU etc) because of the expected 1 year period of being an admin before applying to become an 'crat? Rudget. 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, we need to remove: a) Inactive 'crats b) 'Crats that don't do the job properly. So yes, in the end we will be left with those who are the best ones, and the community still trust. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Properly, or in ways we agree with? Dlohcierekim 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Properly. Majorly (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Properly, or in ways we agree with? - which basically means much the same thing on Wikipedia. 'Properly' is hard to define here. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would've supported this earlier, but now I'm not so sure anymore. I mean, it's probably not a coincidence that this propsal is made now. Every once in a blue moon, a bureaucrat is bound to make a controversial decision, which will in turn earn him various oppose !votes in the hypothethical reconfirmation, simply because he didn't make the "right" decision while closing an RfA (or RfB). I do like the idea of reconfirmations in principle, but I'm afraid that we'll lose bureaucrats simply because they've closed controversial nominations, and not because they're lacking judgement. --Conti|✉ 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As a technical question - it's not really for me to say whether I should be reconfirmed or not - what would be looked for at this reconfirmation? Would the bureaucrat need to demonstrate that the orginally required supermajority still supports them being a bureaucrat? Or would they need to show a level of consensus below this? Or would those opposing need to show a consensus that they should step down? WjBscribe 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the last thing. Some bureaucrats are simply unsuitable to continue (example TUF-KAT - nothing against him at all, but he has admitted he has no idea what he is doing.) Inactivity/lots of bad closes/general untrustworthiness for such a position would be good causes. Majorly (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me of a few months back where I had to undo an indefinite block of an IP that a bureaucrat placed, and then had to explain why it was a bad idea (to indef block an IP a full month after the offending edit). Yes, I'd say that some of the 'crats don't need to hold onto their positions... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This becomes less necessary when crats make decisions as a group, as has been done a bit here and there. If there's no single individual making a single incorrect (as seen by whoever disagrees) decision, there's less reason to worry about rooting out ones who do the wrong thing. Friday (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The system you just proposed, where the crats would need to make a separate talkpage for each decision and debate for days before making any decision, sounds, well, icky. Why would a crat want to stay a crat if they lose the level of autonomy that they've earned through community reputation? I'm not second guessing the need for discussion in really controversial things, like the recent RFB, and I'm exceedingly glad it happened on-wiki. That was one of the toughest closes I've ever seen. But if we are constraining crats by requiring them to talk to each other before every decision, ick. That is adding workload and disruption to our "best decision makers" that most, I presume, wouldn't be agreeable to. Am I wrong here, crats? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Majorly's proposal regarding confirmation/recall was brought up on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard just recently if any of you wish to participate there. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I didn't see this one here and figured WP:BN was a better place to get 'crat involvement. I have also created CAT:BOR and stated that I hope all current 'crats add themselves, and that I will ask all future RfB candidates if they will as well. I think reconfirmation RfBs should require that the crat receive the same level of support as an RfB, as has been required in most reconfirmation RfAs. It would be heavily ironic, I think, if that level of support were to remain 90% by their own disregard of community consensus. Avruch ^T 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to bureaucrat recall. I like the fact that there's some old hands to prevent some of the modern craziness still around. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I support, in principle, the idea of Bureaucrat recall, I do not think the system of recall in use on other projects would be effective or suitable on the English Wikipedia. To address the specifics of this point, I will note this: I believe a gentler system of recall, centered around discussion rather than voting, will be more effective.

I point towards the Steward recall system as a building block: although the Community has input in this matter, and uses voting as one tool of expressing consensus, the final decision is made through discussion (although I would hope that the discussion alluding to a final decision on reconfirmation would be made by the community, rather than the bureaucrats—as oppose to Meta, where the final decision is made by Stewards). AGK (contact) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's governance is clearly arbitrary and has grown up rather like topsy, without any thought for the long-term. Nothing wrong with that, except that some questionable decisions made in a different environment do not look so very wise today. Take the way that every wikipedia post is filled, from administrator upwards (or should that be !upwards?). If you were thinking of employing a juggler, wouldn't you expect them to be able to juggle, instead of employing them on the basis that you could see no obvious physical impediments to their potential ability to juggle? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what I had suggested before, but it may well have not been understood. However, instead of asking for clarification, it was effectively made the butt of an inside joke, which is really not what one would hope the ideal behaviour of an administrator should aspire to be!

Nevertheless, what Malleus writes contains the essence of a good idea: the way to approach doing the job of appointing bureaucrats (and administrators) better would be to agree upon a set number of features in behaviour, skillls, and actions, that one would want ideally all bureaucrats (and administrators as well, if one drew up a small list specifically for them) to have. One would then ask for assessments of candidates on the basis of each of those features. If a given number were shown (possibly all of them), then one would have a more rational basis for deciding that the particular candidate was well-suited or not for the particular post they had been nominated for. One may say this is a bit too formal and serious (which was, I think, a follow up to the mocking response I got earlier), but given the importance that appointing admins and 'crats is demonstrably shown to have by the amount of discussion here, it would seem a positive step in the direction of directly assessing their skills for the jobs in hand. One could always factor in features that should definitely NOT be ideally shown in administrators and bureaucrats. That seems to me to be the better way forward rather than tinkering with an existing system that judging from the comments seems to be unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. It also conforms more to the practices used in many UK job interviews, which, although quite formal, does not devalue its tailored and adjusted application in this instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your faint praise: "Nevertheless, what Malleus writes contains the essence of a good idea". :-) I entirely agree with what you've written though. Let's see some proper evaluation of candidates, against some properly agreed criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I thought quite a bit about how to phrase that, and in the end, thought "sod it!" I wanted to say that your idea was a good start, that's all 8-)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking the juggling analogy one step further, one of the criteria I wouldn't like to see included is the ability to duck. Far too many candidates seem to believe that the best way to avoid incoming fire is to avoid any firing at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Behaviour in difficult situations tends to yield strong evidence one way or the other; behaviour in easy situations, weak evidence one way or the other; and no behaviour in any situations, no evidence either way. Additionally, actual behaviour relevant to an issue by the candidate yields stronger evidence than hopes, wishes, desires, and expectations about supposed behaviour relevant to that issue, no matter who those hopes, wishes, desires, and expectations are from.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

'How about a term? Each bureaucrat is "elected" for a term of 18 months, after which the user must seek 're-election'Thright (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

RFA questions

It's starting to get a little ridiculous now -- the average RFA open right now has 16 questions, with some having as many as 22 questions. Can we come up with some way to curtail these? My initial thought is to keep the standard questions on the RfA page, and any additional questions on the RfA's talk page, or something along those lines, but any other ideas are welcome. Ral315 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In theory that sounds good, but what is standard and what is optional? Do you mean only the ones built into the RfA template? There are some other semi-regular questions that have distinct merit (ban/block comes to mind). -- Avi (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it's a little unbalanced and grueling (to say the least) that some users are getting up to 20 something questions, while others receive a handful or none at all (optional that is). Is there a ceiling we could impose, or at least try and agree upon and then strive for. It's definitely a pile on. And let's not forget that a lot of these questions crop up again and again, and sometimes on a past RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about going in the other direction?

Questions seem to be considered a good way of getting an idea about the candidate's suitability.

We could expand the questions into an admin exam. The question-askers could grade the answers to their questions (and others can discuss the appropriateness of the grading ;-) ), and we can then drop the poll at the end.

Does anyone dare try that? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one is proposing that we eliminate the questions altogether. They are a terrific idea - allows the community to better scrutinize - your analogy is off just a wee bit. Both extremes wouldn't work : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[Ediconflict] I personally don't think that [RFA exam] is a good idea. It makes becoming an admin seem to be only about remembering policies. Consider this, who which would be a better way of finding an admin? Testing them with questions like a math test, or look at them as they handle trolls, vandals, newbies, and other users. You'd probably say the where they need experience right?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With questions like "Biographies of living persons is to Neutral point of view as Blocking policy is to: A) What adminship is not B) Wheel war C) Enforcement of arbitration rulings D) No original research :) Kingturtle (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My answer was E) Ignore all rules! Not really, please don't hold this against me :P dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually <WP:RfD>:<WP:RfA>::<WP:DPR>:??? -- Avi (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(More ECs) Being in the middle of my own RfA, I debated on whether or not to post here, but I think my comments are harmless. I think it should be grueling! Users have the right to ask questions of their potential administrators, and trying to limit these is not a good idea. Making "standard" questions is even worse; watching a few other RfAs will give a user the "answers" and there won't be any thoughtfulness needed on the candidate's part. Here's where my bias might come into play - I'm being coalraked for a lack of experience, and these questions are the only way I can respectfully and non-defensively fight that. I even found this section a little amusing; I had to essentially beg for someone to ask questions of me. Also, remember that these questions are putatively optional... Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They certainly are optional, but it would probably weigh against the user if they opted not to answer any of them. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly true, I agree. That wasn't really my main point, though. I was observing that the candidates don't have to go through the wringer - we just happen to think that they should for the sake of adminship. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "how would you deal with situation X" kinds of questions? Make the situation really twisty:

"User X comes along and tells you that user Y is edit warring. You check history, user Y has only done 2 reverts today... also did 2 yesterday. When you check the talk page, both users are being fairly uncivil to each other. User X is also stating that user Y is violating V, NPOV, CIVIL. User :Y replies that she doesn't really know what X is talking about. How do you intend to proceed? What do you intend to achieve with your actions? How will X and Y react to your actions? How successful do you think your actions will be?"

There is no correct answer... but allows you to judge someone to some extent already. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I always find myself trying to answer this question this kind of question (I enjoy puzzles ;-) ... so if someone wants to start a subthread where they post their answers here or on my talk page, I'll tell you how I figure you did... and possibly argue with others who think they can score you better ;-)

That made my head spin : ) It makes me think of the logic section on the GRE Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So how would you answer it? ;-) Do you think it's hard enough? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Did I mention I'm curious? ;-P

Personally, I find the optional questions asked by other users to be more helpful than the 3 basic ones. The initial 3 questions the candidate can prepare for, and only start the process when they have a good answer. With the extra questions, the candidate must think on the spot. Mr.Z-man 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not entirely. Most of the questions are policy based and thus the candidate may take his or her time sifting through the pages - which is generally encouraged I think. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heyy, you know what would be great? If people actually treated the optional questions as optional. Seriously, it's so annoying see people go 'Neutral until my question is answered'. Uh-uh. Take the time to judge a user for yourself, not wait for her/him to make up cookie-cutter answers to the same questions asked over and over again. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there comes a point where more questions doesn't really enhance the discussion anymore. The cap seems arbitrary, so a strict cut-off would be difficult to hammer out. The questions are optional, though, and should be treated that way. Useight (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a disclaimer, though, I kinda enjoyed answering questions on both my RfA and RfB. But I'm very strange. I think people just need to be honest when they say something is 'optional', and if they really want a response, to make that clear as well. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I make sure to note whether my questions are "optional" or not. If I don't put optional, I usually won't cast my vote until the question(s) has/have been answered. Perhaps we should ask our RfA regulars to be more specific? GlassCobra 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The more questions required the higher the barrier to entry, i.e. the more questions required the less candidates will entry. Kingturtle (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the implication that we are short of admin candidates. I cite in evidence the exhibit at the top of the page. Splash - tk 13:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the continued growth of Wikipedia, we are definitely short admins. If you were to plot through time the number of total Admins, the number of total articles, the total number of edits and the number of total editors, I am sure you'd see that the Admin count falling way behind. In 2007 there were 408 new admins, which is only 5% more than the 389 admins added in 2005. At the rate we're going in 2008, we're only going to have about 366 new admins this year - a 6% drop from 2005! Meanwhile the number of edits, editors and articles grow at a tremendous rate. Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be a linear relationship between admin count and article count? In fact, the size of the admin backlogs is largely unchanged from 2005, and in some cases they are smaller. We have ever-more-sophistcated bots to RC patrol in place of the humans. The vandals are getting blocked, the articles deleted. At the same time, the number of admin candidacies is no lower than it has been, and the number of admins continues to rise. Talk of 'barriers to entry' is theoretical only; I sincerely doubt that even a total abolition of the questions would miraculously multiple the number of RfAs. Splash - tk 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the basic difficulty is that the answers to all questions, incuding those posed by individual editors, are in almost all cases readily available and require from a candidate only the ability to read them. The standard questions have been answered, presumably adequately, by every successful candidate, and their RfAs are open to inspection; and even individual editors' questions appear to rcur through a significant number of applications. Furthermore, many answers are already enshrined in the basic Wikipedia framework; for example, the difference between a ban and a block, the meaning of WP:IAR, and so forth. I would concede without argument that any aspiring admin candidate who lacks the skill or initiative to go and search the answers may well thereby disqualify themselves, but I would much prefer it if decisions were made on success or failure with much greater emphasis being placed on admin related contributions rather than a sort of entrance examination. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You would think that the questions would be pointless, since answering them correctly is a no-brainer. Interestingly, more than a few RfAs have still been torpedoed by bad answers. Thats why we keep asking them. Avruch ^T 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely I just gave an example of a good question just a bit earlier in this same thread? I think an admin exam (like a driving exam) might be a good idea, we can drop all the other requirements in that case. Unless we have very different views of what an admin is supposed to do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that anybody would be able to pass the exam, all you have to do is look up the policy related to the question and reword the answer into your own words. Unless there was a time set aside that the candidate is available to take questions and has a very short time to answer them. Those who want to ask questions would paste their questions onto the page, one at a time, and the candidate would have a matter of minutes to answer. I don't think any other form of exam would be effective in determining actual knowledge of policy. This, however, would take an incredible amount of coordinating and would probably be practically impossible. Especially if the candidate were located in, say, the Philippines. I mean, I would be awake at 1AM to ask questions, but how many other established editors are awake at odd times of the day? I'm starting to go on longer than I wanted, but my point is that a close scrutiny of the candidate's past work is going to be more feasible than an exam. Useight (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on your answer here, I suspect I might give you a failing grade for your answer to the actual example question. Let's try it. Go ahead and try to answer the question, and let's see.--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the dialog and the back-and-forth interaction is much better than a test or exam. Dialog allows for clarification. Dialog also gives the candidate feedback so if the RfA is unsuccessful the editor knows what to work on. Kingturtle (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, the exam proposal is interesting to say the least, but terribly impractical. It should be obvious by now that most users simply take their time researching the appropriate policy and then paraphrasing in their answer, which I don't have that much of a problem with, although, I still maintain that policy knowledge should be gleaned prior to applying for RfA, or even before being nominated as conventionally the nominator and the nominee are in correspondence/contact with one another. It's up to the community to simply trust the answers and take the time to carefully place the candidate under the microscope. Edit counts should be taken into account, but taking the time to observe the user's contribution history in various spaces is much more important. Diffs are also quite helpful for those lackadaisical users : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin exam?! Some of us go here to escape real life, you know. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is seriously considering it - I think Kim was simply musing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously musing? ;-) I think a short sweet exam would be much nicer to candidates than the current light grilling. ;-) And we're almost certain to have interaction wrt grading of the exam. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) ps: edit counts have nothing whatsoever to do with anything to do with anything, and therefore should die die die. ;-)

(<-)Making any of this formalized is a mistake in my opinion. Every wiki editor is different, every admin candidate is different, and wiki-culture itself goes through stages. Each candidate that requests the mop has different strengths and weaknesses—some more obvious than others. Each editor opining on the candidate has different objective and subjective requirements. For eample, if something is important to me, I look for it; if I find it, good, if not, I'll make a note—eithat as part of a S/O/N summary, or as a question. Different editors prefer to ask first, vote later. Candidates themselves respond differently to questions or comments. In a nutshell, we should really leave the system as it is. People who are truly interested in various questions should post them, and if the candidate is interested, they should answer. For example, KimB likes the logical-situational questions that have no direct answers. He should be able to ask each candidate that question. Each candidate should have the right to answer or refuse, and Kim (or anyone) can make their decision based on that. For another example, I don't like asking those kinds of questions as I think there are too many variables that can go into a real-wiki scenario that to extrapolate to real-wiki based on a version here is suspect, so I wouldn't hold a non-answer against the candidate. Furthermore, some users just handle "exam pressure" better than others. The beauty here is in the informality. If we start applying too rigid a structure, we risk losing the forest for the trees (procedure creep, anyone?). I would only caution that failure to answer any optional question should not be viewed ipso facto as a sign of unacceptability. There is much more than questions, usually, with which we can base our opinions. -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We sure ask a lot of questions about questions. Meta-questions or something. Useight (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quid questoniet ipsos questions? -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or better still, "can I ask a question?" MER-C 08:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree about informality, for sure. I'm just pondering informally throwing out everything else and just go by the questions alone. (no polling, no edit counts, etc). Things seem to be drifting in that direction already, I figure. I wonder how that would work out on the long term? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think edit count is going anywhere. Useight (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain (if only for yourself) how edit counts are related to admin tasks in any way? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace shows activity in admin-like areas, such as WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, or wherever else they have been contributing. Edits in Wikipedia Talk show how much they are involved in discussions regarding the related admin-like topic. Edit count in mainspace doesn't show admin-related tasks, but I still find it very important because we are here to build an encyclopedia. Edits to User Talk pages shows that the editor is willing to discuss things with other editors, a trait very valuable in an admin. That's what I get out of the edit counts, personally. Useight (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well, here's the thing. What do any of those have to do with knowing that someone will treat the tools responsibly (delete, revert, view deleted edits, block, etc)? With things like AFD and soforth, all an admin really needs to do is read consensus and follow the instructions, which practically anyone can do. But they still need to carry those instructions out in a responsible manner, and that's the actual rub. An admin has to make sure that their use of the tools won't place an unnecessary load on the servers, and doesn't compromise historic data on wikipedia. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you asked how edit count "if only for myself" is related to admin tasks. I answered the question, for myself. If you don't think that edit count helps judge a candidate, then we'll just have to agree to disagree agreeably. Useight (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those edit counts provide a splendid starting point for cursory examination - further scrutiny requires actually delving deeper into the editor's contribution history. However, I believe that extremely low counts in any of those areas have a positive correlation with inexperience. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh? What if the person in question is a metapedian, with 10000 edits over 4 different language wikis? How about if a person uses different (declared or undeclared) sock personas? What if a user used a bot to edit in most of those spaces? What if the person in question is a developer (and therefore knows the tools backwards). What if the person is a fast learner, or a slow learner? What if they actually use the preview button? (sacrilege, I know :-P) I think that edit counts don't really help in any of those cases. If you want to delve into a user's edit history, wouldn't it be useful if they actually had less edits for you to dig through? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps we should consider adding some of the most common RfA questions to the RfA template? For example, the block/ban difference question mentioned above, one about IAR, one about BLP, and perhaps one about admin recall until it becomes less of a hotbed issue. GlassCobra 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help if the questions were asked after appropriate research was done, not the other way around. An example is proposing a hypothetical scenario ("You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?") and not checking whether the candidate had been in that scenario before.

I also echo the points about cookie-cutter questions. I think I might just be able to dispatch most of these with a one-line answer. Questions should test the candidate's ability to apply policy, not simply regurgitate it. MER-C 08:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck no! What are we giving people? A set of tools. So what should we check? Naturally, we should check whether they are toilet-trained, their GPA, their drivers license, and whether they have dandruff. No wait! I have a novel idea, which probably won't catch on^*: how about we check their ability to use the tools in a responsible manner? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC) * It certainly hasn't caught on in the past year or so. Talk about groups having a low collective IQ, sheesh! <- (biggest "personal" attack ever! ;-) )

ps. my personal opinion on use of most of the tools, is that the most reposnsible way to use them is not. But that's a long story that won't quite fit in this margin.

The problem is that we can't check the person's responsiblity with the tools unless they have the tools, which we don't want to give them without first knowing their responsibility with them. It's a Catch-22. So we have to judge their competency on edit count and by scrutinizing their contribs. Useight (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, one wiki I know gives all users all the tools on a probationary basis. If you abuse them, you lose them. This actually works very well, in their system. Another method is like how some countries organize drivers licenses. You first need to take a theory exam, to be sure you know what you're allowed to do and what not, and only then are you allowed to actually sit in a vehicle with an instructor... (in the short version). I'm all for theory exam+probationary period, actually. It would realistically measure a person's ability to use the tools. (and frankly, we've seen that practically any responsible adult, and even many responsible kids are quite capable of using them correctly) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobi 3 colour

I haven't seen colours on the report for ages. Why is the whole of Cobi's RFA highlighted fully in orange? Simply south (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's because it's passed its scheduled end time - it highlights it to the 'crats. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Earlier a couple more were orange. I guess it's the new thing to do. Makes it easier on the 'crats, I suppose. Useight (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems however the scheduled end time isn't for another hour. Simply south (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet it has been orange for a while now. Perhaps it turns orange with 3 or 4 hours left. Useight (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they turn orange 3 hours early. But it's ready to be closed now. Wizardman 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had it adjusted for *my* timezone, I'd be willing to bet, then, I moved it to the toolserver... I'll check it out in a few. SQL^{Query me!} 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Def. Shouldn't be orange, it doesen't end for another 16 mins or so. Let's see if this fixes it. SQL^{Query me!} 03:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. SQL^{Query me!} 03:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I find it ironic that two of the recent failed/withdrawn RfBs were of the first to notice it and respond here. Cobi would be an admin by now. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. -- Avi (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, he's in the "discretionary range". Useight (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the bureaucrats are delayig in hopes a couple more opposes knock it lowenough to fail without a problem. Hopefulyl they're not using those kinds of techniques though, I'd have closed it hours ago. Wizardman 06:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it's still open. I would have closed it as "consensus not reached" about 12 hours ago. Useight (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it was just closed as "consensus not reached." Useight (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there's been a color code on User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report for a long time. It is nothing new. Kingturtle (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the one on Tangotango's is pink, not orange for requests to be closed. bibliomaniac15 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SQL's RfA report highlights the entire report if it is scheduled for closure soon, or the closure is late; the same applies for Tango's report: if the entire row detailing the RfA in the table is coloured, it indicates the closure is late. Tango's report also uses an additional functionality, whereby the "percentage supporting" box is coloured according to how well it is doing: high support rates are coloured orange, near/on the "grey area" or "discretionary zone" are coloured yellow, below orange, and further down (SNOW closure grounds) are coloured red. AGK § 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sheer percentage for an RfA is not grounds for a closure per WP:SNOW. It's a bit more nuanced than that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Cobi's RfA is now 3 hours overdue. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a position in the RfA and must recuse myself from closing it. Kingturtle (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well closing it as failed wouldn't be so bad, seeing as you supported. But closing it as pass would be a definite no-no :) --82.19.1.139 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about RfA page

This is regarding Geni's RfA, in the box containing previous RfA's there is a link to User:Geniac's RfA. Is this the same user or a different one? If its the latter then it needs to be removed. Seddon69 (talk)

The latter. Removed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, see Acalamari's post. I sure made a mess of things on the RfA page... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was right, it is unrelated. I made the RfA's history pretty funny, though - it seems that I nearly broke 3RR in an edit war with myself. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please report yourself to WP:AIV for processing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Malformed

I couldn't find instructions on how to handle a malformed RfA. I don't think "The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly." is clear enough. Removed from where? The list of current RfAs? I found Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/aj00200 but I'm not sure what I was supposed to do with it. --Geniac (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually think it can technically be classed as malformed: they have simply used the default statement. Anyway, I'll transclude this onto WP:RFA, and stand by for a snow closure. AGK § 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't transclude it; that's for the candidate to do, not you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let it sit until the candidate is ready for it/transcludes it his/her self. No rush.. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the candidate could still be working on the formatting of the page and is planning on transcluding it at a later time. Useight (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Who exactly is allowed to vote/comment in RfB's? --Camaeron (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Logged in users, as with RfA. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

::Logged in users, socks of logged in users, socks of the socks, and of course, anyone who is in conflict with the nominee in an RfC. And anyone who doesn't like Kelly Martin. </sarcasm>. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, it's not that bad. :) -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're right of course, Avraham. Perhaps a bit too snarky (must be Monday morning where I live). And it's snowing, about 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and generally miserable. And the heat went out in my car. And my 2 year old son didn't sleep last night. And other excuses. I'll strike it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, instead of striking, maybe I should have just added "People who think candidates should regularly post on this page, regardless of their other qualities and contributions..." Tee hee. (If I don't laugh, I'll cry...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're hitting below the belt -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Down around the ankles, I presume you mean. (what else would you mean?)  :-). I'm feeling much less snarky now, but I will admit I have started to develop strong feelings about those that oppose RfB/RfA's based in frivolity and opposing based on a given candidate's <.0001% mistake rate (the very definition of isolated incident that should be discounted). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

Welcome to the world of those who have been around RfA/B for longer than you...it's a fun place for exactly these reasons, sometimes. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've been around here since January of 2006. I just was not vocal enough -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)