Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Straw poll on need for reform, and issues with RFA

As much as I dislike straw polls, I think that one would be helpful to determine where we stand. We aren't to the point of making any decisions from this information, this is just an advisory poll to guide the issue of reform in a direction the community supports.

Survey: Need for reform?

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position(s) you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Also, please feel free to bring forward additional positions, although, keep in mind we are not making changes here, just seeing where people stand.

A major overhaul of the RFA process is needed

1. — Werdna talk criticism 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
2. - half-vote - David Gerard 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Definitely. --Rory096 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Probably. I'd rather see minor changes that accomplish reform, but I don't think it would help at this point. The problems are more social and political than proceedual, and writing proceedure to counter social and political problems is tricky at best. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes, on the whole, I agree. We have moved right away from the "no big deal" school of thought to what David Gerard characterised as "arbitrary demands for shrubberies". Discussion does not focus on whether a user will use the tools wisely, but on whether people like them. We often get too much detail in opposes, too much argufying over them, supporters tend not to offer examples of what they consider desirable behaviour (making the negative stand out by contrast). Sysopping should be no big deal, and withdrawal of sysop privileges, temporarily or permanently, should also be no big deal; let people try their wings and then if they are found not to have developed the judgment or maturity then encourage them to self-desysop and come back again in a year. And yes, I really do have a big problem with the fact that we rejected User:Stephen B Streater - he is a very measured and calm editor, skilled at defusing conflicts, and his RFA ended up in a fight about somthing he was trying to do to help, using his own intellectual property to work around the problematic .ogg format and maybe offer media in Java. Even if that were a bad thing, which I don't think it is, it has nothign to do with whether he'd be a good admin. We also rejected User:Badlydrawnjeff; whatever you think of his enthusiasm for popular culture, the chances of him deleting an article when he should not are remote and he's pretty good with newbies as well. I strongly believe that people are seeing adminship as a Big Deal and it's time to see if we can't de-escalate that. Guy 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Something needs to be done. _→AzaToth 10:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
7. No big deal. Right. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The RFA process works, but could stand improvement

1. VIE! The process at the moment probably produces the right answer most of the time, but that probably isn't enough. --ais523 08:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
2. - half-vote - David Gerard 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)The RfA process works, but is not necessarily the optimal scheme. There is no reason to suppose that any new scheme would be optimal, either. -Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
4. 'Crats need more ability to discount bad !votes and incorrect reasoning. The process is fine, it's the fear of making a poor result because of a misguided view of what the true consensus is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
5. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
6. For once I agree with Badlydrawnjeff. IMO it's the purely arbitrary edit count requirements per namespace that need to go. -- Steel 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Yep, but then again we knew that. >Radiant< 14:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
8. As always. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
9. It has a lot of undesirable characteristics, but when push comes to shove it does a decent job of determining who the community trusts with adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
10. The vast majority of rfas go through without incident (incident defined as a discussion on this talkpage, or worse! :D) Occasionally, something goes wrong. Trying to make sure that that certain something doesn't go wrong again might very well screw up rfas that would've previously gone through without incident. So "improvement" could turn out to be a double-edged sword. But that doesn't mean we can't try it anyways. Picaroon9288 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Agree. There are problems/ideosyncracies/weaknesses in the current system, but overall it works "most" of the time. We just had 3 of 4 candidates promoted successfully today, right after we had a hair-pulling session last week about how no one could/would want to run the gauntlet is RFA as it is currently constituted. I like the "break the problem down" approach mentioned above/asked for by Durin every time this comes up. -- nae'blis 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
12. I made this suggestion above, Several commenters here seem to support the idea. - That bureaucrats may ask any commenter to further explain their vote (like dropping a note on the commenter's talk page), and that bureaucrats may remove/discount unexplained votes, at their discretion. I believe that they already have this ability, but I think it should be re-affirmed, in order to re-affirm that this leans more towards concensus, rather than democratic voting. (I am thinking of several situations/examples on CfD when I suggest this.) I think that it should be limited to bureaucrats, though, to prevent possible harrassment or abuse. - jc37 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
13. For the most part, it works. I mostly agree with Christopher Parham, but any change really ought to be minor. Despite the multitude of suggestions made on this talk page and elsewhere, I haven't seen a solution that doesn't create a whole new set of problems. It seems that change needs to occur in the community, not the system. Unless a consensus can be reached on minimum standards and what are and are not acceptable criteria, it seems that the wildly diverging standards of individual editors (which, overall, seem to be drifting higher) is part of the problem. Agent 86 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
14. I don't think there is a problem with the process (it does seem to mostly be working for concensus, after all), but rather how editors approach this process. Arbitrary edit counts that focus on quantity over quality, requirements for candidates to have experience in areas that don't interest them (and will not be using the tools for), and any number of other reasons to cast an oppose vote do not seem to reflect what wikipedia needs; trustworthy admins. I agree with Badlydrawnjeff, 'crats need greater abilility to disregard "votes" that do not represent a genuine concern for community views. Markovich292 22:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
15. The process itself is not the problem. It is the editors' behavior on RfA that often leads to calls of bias and need for change. However, I'm not saying that the process couldn't have a tweak or two. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
16. It's pretty good. The people involved could behave better, remember AGF, civility, NPA and all that, but human behavior is unlikely to change anytime soon. Tweaks are possible, but not overhaul, methinks. Antandrus (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
17. I think it works pretty well. I think any improvements should come (per NoSeptember and Durin) gradually, based on clearly identified problems. And any solutions should not be too burdensome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
18. I don't think it is majorly broken (as I once thought), but there are some issues with "voting" rather than discussion and the occasional snowballing of oppose votes over some silly minor issues. The biggest thing that I don't like is about some people having strict criteria with some funny percentages, but there aren't many of these and I don't remember seeing any negative effect of this on the outcome. However all the problems tend to stem from erring on the side of caution rather than silliness, overall I trust the candidates who do come out even if occasional worthy editors get rejected over some minor outburst weeks ago.--Konst.able 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
19. It's evident that RfA, as it stands now, ensures that the right people are becoming sysopped due to the virtually non-existent problem of having to desysop people (a dozen or so out of 1000+ admins) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    Elaboration: Per JzG, I've definitely supported candidates who haven't succeeded in an RfA and that I still think would make fine administrators despite community consensus that stated otherwise, but that doesn't mean that the system is totally broken. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

20. It stops most unsuitable candidates, so it sort of works. However, I think the way current RfAs work (this includes people's standards) discourages many good candidates, and I don't want to put any non-cookie cutter candidate through this process, as I fear that a silly rejection might make them lose faith in Wikipedia. So I am afraid to nominate good candidates. Maybe that's my problem and not a problem of the process, though. Kusma (討論) 10:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
21. I do not think the process of RFA is broken. It needs to be fine tuned to better meet the needs of our growing community. --FloNight 10:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
22. RFA is not broken. I do think a little more transparency from the bureaucrats wouldn't hurt. Human nature always applies. Grandmasterka 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
23. I'm cool with how it is †he Bread 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
24. All we need to do is end the charade that 'RFA is not a vote'. Of course it is. When was the last time someone with a minority of votes got promoted? Once we have gotten over our pretensions on that point, we need to work out how to make the vote fair. The simplest way would be to use the same suffrage rules as the Arbcom or WMF board elections to prevent sockpuppets or meatpuppets from skewing the results. Cynical 10:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
25. -- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Nothing is perfect, but I really don't have a serious problem with the current problem. I probably believe that it is tad too restrictive, while many others would think it is not restrictive enough and needs to be made tougher. (I'm in the adminship isn't a big deal crowd) How in the world would changing the process fix those differences? Whoever can resolve that paradox should be rewarded for their diplomacy skills. With respect to the Carnildo decision, the problem (if anything) was not with the RfA, but with the bureaucrats themselves. Still I'm open to any constructive improvements, as there obviously could be some. -- RM 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
27. The only real problem IMO is that of "social RFAs": you get 70+ close "wikifriends" and it doesn't matter if you are flagrantly unsuitable admin material; the RFA generally walks it. Some re-wording would be nice; of course RFA is a vote, and there needs to be firmer pointing in the direction of relevant guidelines, so that newbies don't end up with pile-on opposes. Apart from that, IMO it works pretty well. Moreschi 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
28. With ten times as many admins, you'd have ten times fewer problems reaching a critical point. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
29. As I've suggested elsewhere, yeah. Not totally broken, but could be improved upon. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
30. I think the only problem is the people voting. Yes you, me, everyone, I have my own standards which mean that I might not support someone while they seem a great candidate for other people. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFA process

1. Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)There is nothing wrong with the RfA process that is likely to be fixed by an amendment to it.
2. All we need to do is let anons vote, but besides that I see nothing wrong with RfA. -  Mike | trick or treat  13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA gives imperfect answers. That's fine. Imperfection is part of humanity.

1. Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
2. See below. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
3. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
4. -- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Moreschi 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA does not always get the answer right. There is no reason to suppose that any other system is likely to either

1. Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Steel 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
3. W.marsh 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Every system ever is "broken" the second it produces a decision you don't argee with, which is inevitably going to happen.
4. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
5. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 15:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
6. If you're looking for something perfect, look elsewhere. Picaroon9288 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Bang on. Agent 86 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
8. If RfA was perfect, we would not need such a process. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
11. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
12. The biggest problem with RFA comes from the process's inabilty to satisfy all points of view. Current practices have not dealt well with abstract conflicts in opinion about standards for noms. Some nom's RFA are subject to strong disagreement between users offering their opinion. Perhaps this makes some users not want to participate in the process. Not a good thing! --FloNight 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Absolutely. Grandmasterka 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
14. -- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
15. As I mentioned in one other post, the people "voting" have mutually exclusive interests that can't be resolved by a new process, unless said process does not allow certain objections. But of course I'm not in favor of a process that censors honest thought. -- RM 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
16. the wub "?!" 17:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Moreschi 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
18. I'm late to the party, but what any engineer would tell you is that you need to aim for the least amount of errors, not absolute perfection. Nothing will attain complete, unadulterated efficacy, so it's akin to chasing a moving car. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Too true. Any system involving people is going to have flaws. There are some people that I believe would br fine admins who can't seem to get a successful RfA. I'm disappointed, but I still have to accept consensus even when I disagree. It's election time here is in the US. Would to God our elections and candidates were as transparent, approachable, and accountable as RfA and our noms.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
20. As somebody once said, a strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is unlikely to be a magic bullet that fixes everything that anyone perceives as being wrong with RfA

1. Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
2. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Steel 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
4. W.marsh 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) RfA developed slowly and organically to deal with various problems encountered over the past 3 years. There's no reason to have confidence that a brand new system will not have major problems once put into practice.
5. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Absolutely. But that should not stop us from having a go. Guy 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Markovich292 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Very true. We don't even know what is wrong with the process (if there is something wrong at all), so who can find the solution to an unknown possibly-nonexistent problem? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Of course hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
11. -- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Moreschi 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Alphachimp 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think plenty of people feel RfA needs improvement. But feeling it needs improvement is potentially quite different than what reality may be. Repeating myself from many other comments I've made, we can't know if there's a problem without performing analysis. In small systems, this isn't much of a necessity. But, in larger systems with complex aspects and potentially very negative outcomes, such analysis needs to be done. Is there a problem? I don't know any more than the next person. Asking if people feel RfA is broken does not bring much clarity to the situation. I thus decline answering the question. --Durin 11:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a nuclear power plant, where experimenting could be really dangerous. If a proposed new process works worse than the current RfA, we could just go back. Maybe we actually learn something about what is good or bad about the current process from trying something else. Do you really think it will do very much harm to try? Kusma (討論) 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Getting this wrong has real consequences to people. Without blowing up the servers, that's about as nuclear power plantish as you can get around here. --Durin 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the current process is pretty bad for the candidates, and would welcome proposals that make it easier for them. I was implicitly hoping the new system would be less of an ordeal. Kusma (討論) 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• The consensus not-quite-sort-of-a-vote system seems to work. Requirements need to be sensible. I might try a draft rewrite of the intro at some time soon for your amusement - David Gerard 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free. Dozens of attempts at new systems, rewrites, etc have been tried over the last year. --Durin 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• The main problem is people applying arbitrary standards (that are perceived by some as too high). There are four ways around this. (1) !vote on RFAs yourself applying different standards, to compensate; (2) educate people that their arbitrary standards are not representative; (3) make certain standards mandatory to prevent arbitrariness (e.g. if we enforce a standard of "three months" then people won't be able to use "nine months" as an argument); and (4) reduce the 80% standards. I also encourage people in this discussion to make an RFA nomination. >Radiant< 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• But if we enforce this mandatory standard of "three months", what's going to stop it from creeping up to nine months eventually anyways? Picaroon9288 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus. If consensus ever holds that it should be nine months, then it should be so. Presently, a small group of users can make any such decision and enforce it, overruling consensus because every opposer cancels out four supporters. >Radiant< 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1 cancelling out 4 would seem to be the greatest weakness of RfA, at the moment. A ratio of 1:3, or possibly even 1:2 would seem to be preferrable. (The US congress only requires a 2/3 majority to over-ride a veto : ) - jc37 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• This "1 oppose cancels out four supports" has always struck me as a bit of a red herring, even if we did consider this a vote, so I finally broke down and did the math on it. If:

• S = current # of supports
• N = current # of opposes
• and C = change required to make $S/(S+N)=(S+C)/((S+C)+(N+1))$

• then C solves out to be $S/N$! Which means that at the current "magic numbers" of 80% and 75%, each oppose already equals between 4 or 3 supports.. (it gets crazily high when you consider landslides, but it all evens out in the end). To change how much an oppose "cancels out", you have to change the overall approval percentage, something RFA seems loathe to do at present. -- nae'blis 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Check out: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Consensus for a suggestion. - jc37 00:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ah Radiant, now that opens up a whole new can of worms when thinking about the future here. If a small group of people decide that a minimum edit count of 6000 is required as well as a mimimum of 9 months editing, where will this take us? It could work out that only the admins that met standards of this minority were promoted. As a result, the admin:editor ratio would plummet as new people join wikipedia and admins "retire" from their duties. Markovich292 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• A proposal like you suggest wouldn't prevent people from applying arbitrary standards -- rather, it would codify and mandate those standards. The main problem with people applying edit count standards isn't that they are too subject to individual judgment or that they are creeping upwards, it's that they have only very little to do with what we are actually trying to assess. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it would codify and mandate consensual standards, and make it impossible for small groups of people to override consensus. In the present system, a group of, say, ten editors can enforce whatever high standard they want by opposing people that don't meet it. >Radiant< 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • It would be consensual, but still arbitrary, just as if we all agreed you had to be male to be an admin, it would be consensual but arbitrary. (Arbitrary as in, determined by whim rather than necessity or reason.) The point is that having any rigorously applied minimum edit count is a bad idea. It seems obvious, at least to me, that the difference between X-1 and X+1 edits is not a good indicator of whether a person is qualified for adminship, unless those are two pretty damn good edits. The solution to people using bad standards is to ignore their opinions, not to codify a slightly less bad standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "why the fuck are we polling like this" option? Specifically, who expected to obtain any useful data from the above, when the second option is "The RFA process works, but could stand improvement"? It's just like the neutral option in market surveys--never let your interviewers read it, unless you want a majority of your data to be useless in drawing up a report (10% said A, 10% not-A, and 80% didn't actually say anything). The joys of this talk page... Marskell 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• There were a couple of those but someone removed them. >Radiant< 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, I included a couple of those when I 'expanded' the options for people just like you (:)) see here. Re-instate them if you like. -Splash - tk 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like "voting" either, but for the purpose, it's reasonable, this straw poll decides absolutely nothing, but it does provide a way to see how well the general concept of reform is likely to be recieved, as well as some guidance on what the prevaling opinions are. When used for that, and nothing more, a straw poll is simply a tool of measurement, rather than a tool of decisionmaking. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To place a vote anywhere above would be to validate the whole thing. Polls are impossible to execute properly on the Wiki, most of the time, and if you see a bad one, best not to participate. The best poll options remain as close to the following two as possible: Yes or No. As soon as you depart from that with whole phrases as options, you're not getting anywhere (unless you're deliberately seeking "open ends", which is a different thing altogether).

Yes/no polling is problematic... rarely are their only two choices except when both of those choices are artifically created. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of market research (to carry the example) is to "artificially create" didactic choices. A broad survey will have such, amongst other things. "I like the new Ford Taurus. Agree/Disagree"—a deliberately stark choice. "What do you think of the new Ford Taurus?"—a deliberately open-ended question. Any poll needs to decide whether it's doing the former, the latter, or both (compartmentalized from question to question) off the top; Wiki polls almost always get it wrong buy haphazardly creating something in-between—the above is an example. Marskell 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't a rejection of the principle of polling. Wiki culture has come to radically denigrate (proper) voting in favour of discussion, but there is no ought involved in this; it's just happened that way. If we do want a poll, perhaps: "The support/oppose structure of RfA should be changed. Agree or disagree; do not leave comments." That's all—if someone adds extra options, remove them. Marskell 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Trial run of Wikipedia:RFA as RFC

I've started a trial run for myself here. Please treat it as a real nomination, even though it won't be binding in any sense of the word. I've been fairly controversial in the last week or so, so I'm looking forward to generating some interesting discussion on the page. This is a chance for us to see how one of the proposals would actually work in a real situation. — Werdna talk criticism 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you create a set of guidelines for the RFC? For example, what is a certification, what is an endorsement, what are the format requirements for each? Are they just signatures and timestamps or something more? I suggest that you put the guidelines in the Talk Page for the RFC. Thanx. --Richard 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. done. — Werdna talk criticism 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Less is more, though. We're drowning in process right now. For the record, I think this is an excellent idea. Guy 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I agree with is the "3 user confirmation" thing. I think that should be added to the process. Other than that, I think that RfA is fine as it is. -  Mike | trick or treat  14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• This proposal is wonderful! I hope it becomes practice. --Improv 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder of how woefully the various forms of discussion for adminship failed. This is a well-trod path, and one I support... but nothing new is added by re-branding it in this manner. - brenneman ^{L} 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice idea and I think it could work. At least it now requires burden of evidence for someone to place a vote (ie they cant just oppose for no specified reason!). On the other hand it could be confusing especially with lots of participants... We'll see. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14

09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the problem: "HOWEVER, PLEASE TREAT IT WITH THE SAME BRUTALITY AS A REAL NOMINATION." RfAs should not be brutal, no matter what form they take. All brutality does is keep a lot of good editors from ever asking for the admin bit in the first place, and it tells those with abrasive personalities, "Hey, maybe adminship is my kind of gig!" --Aaron 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to have a sense of humor with the "not binding" disclaimer, that's all. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really working, though. It encourages people to vote in sections under each argument. I predict that this will simply make opposers rubber-stamp all arguments against the candidate, and supporters rubber-stamp all rebuttals. >Radiant< 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Looks like old wine served in a new bottle to me. The only apparent advantage that I see is that it will expunge muscleheads from engaging in RfAs. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific and Emotional judging and bureaucrat intervention

Personally, I feel that the biggest peeve about RfA is the inconsistency in the support/oppose patterns of people who participate in RfA. People have varying standards/interpretations, much like in cricket or football, the different umpires and referees have different positions in the spectra : Some will give a 50-50 offside call to the attacking team, some will give it to the defending team; some are hard and cynical on players diving, some give more penalties; some regulate more and hand out more cards and free kicks, some have a laissez-faire. Personally I do not mind people having their own high standards or low standards, but the most annoying thing is how some "judges" apply one rule to certain people, a softer rule for others, or a harder rule for some others. I feel every candidate should be equal before every "jurist" even though the jurists have different standards among themselves. It irritates me when I see (eg.) people oppose saying "only 3 months" or "not enough mainspace edits" [say 1000 maybe], and then when some "cute" candidate or their friend comes along and they get passed with 100 votes at 90%+ when they perhaps only have 3 months or sometimes 500-700 edits, despite other users being stopped with a higher bar. The reverse also happens when some "ugly duckling" candidate (who most likely is introverted and does not have a following) comes along and people start finding some rather idiosyncratic and minor imbalance in the editing pattern and they get a lot of opposes. One of the wikipedians I admire most, User:Sam Vimes appeared to have this problem - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2 - it was running 9/11, but after some rebuttal, there was a 59/8 streak and he scraped home...

• Complaints from about 4 jurists that Sam was focussed mainly on one area - cricket

• This is the case for most people actually, that they focus on only one topic. In this case Sam also wrote some other stuff on Winter Olympics, Speedway and Handball, and over a wide historical range. A lot of people cruise through editing only one type of music genre, the geography/history of one country,etc, and have no problem. Many other people don't actually edit any topic at all, doing dabs and CVU and other stuff with automated tools rather than human initiative and nobody notices. Some folks only have 500 small edits, yet pass easily.

• 2-3 Complaints that he had only 170 article talk edits and 480 WP edits

• I searched many RfAs where the candidate had 100 talk and 200 WP edits (excluding Esperanza edits, which don't count), yet passed almost unanimously because the user has a "cuteness" aura which appears to allow them to be passed unnnoticed, including some who demonstrated that they had no knowledge of the deletion policy whatsoever.

• Complaints about not warning vandals

• This is valid I guess, but to receive about 12 on this matter is quite a lot, as it is not a policy violation, or bad beahaviour. There have been people who are also slack with this but they do not attract such criticism.

As such, this was a grey zone RfA and was close to failing when it never should have been in doubt, although luckily it was salvaged. Personally in these cases, I would like the bureaucrats to take the "jurists"' track record into account when there is an unclear RfA, because although they express themselves in good faith, there is widespread sentimentalism and a lack of scientificness in the consistency of one's own standards being applied to editors, rather than whether they meet the criteria or not. This is not a comment about civility as a criteria for RfA, it is not a comment on appropriate criteria at all - it is simply a comment about the need for all candidates to be judged fairly with respect to another candidate by the given "judge". At the moment there is a lot less fairness here than even in "sport" like F1 and boxing where some judges and stewards appear to maximise the chances of certain candidates. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like the bureaucrats to be more pro-active in taking into account candidacies where a user has been either let off the hook compared or been over-scrutinised in such cases. What do people think about this? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that there's somewhat of a "charisma" or "popularity" criterion that most people have, but no one talks about. If people know your name, there's a higher chance that more people will support you unconditionally. If people haven't seen you before, they're more likely to root around for a reason to oppose. Bureaucrat intervention looks good on paper, but I fear that RfA is too subjective a process for that to work effectively. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see more objectivity in RfA, and less blind support for popular but unqualified candidates, and vice-versa. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unconscious, not a thing where someone actively thinks about taking "popularity" into account, but a lot of people (humanl nature) will simply support some candidate because the said person said something nice to them, or socialised with them previously, irrespective of skill deficiency - and vice versa. In a case where this is close I would simply like the bureaucrat to take this into account (like weak/strong oppose/support) by checking the recent RfA standards employed by the voters. RfA is subjective in that people have different standards, (which is a separate issue), but I would like the 'crats to check the consistency of the judges individually, as every judge should be consistent with his/her standards in fairness to all candidates, even though every judge has different standards. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of bureaucrats comparing how "jurists" comment on rfa's of different candidates for (a lack of) consistency sounds reasonable. But if that's going to happen the way you suggest it, we need >10 more 'crats. And not lazy ones, either. Picaroon9288 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one does RfB anymore, and the ones that do don't succeed. But that's another rant. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with making 'crats judge which people's standards are and are not appropriate to enforce consistency, is that it assumes there is an objective standard to measure other people's standards by. >Radiant< 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As Radiant points out, you are solving one problem by simply moving it somewhere else. Themindset 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I appear to not have made myself well understood. There are many people who have different personal criteria/expecations - I do not want to get in the way of judging what is a legitimate criteria. What I am looking for is for a bureaucrat, in a close RfA, to inspect the "judges" to see if a given "judge" is applying their expectations consistently. What I pointed out above is that some "unfashionable" candidates are having little things scrutinised a lot more than some other candidates, by the same "judge" who let people through with lower standards. What I mean is the cases in which some guy gets opposed for "only 90% edit summary", "only 2000 article edits" or only "4 months service" be Judge A when Judge A has consistently supported other people with 85% edit summary, 1000 article edits or 3 months service. and Vice versa. This would dampen out the effect of subconsious psychological effects which result in "popular" candidates being judged more softly and obscure candidates being judged more softly. I am not in favour of dictating what is a valid criteria, just in favour of moderating a given judge relative to himself so that all candidates get the same fair go under the same judge. I know that different judges have different opinions and I respect that. It's just that in real life sport, for example, the judge/umpire/ref have a split-second to decide and often in a close call, favour the "big-name" candidate - even the best officials. In sport where we have a TV replay umpire, the calls are fair (almost always). In RfA we have a week. I feel that a "judge" (ie user), should be expected to apply their standards consistently for all users - I don't have intention to judge what is appropriate criteria. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself here? Reality check: Bureacrats must now evaluate the contributions of every single voter in light of previous RfA's? That's a totally unrealistic responsibility to give to anyone. The average RfA would take several hours to close, dozens of hours on particularly well-frequented votes. People should be able to regulate their own voting behaviour without forcing a bureacrat nanny on them. --tjstrf 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. Only one or two RfAs per week are in the close zone where there would be a big difference. The fact is that some people choose not to regulate their vote and unconsciously will not "judge" candidates consistently, or perhaps want RfA to become a beauty contest. It would take no more than 3-4 hours per week to analyse the close ones and we can always get more 'crats onboard if we feel that there is too much work. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bureacrats should not have the responsibility to (nor are they imo qualified to) judge whether an individual's standards are being kept consistently, and it would be an horrendous drag for them to do so. Case by case judgment is a positive thing, blanket standards are negative as they do not allow exceptions for those who we are willing to trust due to our personal knowledge of their behaviours or excellent ratings by others that we would trust. --tjstrf 01:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary page?

What happened to the little bot-updates summary page? I found it quite usefull in deciding which RfA's were close enough to take the time to consider "voting" in. Even if there is consensus to remove it from the front matter it would be nice to link it from the See Also section. Eluchil404 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BN. Borisblue 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It was me who removed it from the frontmatter [1] It is an useful tool, but it does not belong in the lead paragraph describing what adminship is about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

admin behavior

I have a question - if an editor is an administrator on another language Wikipedia or sister project, but there is evidence that he/she is breaking WP policies and behaving in a disruptive and boorish fashion on the English Wikipedia, can action be taken against that editor on the project where he/she is an administrator, based on this evidence? Rama's arrow 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, as every wikipedia is somewhat independent from the other ones and have their own set of rules. If s/he is behaving somewhat properly there, then I don't think there can be taken any actions against the administrator. The only thing is to inform the other admins over there of that persons behaviour. Perhaps they'll have a serious talk with the user. MoRsE 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if it was serious enough you could take it up with meta, but otherwise it's like MoRsE has said - each language is pretty much autonomous. And I personally think it's best that way. Themindset 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• In extreme cases, this has happened; for instance, there was a rogue (not rouge) admin on Wikibooks who was frowned upon on enwiki as well. We'd treat cases of e.g. breach of privacy very harshly regardless of on which project they were perpetrated. >Radiant< 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• In addition, if that local project has their own Arbitration Committee or some other dispute-resolution process, they may take into account user behavior on other projects if the two accounts are confirmed to be the same user. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editcountitis redux

I think I found one of the causes for the rampant editcountitis... the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards actively encourages people to set an arbitrary cutoff point in months or amount of edits. Additionally, the list is long enough that most people wouldn't read much past the beginning, but the first couple of entries happen to have excessively high standards. I would strongly recommend deprecating this page, or cutting out the editcountitis columns. >Radiant< 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd deprecate it; delete it outright or leave an historical footnote on it or some such. The page advocates editcountitis, it's true. Another bad facet of it is that many of the entries are out of date. Anyone can add themselves, and years later that entry as a "standard" is still there, yet standards have changed over time. This gives a false impression to people considering adminship. For example, have a look at the standards list as of January 2005...1.75 years ago [2]. Of the 19 listed on that old version of the page, just two are not on the current list (Neutrality, ShaneKing and Tuomas). Only one changed (Scott Gall). I.e., the vast majority of the standards people put in are never touched again. --Durin 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If editcountitis is the worst problem we have to deal with on RFA, we're doing pretty damn good. As for the content of the page, I think it could probably be userfied, much like the silliness seen here. —freak(talk) 16:15, Oct. 12, 2006 (UTC)
    • IMO this is the worst offender. --Alex (Talk) 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • We have a list like that? That's odd. Rather pointless as well, since the list is woefully incomplete. --tjstrf 16:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Inevitably outdated as well... I can't find it, but Durin made a graph of admin nominees. The edit-counts of both successful and unsuccessful candidates have risen steadily over time. (though there's perhaps a chance they'll decrease if the admin backlogs get too large). --14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you may have meant this chart: Image:AverageEditCountatRfA.png. --Durin 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Deckiller's sixth law: People enjoy making RfA standards because it makes them feel empowered. — Deckiller 17:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that people are free to vote in any way they wish is a good thing rather than a bad thing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of the standards page is a good one, and I like to point misguided self-nom's to it so that they get the gist of what people are looking for... The fact that some of the standards are old and are from people who may not participate with RFA (or even the project) anymore is indeed worrisome. Perhaps some kind of refresh of the standards page needs to be made... I don't know. But to wipe it out would take away the opportunity for aspiring admins to get a feel for what people at RFA are looking for - which I think would be a disservice. Themindset 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain the standards page really tells you what people on RFA are looking for at the moment. The standards that are actually applied do change with some fashions -- at one point, edit summaries were very much in fashion, or featured articles, or image tagging, or namespace editcountitis. The only way to find out what standards are actually applied is to closely follow RFA for a couple of weeks or months. Kusma (討論) 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• We could replace the standards page by some of Durin's statistics to show what the actuall standards are. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the concerns, but to me these "standards" pages aren't the cause of "editcountitis" (assuming for the moment it is a problem, or a problem that really needs to be worried about), they're a result of it. They wouldn't exist if there had not been a pre-existing concern or fascination about edit counts. I will conceed that they might exacerbate the problem; however, if editcountitis really is a significant enough problem that it need fixing, focussing on these pages isn't the solution. As to whether or not the problem of editcountitis is as significant as its made out to be, I'm not yet quite convinced it merits the amount of electrons spilled discussing it. Agent 86 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support unlinking that page, making it historical, and creating something in its place that takes a more global view: Hard facts/data about pass/fail ratios, examples of personal standards that are relatively common (1FA, etc. But I wouldn't in any way cry if the entire section on personal standards went away; people can link to their own in their !vote of they really want to. I think this page exacerbates the problem and sometimes reinforces unhealthy perceptions of false consensus. In addition, it's well-nigh unusable in its current format anyway. This page didn't scale. -- nae'blis 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The editcountitis rampant on WP:RfA has an extroardinary effect of dissociating sister projects. The idea of making someone an administrator has quite a few facets: recognition of someone who is trustworthy, the ability to view deleted articles, the ability to return improvements made (or found) elsewhere. The arbitrary edit count limits, seen in this light, are insane. The only effect they have in this regard, is to make people (such as myself) who are very active on sister projects, avoid Wikipedia whenever possible. It is taxing to briefly visit here, just to clear out the Transwiki to Wiktionary category. Much like rubber-necking at a highway accident, it is hard not to notice the drama of the hour, on RfA. It very strongly alienates me from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Changed the standards page per the above discussion. I'm not sure whether to deprecate, blank or delete the subsidiary pages. >Radiant< 13:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest deprecation with {{historical}}. --ais523 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow

18 requests on the main page right now... That's the most I've ever seen! I wonder what the record is for the most RfAs running at once. Grandmasterka 07:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing to think that when my RfA closed under 2 months ago there were just four left running. 4 --> 18?? Who said its broken aye people!! Glen 09:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There were just two running a while back, someone made a thread here about it. – Chacor 09:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. (Also, compare the short-lived two RfA revision with the current one.) The oldest RfA ends roughly a day and a half from now, there's a chance for more. Got any promising candidates? >3 months and ~2500 edits? Grandmasterka 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And Wikicats makes 19!' Glen 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Promptly back to 18. – Chacor 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So much for the notion that the process is so gruesome that no one wants to undertake it. Most of them are succeeding too. I still don;t understand the opposes to Benon, though. I would have given him the mop long ago. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything goes in cycles. The thing isn't broke as much as it's just going through a phase. Yu need to give it a chance. Yanksox 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everything goes in cycles. I'd suspect one of the things that goes in cycles is the severity with which folks going through the RfA process are graded. It's my impression we've relaxed the standards a little (examples include: no more 1FA and self nomination is no longer the kiss of death).

Not suggesting the change in standards is inappropriate. Just that this might be influencing the improved RfA turnout to some degree... Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now, at present, it's up to 19, and for the most part, it's not a problem of quantity over quality. Agent 86 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The same thing happened last year. We had a big surge in October 2005 and promoted 67 admins. The 4th quarter of 2005 remains the record quarter for admin promotions, and there have been several peaks and valleys over the years in admin growth. NoSeptember 12:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Self nomination

Since I don't really want to nominate myself for adminship as I doubt I would make it, what would anyone think I should do to see how much more I must do to become one with a successful RfA? thanks Teh tennisman 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've compiled my personal advice for RfA candidates here, which may be of use. A better suggestion would be to put yourself forward for editor review which should get you some specific ideas on what you need to do. Good luck, Gwernol 13:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Teh tennisman 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Insulting the electors

I'm a little shaken up by the responses of one of the failing nom's. I know losing any vote, even a !vote like RfA, feels a lot like getting your teeth pulled with a ball peen hammer, but the fundamental rule in any campaign has got to be not to insult the electorate! Engagement and debate are a necessary part of consensus building, but my, oh my! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its certainly an innovative strategy. I particularly like the notion that asking a candidate to answer three questions amounts to a pathological process. If the candidate had spent 10% of the effort he's put into insulting people on answering the questions, he'd probably be passing right now. Perhaps someone should mention WP:BEANS and WP:POINT to him? Gwernol 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that would involve the sort of pathology he is so against. LOLCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did you notice, he redacted the answers and the questions!Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was an entertaining read. I will say that I'm impressed by the candidate's bravery, but wow... just, wow. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comment - limits for participation in RFA

I've started a draft at User:Triona/Limit_participation_in_RFA. I think it has some potential to address social and political issues surrounding RFA, but I'd like a lot more input on it. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also requesting comment on an alternative to the above, User:Triona/Limit_participation_in_RFA_2 - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with these two are this: no one will ever get consus unless we get the community. Otherwise, we'll have people nominated and ACCEPTED because they waited until the people who don't like them to make comments elsewhere so they won't 'mess up' the RfA. In order to get a COMMUNITY CONSENSUS, we need to know what THE COMMUNITY wants. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While I see that being a partial problem with the first proposal, the second proposal doesn't stop you from participating, it just stops your from running for adminship for a while if you do. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are terrible ideas. -- Steel 20:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate, or offer other alternatives. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Idea 1:

• Turns RfA into a vote.
• "Participation in the "Comments" section, and the talkpage would not be restricted, but would not be binding ::::for determining consensus." - Comments sections are read and are taken into account, both by !voters and crats. Somewhat defeats the purpose of the proposal.
• Who is going to police and keep track of the hundreds of people who participate in RfA?
• People use up their !vote supporting an exceptional candidate, and nobody has any votes left to oppose WoW.

Idea 2:

• Mass shortage of admins.

I think the general message I'm trying to get across is that limiting the amount people can participate is very very bad for a wiki. -- Steel 20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict) Hmm... punishing people for participating in community process is not something I like. What if you could publish your opinion in one AFD per week? Or if you could not post a note in an AFD if you have had an article deleted in the last month?

The problem is that an "elite group" controls the process? Then open the process to more users. In example, every week choose 25 random users with knowledge about Wikipedia (that is, not recently created users), and post a note in their talk pages informing that Wikipedia is currently needing their opinions in the RFA, explaining the process and welcoming them to give a hand. After a couple of months, you have have enough people in RFAs to make that small elite group not being able to get consensus for "their" candidates. And in some more months, that group may not be able to prevent a good candidate from becoming an administrator. Make sure you don't nominate or get nominated, or give an opinion in RFAs so that people don't think you are harvesting votes for a particular candidate. In example, I only vote when I have had past experiences with the candidate. For giving an opinion, I prefer to write an editor review. My last participation was in Folajimi and HRE in July, plus some formatting, tallies and questions since then, so I guess I could do this without being seen as someone with an agenda.

I must say, though, that I have never liked The X-Files, so I don't buy into conspiration ideas. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, terrible ideas. I see no point in punishing people for participating in the community. I think more people should participate, not fewer. Also, I've seen a pattern of people participating in RfA and then submitting their own. This is beneficial in it helps potential noms self-evaluate and improve their skills based on an understanding of the community's consensus on RfA. I have learned a lot about policy just by reading and taking part in these discussions. I believe that a number of unsuccessful noms would not have happened if the users had taken part in RfA discussions and used the lessons learned before submitting their own. Finally, this is a Wiki. It runs on consensus. How can we reach consensus without thorough discussion without limit or reprisal? It would be un-wiki to do otherwise.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No no no! This completely goes against any community spirit Wikipedia has, and it will be incredibly difficult and unfair to carry out. I strongly oppose this. --Alex (Talk) 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not say it better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

These create too many loopholes that troublemakers might exploit. Wryspy 04:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The only serious problem I see either of these proposals creating is sockpuppetry, although, in this case, that's enough of a concern that it has to be looked at carefully. I do see a strong need to either broaden participation enough that a small group can't control the process, or narrow it, so that routine participation by any group is discouraged. Limiting the frequency of participation is one way, creating a "cost" for participation is another. I see doing something along these lines as giving the community as a whole more of a voice, because we'd have more diverse voices, and less people firmly entrenched in the process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One loophole is that someone can wait until people who don't like them have reached limits. Another problem would involve penalizing those who participate most. That would include the people who may be most competent, most active, and most knowledgeable about process and history. Wryspy 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to try to keep a list of all of these various RfA and admin related proposals, to make it easier to look them up in the future. I am bound to miss a few, so please feel free to update the Subpages about adminship list. Thanks, NoSeptember 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with people who are very familiar with RfA participating avidly? How would it be beneficial for those who lack experience to have a pre-eminent role? I, for one, have a better understanding of how to evaluate an admin candidate then when I first started. What's to stop all and sundry with an interest in !voting to take part in the discussion and !vote as they see fit? If there is an RfA cabal, its membership has changed over the last 6 months. That is to say, there are more names I don't recognize from when I started than there are those I do recognize. That there is turnover shows there is not an entrenched bureacracy lording their power over adminship. Despite the turnover, some people pass who I think should not and others fail who I should think should pass. Also, though there were some who felt the process needed reform then as now, the names of the advocates of reform have also changed. The process does not always work to my satisfaction, but it does work.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Everybody should have the right to vote in any RfA. It is rediculous to limit it. -  Mike | trick or treat  15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose the limitations in participation in any aspect of wikipedia. People who use the RfA often are more qualified not less. If the same people keep voting and they have an agenda then it will become evident over time. The system is not broken, it does not need to be fixed. HighInBC 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• The first proposal is simply not a good idea, as explained by others here. I can see the point of the second, but I don't think it is necessary to codify it. It may be desirable to (1) prevent present nominees from voting, to block them from gathering support by supporting other candidates; and to (2) limit the frequency of a failed candidate's renomination, since there have been some people renominating themselves every month or two. However, the first has not been demonstrated as problematic; the second tends to work out because participants will oppose a frequent re-nom. >Radiant< 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To much of WP:CREEP for that much of a change. Strongly oppose both proposals. — Moe 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up suggestion

Ms. Daugherty's line of thought can also lead to a two-stage process, in which the RfA candidate is thoroughly "interviewed" for 3-4 days, after which begins the "comments" (a. k. a. "voting") phase. Since recently the Q&A sections were moved up to emphasize their importance, why can't we simply give a couple of days for people to just ask questions, study responses and go over the record. The participation of just 5-10 editors in the first stage can make it meaningful. Rama's arrow 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This will also give cause for most people to avoid giving reasons like "less than 4 months," or "under 400 projectspace edits," as there will be steady evidence exhibiting the nominee's understandings of the process. Rama's arrow 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I would like to see questions play a greater role in the RfA process, which definitely reduces the vote-politics element. Rama's arrow 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... much like the featured removal has two steps, a review and a votation, splitting the RFA in a review and votation? Hmm... it sounds good. However, I like the fact that at any time someone considering a candidate may come across a "new evidence", post it in the RFA, and see some editors that have previously stated an opinion change due new facts. However, that would just making an editor review obligatory before RFA, right? -- ReyBrujo 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A 3 day "no voting" buffer sounds like a great idea. Anything that gives a moment for the cantidate to respond to questions before being buried under "drive-by" voters, who may never return. I think 3 days is long enough. That makes the whole process 10 days (3+7), and of course the questioning/discussion can continue during the 7, of course. - jc37 07:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An editor wanting to go for an RfA can prepare in any number of ways on and off WP. Sure anybody can go for an ER, what's the harm? - even schools often have preliminaries. This proposal does avoid excessive policing measures and bureaucracy. I would say 3-4 days on questions, and 3 days on "voting" - no particular need to elongate the process (as bureaucrats already have powers to extend the process).

The best way to use this scheme is to ask a lot of questions - as long as you ask questions different from those in an ER, what's the problem? Also, more people participate in RfAs than ERs, but ERs aren't a negative aspect.

Now what do we do to attain consensus here and implement this idea? If it really is do-able, we shouldn't let it go by. Rama's arrow 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought WP:DFA got rejected? --ais523 13:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can change. -- nae'blis 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Billions of blue blistering barnacles in 10,000 thundering typhoons! Talk about re-inventing the wheel! I was re-inventing the re-inventers! Rama's arrow 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I review the !votes after my own, consider comments and rationales, and will change my !vote if I see reason to do so. RfA is already a discussion/consensus building process. I see no need to overly complicate a process that meets the essentials to acheive its purpose.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that I was beating a dead horse, I'd only recommend that more questions be asked of the nominee, so that the emphasis shifts to actual understanding of policy rather than random limitations like 3 months, 2,000 edits, etc. This will also help shift the focus from simply tallying votes. Rama's arrow 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To add, I now don't think I was beating a dead horse. For one, no substantial debate has taken place over WP:DFA. Perhaps its an idea that can be revived? Rama's arrow 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• There was substantial debate about it. See Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship/Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_47#Suspension. --Durin 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that reviving WP:DFA might be worth a shot. We might be able to do it like WP:GUS; publicise it, and let admin candidates decide which process to use. (The point is that DFA is always followed by a full RFA anyway, so that it wouldn't require changes to the existing process, which is the useful point here.) --ais523 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're suggesting a person do a process like WP:DFA and then also go through WP:RFA? Seems like a lot of hoops for a person to jump through. --Durin 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For a while, JoshuaZ was posting questions to get a better picture of admin candidates. I've been known to do so as well. Anyone can already ask "bonus" questions during the RfA process to this end. Other users have criticised this as making the process too grueling. Others may feel it violates WP:POINT. RfA is already a discussion. Why overcomplicate it? It does seem a bit like CREEP to add another layer to a process that is criticised by some as being harder than it needs to be.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dlohcierekim. As someone looking to request the extra buttons in a month or so, I can tell you that the process is very intimidating as is. Why add another step? People can (and should) ask lots of questions during the course of the RfA. That tends to break it up more for the candidate so they're not overwhelmed: I can just imagine someone thinking, Oh, jeez, I don't want to go through an Inquisition ^{(I'm not entirely serious in that reference!)} and then have my record examined in gross detail! Srose (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the concept behind WP:DFA come up several times since it was rejected (largely because it was shoved through prematurely, and didn't identify the problems it was supposed to fix). Another go at trying a more discussion-based, less !vote-based variation of the current RFA system seems to have some traction. Making it optional has the peril of turning out like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination) though, wherein he tried to implement a "Commentary and evidence" section that was completely ignored by both supporters and opposers. I believe anything we do to encourage discussion (which is harder than a drive-by "vote") will have to be across the board to be effective. -- nae'blis 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'm sorry I missed those talk archives, Durin - honest mistake) I support the revival of the WP:DFA ideas. I don't think what I'm proposing overcomplicates the RfA process - its a 3-day period of interviews and 4-day "voting" period, than just a 7-day "voting" period based on available data and 3 basic answers.

However I do propose that we can at least make this an option for nominators/nominees. Its a choice, something both nominator and nominee should decide when a nomination is drafted. Rama's arrow 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On Srose's comment: I hardly think it is an inquisition. People want to know more about a nominee - how well do they understand policy? Have they actually gone through the reading list? An analogy I can give in response, is that the present system may often come across as an unfair trial - where the prosecutor says "not enough time", "not enough mainspace edits" and there is no smooth way for the nominee to discuss that feedback. Rama's arrow 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In most elections (yes, yes, RfA is hardly an election), there is always a slated time of campaigning and debates where the electorate learns of the choices they have. This proposal is not unlike the Senate confirmation hearings for SC and cabinet appointees. These are real-life, practical processes. Rama's arrow 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think explicitly comparing this to a Senate confirmation hearing is likely to improve the chances of this succeeding; Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy, and we try to keep the partisanship to a minimum. -- nae'blis 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The U.S. constitution written between 1787 and 1789 is a great example of how to create a government where branches balance each other. What's happening now is more due to political culture now than the design of the system, which is the relevant issue for us. Rama's arrow 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the present system, a nominee may spend a couple of months finetuning their contributions to meet the general criteria of most RfA regulars. In this system, at least you give both nominee and other editors equal time and opportunity to examine each other. And the questions one party asks the nominee can prove a useful guide for other editors who may choose to visit the RfA after the questioning phase. This is all an effort to provide more information, de-politicize and make it a process equal to both nominee and participating editors. Rama's arrow 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a fast reply! The Inquisition reference was something of a joke (and a means of studying, sort of... I'm trying to remember the differences between the Inquisitions). Anyway, if you ask me (and even if you don't, I'm forcing it on you :P), !voters will still say, "Not enough edits," because the most important thing is to see the candidate enforcing the policy in action. Anyone can come up with the right answer to a question, but it takes real knowledge of a policy to enact it in a real-time situation. Yanksox's questions (I forget which recent RfAs they were used on - he hasn't been around frequently, unfortunately) are the only questions I can see as proving that a candidate knows the policy because they imitate a real-time situation. Anyway, I'm digressing: the point I'm trying to make is that people will still oppose for too few edits for the aforementioned rationale and to make a candidate answer what could become dozens of questions is just adding on to the grueling part of the process. Srose (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I too was using inquisition as a metaphor. What a nominee does after getting the tools is beyond RFA - we can't fix that thru RFA. Questioning is the ideal way to determine the candidate's suitability - even if he/she takes time to prepare, to answer, there's nothing wrong in that. As an admin, he/she can crosscheck to be sure. In the example I gave about a Senate hearing, senators are always free and do vote on partisan lines, reducing the usefulness of the hearing. Nevertheless, it does a lot of good as there is more information for other editors to make a decision on, rather than just boarding the bandwagon on either side. I think the nominee will also gave a sense of responsibility - he/she will learn how to think as an admin and that there is a need to live up to the expectations of others. Rama's arrow 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In this context, the RfA process is going like this: the president names a court nominee or cabinet secretary, and the Senate automatically votes based on Republican or Democrat standards - which in this case, translate to occasions of incivility, block record, editcount, time, participation in AfDs, etc. There is no opportunity to convince senators to cross party lines, assess the nominee through a different lens, on basis of some more information. But its never like we can tell them how to vote. Rama's arrow 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems and solutions

IF we are going to move forward with something like this, then it is imperative that we answer the questions asked since before Discussions for adminship: What problems exist with the current RFA system, and how would this address them? I'll start. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems

1. RFA currently is susceptible to incorrect, inflammatory, or outright false claims which prejudice other participants' reactions. Even when the claim is retracted or refuted, many subsequent participants do not revisit their opinions given. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
2. RFA nominations and voting patterns are stereotypical - nominees often finetune their contributions to suit the general admin standards. And editors who comment/vote often respond with stereotypes based on edit counts, period of activity, etc. Rama's arrow 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   The result is that the nominee cannot discuss/respond an objection based on stereotype/generalities, and the voters cannot fully judge the knowledge and suitability of the nominee. Rama's arrow 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Many previous proposals speak of overhauling the entire process, creating new requirements/restrictions or bureaucracy. The problems are not serious enough to significantly alter a time-tested, working process. Rama's arrow 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Solutions to above problems, by number

1. A discussion period before polling started would allow clarification of controversial/confusing edits by the nominee. This could be structured similarly to the Questions currently posed by individuals, and it would not forbid additional diffs/complaints once polling had begun (especially when the action takes place during the span of the RFA). -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Allow "voters" to ask questions pertinent to adminship and adminship issues, in order to gauge how well is the nominee versed with the admin reading list, policies/guidelines and what principles will guide his/her actions in difficult situations. Rama's arrow 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
3. The RFA process is broken down into 2 stages, both completed within the present timeframe of 7 days. No further complications. The importance of voting/voting patterns is significantly reduced.

---

Rebuttals to supposed solutions or perceived problems

• It is likely that Bureaucrats already discount "votes" that are based on false/misleading information. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  If so, then I would like to strongly suggest that this is re-affirmed somewhere. (And to be clear, I support it.) - jc37 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  However this can probably only be done for those who explicitly state that their opinion was based on the bad information. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  My experience has been that they do not do this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:ER will become a dress-rehearsal for RfA. Rama's arrow 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Reply so what? People on RfAs can ask different, even tougher questions. More people take interest and participate in the on-goings on RfAs. And an ER beforehand will only make a better administrator. Why be hyper-sensitive about dishonesty, especially as we have no protection against it now. Rama's arrow 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  WP:ER is already used as a "dress reheasal". And when voting neutral or oppose, editors often suggest ER to the nomineee. So I don't think that this changes anything. - jc37 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  ER is only useful if there are many contributing. We are too few there for the editor to get a real insight of how people consider him. It happens in the article namespace as well: you send an article to a peer review, and get one suggestion. So, you send it as featured candidate, and get nine or ten oppose votes with information about how to fix that. It will happen with ER/RFA as well: you request an editor review, get one reply, and so try the RFA, where you get nine or ten telling you what to do before the nomination is speedy closed. -- ReyBrujo 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I so agree with that. That was part of why I suggested above that the WP:ER and RfA pages be merged. - jc37 23:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Intensive questioning can become an "inquisition" of sorts, hurting the nominee's desire to do an admin's job. Rama's arrow 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• It's actually hard to tell which "solutions" are being proposed, But I Support a 3 day DfA (if that is the term we're now using for an admin version of WP:ER), followed immediately by a 4 day RfA - presuming the cantidate doesn't withdraw, of course. And that's another strong point of the DfA, it allows the cantidate time to assess the situation as well. Also, while any editor can advise against negative "tone" in a discussion, I think bureaucrats should be allowed (possibly expected) to "step in" and make certain that an "inquisition" doesn't occur (things like civility and NPA, among others). - jc37 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  My original idea was that Solution #2 would answer Problem #2, and so forth - however the Rebuttals section seems to be getting a little muddied. Feel free to refactor for readability here... -- nae'blis 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Shall we re-open WP:DFA for a fresh discussion and debate? Rama's arrow 20:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that's the right direction to take. DFA is a solution that might be good or might not be. In short, it's a creation of a solution before the problem is determined. Analogy; it's like saying let's saying let's change all the tires on the car and then finding out that the real problem was loose lugnuts. There's effort above to determine the problems with RfA. That's a good direction to go, in my opinion. --Durin 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting. My solution was not taken into account. I guess it is because most here, after all, want to still have the power of deciding who is to become admin and who is not, and only want to remove candidates that are destined to fail. -- ReyBrujo 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Which suggestion? "every week choose 25 random users with knowledge about Wikipedia (that is, not recently created users), and post a note in their talk pages informing that Wikipedia is currently needing their opinions in the RFA, explaining the process and welcoming them to give a hand."? That's something that could be done without instructions/mandate, though it might be seen by some as disruptive. I don't think anyone here has said that they want to be gatekeepers, so please assume good faith in the motivations of others. -- nae'blis 22:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, I assume good faith, all right. I was just taking into account that the OP had proposed two solutions because she thinks the process is being managed by an elite. Considering that, the solutions of making applicants go into a "pre-process" or "review" in order to apply does not solve the OP problem. Somehow, the original complain was twisted from "hey, there are a few who design administrators, let's restrict them" to "hey, there are too many newbies trying to apply, let's force them to accept a review and trainment first." -- ReyBrujo 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I think we're viewing this page very differently. After the resounding rejection of SD/Triona's idea under "limits for participation", the section above this one started an entirely different tack. In the original poster's motivations, it followed somehow so that he made it a subsection, but I don't consider the two really closely related. Your idea of getting more "uninvolved" people here seems to be orthagonal to both suggestions... -- nae'blis 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• One problem with asking the candidates too many questions is that it assumes that all or most voters will read through all or most answers and take them into account. If that were false, many questions are pointless; if that were true, candidates would be encouraged to give "socially acceptable" answers. Asking a candidate's opinion on some controversial issue might draw in irrational supports and opposes regardless of the answers given. >Radiant< 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that is to ask questions solely on policy and procedure in duties. If we ask hypothetical questions, asking "what you'd do in a (particular scenario)?", that will make a nominee defensive (especially if the questioner has "other motives"). But his/her answer to the former question will either be strict interpretation or a slightly cautious, make-sure, double check approach - either of this is good for Wikipedia. Keep the questions technical, and not hypothetical or principle-based. The key element is also accountability - the community can exert moral pressure or hold the admin responsible for fulfilling his basic commitments, but this can't be done if the questions are such that the nominee gives no information or a defensive reply. No information and indefinite information are the enemies. Rama's arrow 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is foolish to think that we can control how anybody will vote. But that's not our purpose anyway - if we can provide sufficient information for those concerned about giving somebody janitorial tools, we should be satisfied. Rama's arrow 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion

One thing that can be done to improve the RfA process, would be to create a sort of apprenticeship period for editors, who seem like they will be good admins, but lack the editing history some of the other editors who participate in RfA would like to see. This should not be applied to editors with less than 3 months experience or 1,000 edits. Nor will it be applied to candidates that will breeze through the regular RfA process. Users who are apprentice admins would not have all the tools of an admin, but can assist in some of the backlog projects. If they refuse to do so, then they lose their apprentice title in 30 days or some other agreed upon time period. Ramsquire 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's admin coaching is a program that addresses most of your points. Rama's arrow 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this program, do you have a link to it? Ramsquire 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/AC. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, TawkerbotTorA's recent RFA highlighted that it is not at present possible for bureaucrats to give "some admin tools" without giving others. -- nae'blis 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There's extensions that can be used to do that, though. Technically, it's just a matter of creating a user group in LocalSettings.php, grant permissions to the group, and then give bureaucrats the ability to grant it and remove it. However, the devs won't do it unless it is generally-agreed to be a good idea, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional Questions

Is there any way to stop optional questions. Its making the RFA size too long. Also some of these questions are only remotely related to admin stuff, like questions on humour or wikipedia criticising sites. I would want, that if they have optional questions, either ask it inthe RFA talk page or the users talk page --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its fair that if the questions don't concern adminship, the nominee should not answer them at all. Rama's arrow 22:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good to ask questions, but to be honest I think that Q1 (the mandatory one) is often more useless than the optional because the answers are sometimes about as sincere as a politician's promise. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. An administrator must have the utmost of patience when dealing with difficult and tendentious editors. Having a sense of humor is important with keeping a cool head. Finding out about a nominee's temperment is as important how many edit's they've made, whether or not they've had 1FA, and what they'll do with the tools. Asking about wikipediareview and other critical sites is probably a too much political question for a new admin, but any editor should be able to ask a nominee questions that he or she feels is important in determining the qualities of a nominee. Totally frivilous questions like "What is your favorite color?" or "If you could be any tree, what would it be?" should be right out, but removal of an editor's relevant questions (as Splash (talk · contribs) has done) should be considered incivil. Besides, by definition these questions are optional; the nominee could simply choose not to answer them. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Should have checked here first. Keep the questions on topic please. Asking their favorite joke is disruptive at worst and not helpful at best. That is an extremely tortured connection to WP:COOL you've outlined, and if ability to keep WP:COOL is what you're looking for, ask something more related to it. And keep the number of questions down please. When it gets to be too many irrelevant ones it's not helpful. If you really don't care if the candidate doesn't answer, put them in the comments section. In the questions section they look too official. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I've removed the favorite joke question. But I still feel that a nominee's opinion on keeping a sense of humor reveals much about their temperment. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still at best barely tangential, and I agree it doesn't really get to what you're trying for. The second question is basically redundant with the first and the third is needlessly phrased as a trick question. It all adds up to not being very helpful to the project. I grant you're trying to be helpful, but trying doesn't mean it is actually helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is gauge how well the nominee understands policy. The second question is redundant, I should remove it. The third question is tricky, but if a nominee did answer indicating the punitive blocks were acceptable it would be a good indicator that they don't understand the blocking policy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No you're not, when you want to know what the funniest joke ever is. -Splash - tk 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then phrase it so it's not a leading question implying they are allowed. - Taxman ^Talk 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to a yes/no question. The nominee can feel free to expand if they wish. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI where a punitive block on an established user was considered, so this question is timely. Do you feel the IAR and SNOW question is appropriate? PS Splash: I've removed the joke question; that's old news. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to stop optional questions. First of all, they're optional. There's absolutely no pressure for the candidate to answer them. Secondly, it's reasonable to assume that most, if not all of the questions being asked will not only give the candidate another platform to engage the community but it also helps the participants get a better feel of the candidate. We should in no way attempt to restrict participation in RfA's. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You did actually see the particular questions I removed, right [3]? I'm a repeated advocate of the very free hand editors have in RfA; it is not, however, an infinitely-unlimited one. Questions which are of most relevance when asked late at night in a comedy club do not give the candidate, the readers or the questioner anything, least of all a platform of engagement. -Splash - tk 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's where you're missing it too. There is pressure to answer them. They look official, and people oppose based on people not answering them. I don't think we should stop optional questions either, but looking official does mean the questions that get placed should be well thought out and have demonstrable value in helping build an encyclopedia. I don't think these meet that bar. - Taxman ^Talk 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to indicate that you dislike people being opposed based on not answering optionals, Taxman. So, as a bureaucrat, what weight do you put on opposes that read "Oppose. Didn't answer questions 5. ~~~~" when evaluating rfas you're closing? Picaroon9288 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Did we forget what happened in Lightdarkness's RFA when joke questions got out of hand? Remember that having too many optional questions makes an RFA look like War and Peace, and will probably make whoever wants to comment just skip the questions and make an uninformed decision. Same thing happened with the editcount overkill. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

new section appearing...

We now have two candidate sections - both "Current nominations for adminship" and "vote". "Vote" seemed to appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=81935424 , and that's clearly not goign to encourage discussion, but I didn't want to tamper with the RfA page to change it back... Inner Earth 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider it "tampering". In fact, I removed it[4] (before seeing your post here). The "vote" header[5] was added to the candidate's nomination and not the RfA template itself. Agent 86 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)