User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Who can vote or nominate

Who can vote? (Archive 12)

Hi - Who exactly can vote on this page? Can anyone, or is it only existing Sysops? I've had opinions about some of the candidates before, but I was unsure of if I was eligible to support or oppose nominations? Can this information be posted on the article page? -- DropDeadGorgias 18:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can vote here, although anonymous users or users with near-zero contribution history (less than 10 edits, say) might well have votes removed as they would be presumed by many to be either sock puppets or trolls. I'll post this on your talk page too. Anyone have an idea for how to word this to be placed on the meta page itself? Jwrosenzweig 18:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I was definitely confused at first (mostly cause all of the votes were from SysOps, as far as I could tell). This information would be useful on the main page. - DropDeadGorgias 19:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any information on less than ideal conduct in disagreements would be particularly welcome - it's the first thing I look for when trying to decide whether I think somoene should be an admin. Next is how they handle being wrong - how or if they accept it. Jamesday 05:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nominators and nominations (Archive 15)

I've just been wondering if -- as Wikipedia is growing so very quickly -- we might want to consider having nominations for adminship come from a current admin. I've just noticed that 3 of the 9 people currently up for adminship were nominated by the same person -- someone who's been registered for less than a month. Not that I want to discriminate against newer users, but I'm a bit concerned that someone so new is nominating so many people (a fourth was removed). Don't get me wrong -- I've voted for some of them as they are clearly deserving, but I'm wondering if a policy might not be in order. I don't feel like it would be terribly anti-democratic or restrictive to limit who can nominate someone else, as people could always suggest a person for nomination to an admin. Also I'm not thinking that we need to change anything about self-nominations.

So what do people think? BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:27, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that sysops controls who can become a sysop. I strongly oppose this idea. And if they are valid nominations, why does the user that nominated them matter? -- Quinwound 04:31, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

In making my determinations about whether there's a consensus, I have taken into account the longevity of people making a comment. I'm pretty much against a self-selecting population. Jimbo said basically that anyone who knows how to use the special sysop features and is generally well-known/trusted should get to be an admin (it's no big deal, really). Just want to be careful about encouraging vandalism. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there should be any limitations with that regard. I think nominations by very new users, or anons should be considered on the same level as self-nominations, since the new users/anons may not really be familiar enough with whom they're nominating. Vote accordingly is what I say. If you are bothered by who's doing the nominating, vote as if the person had nominated themselves. There is no reason to limit who can nominate someone. Dori | Talk 21:06, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was the user who nominated many people. I didn't know I did anything wrong. All of the users I have nominated (with the exception of sam spade) have been unanimously supported, and many users have noted that i made a good choice. Perl 22:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And you've been round longer than a month anyway, so the point is moot :). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

qualifications for nominators...

User:GrazingshipIV has made a nomination. GrazingshipIV's username is only 2 weeks old - and the user has amassed only ~71 edits on articles (along with ~17 edits on article talk pages and ~41 edits of user pages). This brings up many concerns I have about the nomination process. Without safeguards, what would prevent a sockpuppet from nominating another sockpuppet? What would prevent other sockpuppets from voting for the nominated sockpuppet? Once a crafty user-with-malintent became an admin through sockpuppety, who knows what damage could be done.

I would like to put forth this idea....to safeguard such things from happening, how about if only admins could nominate admins? Thoughts? Kingturtle 05:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support - originally I thought that was how this worked. - Texture 05:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just treat it as a you would a self-nomination. What's the big deal? I don't think it is a good idea to restrict who can nominate. Dori | Talk 05:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

(cutting in) Dori has the right idea here. If the nominating user carries no weight with you, treat as a self-nomination, which we allow anyway. Martin 23:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The big deal is that someone with malicious intentions could use sockpuppetry to gain admin status. Kingturtle 05:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we see many new accounts supporting some nominations, it would obviously be removed. No bureaucrat would make someone an admin when there is obvious abuse, and there are plenty of regular users to oppose such nominations anyway. There is no need to restrict the priviledges of non-admins. Dori | Talk 06:01, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

A small army of well-designed sockpuppets would not show any history of abuse. Kingturtle 06:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think someone can maintain an "army" of sockpuppets without being found out. After all, developers can check IPs in case of suspicion. Even if somehow someone managed to slip through an entire army of sockpuppets (and he'd have to be someone with multiple personailities), the damage an admin can make is repairable pretty easily. With the new quickpoll policy, such an admin could be temporarily de-adminned, and the case could be scrutinized by the arbitration committee. Dori | Talk 06:16, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I think that restricting the right to nominate to current admins is an improvement over the current policy of allowing anyone to nominate anyone. However, I'd like to see a system by which non-admins can still propose nominations, the caveat being that they must be seconded by an admin (or perhaps a minimum number of admins) before being voted on. Acegikmo1 04:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fosters a cliquish, "us vs. them" mentality. Davodd 11:12, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. This argument against new members nominating seems rather weak considering the new user is nominating someone other than themselves who is then subject to a vote. The suggestion that "only admins can nominate admins" is rather undemocratic and certainly elitist. The current system provides the best safeguard against unqualified administrators being created-a vote. By having a stranglehold on who is nominated, current administrators would virtually control many of the most important operations of wikipedia by proxy. The sort of oligarchy created by excluding so many from the process would surely hurt wikipedia and the furtherment of its goals.GrazingshipIV 18:24, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Sysopship should not be a clique. However, what about qualifications for voters? Is there a current policy? Anthony DiPierro 02:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I would, however, support a requirement that nominators reveal their IP address. Anthony DiPierro 02:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

In response . I am not a "sockpuppet" as far as I know. If you look at my page I am more interested in what might be called the 'nonpolitical' pages of Wikipedia. I saw somone who I thought deserved to be nominated (I don't know the user personally) so I did. As I understand it, anyone can nominate anyone and as you can see by this users current vote, a nomination does not nesasarily mean they will win the vote. I checked the rules and abided by them. I just come on here to further free-knowledge I assure you after this expierence I won't be nominating anybody. GrazingshipIV 06:05, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

No one ever called you a sock puppet, though that might have been the implication, intentional or otherwise. Nevertheless, the point remains- suppose you are, or suppose someone else in the future is? What should we do about it? -Fennec 06:10, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it would seem the current response fits rather well, voting against on the grounds that the nominator (me in this instance) is too new to wikipedia....problem solved.GrazingshipIV 06:14, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? If they are good enough to become an admin, they will become an admin, whether they self-nominate, get nominated, or use sockpuppets. 68.105.188.67 23:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I care. Are you saying someone who uses sockpuppets is good enough to become an admin? --Wik 23:54, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. but whether my argument is good or not, it doesn't matter. He's not a sockpuppet. ugen64 02:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

And how do you know that? --Wik 02:37, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, in-and-of themselves, I don't have a problem with second accounts, so long as they're not used for ballot stuffing. →Raul654 01:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

While GrazingshipIV does seem to me to possibly be a sockpuppet, I see no evidence (other than the nomination) that s/he is a sockpuppet of HCheney. In the interest of eliminating questions, however, the prudent thing for HCheney to do would be to recommend that the vote of GrazingshipIV not be counted. Anthony DiPierro 02:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wikibooks sysop and a Maori bureaucrat. I would like to make other users aware of the fact that there is some "not-so-nice stuff" going on in the page. Mabye certain users who are causing problems could be temporarily barred from participating in the page (mabye for a month?). I'm not going to name any names because then I would be contributing to the "not-so-nice stuff" --- regardless you people know who you are and I'm sure everyone else does too. I hope this comment won't be seen as combative because it isn't intended to be hostile in any way. I just think some abusive users need to be prohibited from participating in the discussions because they *can* and *do* succede in changing other users opinions/votes simply by trolling. Perl 03:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney (Archive 15)

In October, 2003 I received an e-mail about Wikipedia. For the next two months I browsed until in December when I got a username. I have been a regular contributor since and a couple of days ago, a user then unknown to me, GrazingshipIV, nominated me for adminship. I later received an e-mail from the same person that introduced me to Wikipedia, identifying himself as GrazingshipIV, saying I would make a great admin, and that I was expected to return the favor in good time. I do not feel I owe favors to GrazingshipIV, or any other user, for their vote or support.

I would like to state that I do not approve of GrazingshipIV's actions, use of the term "junta", and fighting with other users. In the past GrazingshipIV has been an exceptional contributor, and I can only hope that he will be able to overcome his conflicts and remain with Wikipedia as a contributor.

I do not intend to continue with Wikipedia having the status of a joke user. If the community deems me not to be trustworthy, I will quietly fade away for the good of the project. --Hcheney 17:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are, by the evidence of your past actions and this statement, the epitome of a trustworthy editor in my eyes, and I will defend that statement against any voice that seeks to drive you off. I will say also that the opinions and votes expressed on RfA indicate to me that in fact most of the community either trusts you or just hasn't interacted with you yet, and that the attacks on your character are coming from only one or two voices whom I hope you will disregard in this particular instance as being misinformed/unnaturally suspicious. Jwrosenzweig 17:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the status of a joke user and why do you think you would have it? --Wik 17:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jwrosenzweig. If you feel that this nomination has been tainted, you may choose to withdraw yourself from consideration, and wait until you are nominated by someone else. Either choice you make will be fine, and I appreciate your forthrightness in bringing this quid pro quo request to our attention. BCorr¤Брайен 18:00, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for mentioning this. I think the best thing to do would be to withdraw and wait for someone else to nominate you for adminship. Your contributions are clearly valuable here. +sj+ 18:36, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

Whatever Grazingship's reasons for the nomination, my support still stands. Tuf-Kat 20:19, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not you withdraw the nomination, I believe that your behavior--esp. over the past few days--has proved that you would make an exemplary admin. I'd be entirely willing to renominate you myself whenever you'd prefer. Sincerely yours, Meelar 20:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How you are handling this shows that you would be a fab admin. and from the sounds of it you are a trustworthy user. Quinwound 21:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney, I am glad that you've come clean with the truth. Graz put you into a lousy situation. I will not condemn you or hold you accountable for the actions of another. Nothing really in your history suggests you have mal-intentions. Graz, on the other hand, should be reprimanded. He may have started out as an unassuming user, but that all changed when, with covert motives, he nominated you for admin.

Many of us sensed something out-of-the-ordinary when Graz's nomination happened - and when the question of Graz's motives was raised, Graz over-reacted with personal attacks and baiting-maneuvers. Graz marched deeper and deeper into an alleged crusade against injustice - but that was just to fog the truth: that he was trying to make you an admin to benefit himself. His hope was to become an admin himself or to try to control you once you were an admin.

I've looked at your work. you are a benefit to this community. Graz, on the other hand, should be put on some sort of probation. Kingturtle 23:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that anything that Graz has done has any effect on people's opinion of you. I never made any claims about your abilities, only on how long you had been here. Don't think you're a joke, because you're not. RickK | Talk 03:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Requiring nominations to be accepted before they are posted (Archive 15)

We have seen quite a bit of controversy and hostility over this page recently, some of which I think could have been avoided. I think we should consider a new policy, that when nominating users for adminship, you must first notify the user being nominated and find out whether they will accept the nomination.

For example, Sam Spade has stated that he does not wish to be nominated. Nevertheless, he has been nominated twice this month, and the nominations were promptly removed, once by Eloquence and once by myself. We also had the unfortunate situation involving Hcheney, whose nomination was effectively torpedoed largely because of controversy surrounding the nominator, instead of the nominee.

Making this a requirement would help protect people from undesired nominations. Controversial users can figure out that it's futile to be listed on this page, and avoid generating unnecessary hostility by refusing nominations. People who are genuinely interested and qualified to be admins, but waiting for someone to nominate them, can get a fair hearing by having more control over the circumstances of their nomination. Fair or not, many people read nominations and votes of support as a way of vouching for the nominee, and sometimes form opinions based largely on their views of the nominee's supporters, instead of looking at the nominee's qualifications independently.

I'm also hoping this will discourage abuse of the adminship process, such as the quid pro quo Hcheney claims his nominator was hoping for. Some users have gone on "nominating binges" of sorts, and while most of the nominees were reasonably qualified and supported by the community, I think it's fair to question the motive for such conduct. In at least one case, I strongly suspect that the user was nominating lots of people in hopes that someone else would nominate him, too.

So, do people think this is a good idea? Does anyone have ideas about alternative ways of dealing with this problem? --Michael Snow 02:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no clear consensus one way or the other, I have made a more modest change to the guidelines on the page, which now read: "Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them of your intentions in advance as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision." --Michael Snow 23:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Not a bad idea. Meelar 02:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Michael Snow 03:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Excellent idea. Alex S 03:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes, please. +sj+ 04:31, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
5. I dont know why, but you sold me on it Antonio El Drunko Martin 20:34 MST, 2004, Mar 27
6. Angela - Support, but people should be able to change their mind and decline it later even if they already accepted.
   • Of course. Accepting a nomination is not permanently binding. --Michael Snow 17:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Acegikmo1 04:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I feel that this will allow people to make the decision privately (perhaps with the help of talk page communications) instead of being pressured into it publicly.
8. Also see comment below. Lupo 07:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Texture 22:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. However, people shouldn't vote until the nomination is accepted. -anthony
   • Comment: Your suggestion is closer to the proposal than to the status quo. May I suggest you change your vote to neutral? Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • The purpose of the proposal is to prevent undesired nominations, not to prevent votes on unaccepted nominations. I don't vote on unaccepted nominations, but many people do. --Michael Snow 17:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Some people wait and see the reaction before making up their mind. Dori | Talk 05:24, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. I agree with Dori. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:55, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Dori. →Raul654 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
5. Tuf-Kat 18:43, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
6. Also agree with Dori. - Hephaestos|§ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Agree with Dori Ludraman | Talk 19:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. I'm with Dori. Quinwound 04:42, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
9. Agree with Dori, but also suggest user be able to delete with hard feelings as proposed below. Cecropia 04:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. I think making this a requirement a bad idea -- proliferating rules where we have no real problem doesn't make sense to me. Those few who make it know that they wouldn't want to be admins, the community at large will remember, and remove (politely!) nominations of those individuals, while explaining things to the nominator. But dozens of good admins have had to be convinced by overwhelming support, and this rule might lose us some or most of such admins in the future. Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Ryan_Cable 04:44, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Comments, other ideas:

• Modest individuals might turn down a nomination, but would accept after seeing how many people support them. Maximus Rex 03:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Or after a second person tries to nominate them. +sj+
• Would it be useful to allow the nomination to be posted, but not consider it amiss if the person nominated simply deletes the nomination with a remark like "respectfully reject the nomination"? Cecropia 04:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a very good idea. - Hephaestos|§ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I'm still not clear on why people want to be admins. I would imagine alot more people would prefer to avoid it, but maybe I'm missing something? Whats the selling point? Sam Spade 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, speaking for myself, I'm active on George W. Bush (and to a lesser extent John Kerry) and I simply couldn't handle it without a quick revert button for all the times Bush's pic gets turned into that of something amusing. Meelar 05:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Admins have the ability to delete pages, to ban IPs, and to revert pages faster than a regular user. Admins can also protect pages, again to fight vandalism or temper edit wars. These powers are used mostly to fight vandalism. Admins are housekeepers. Kingturtle 05:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm concerned, I do enough housekeeping, and other wiki chores as it is. It just seems like more work, and more reasons for people to bother me. Besides, I keep hearing 'sysops arn't editors' and I am an editor ;) Sam Spade 05:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • For me its mainly a warm fuzzy feeling. Plus the rollback link. Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A lot of admins (myself included) are people who were doing some housekeeping work anyway, and appreciate being able to do the same things more easilly. Isomorphic 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand admins can run (read-only) SQL queries. Fennec 21:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I used to think that it was simply polite if the nominator asked the designated nominee whether s/he agreed to being nominated before nominating her or him. A nominee can still formally accept or reject the nomination later on (see Dori's comment above). Another idea: there have been quite a few nominations recently made by relatively new users. How about requiring that the nominator must have been editing at Wikipedia for at least as long as the nominee? The rationale being that experienced users are more likely to judge whether the nominee really would make a good admin, and also more likely to have a sound feeling of what others in the community might think about the nomination. Lupo 07:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, we're still finding people who have been here for quite a while and aren't admins yet. Using that rule, you might rule out most of the people who want to nominate them. --Michael Snow 17:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Lupo above: nominees should have a chance to decline their nomination before being nominated, but need not be forced to make a decision. That way, Sam Spade would never be nominated; nominees who have issues with the nominator can opt out too. If the user chooses to be nominated, after seeing the response, they can make their final decision. -- Arvindn
  • I think even the opponents of this proposal could agree that you should notify the nominee first, out of courtesy. My proposal probably wasn't clear enough that nominees aren't "locked in" by their acceptance - they can still withdraw. So maybe we can modify the page to tell nominators something like "Please notify the user being nominated beforehand, in case they object to being nominated." --Michael Snow 17:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Minimum Criteria for voting (Archive 16)

I just noticed that user Jor (who I, as a disinterested observer, think is a fine contributor who deserves admin status) just wracked up a bunch of votes against him from users I've never seen. I checked, and two of those voting against him - User:Eon and User:Pavlvsrex, each have been here less than a month and each have less than 100 contributions (Eon has less than 50). I personally don't vote here unless I have a good working knowledge (one way or the other) of what someone is like. Should we institute a minimum time someone has been here before their vote counts?

I'd be for such a proposal, but I don't know what would be considered good criteria. I'd say around a month or two and around 200-300 edits should be good. Dori | Talk 18:11, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I think the bureaucrat making the adminship decision in the end should weight votes with judgement as is done on vfd. However, I think it's important that newer users be able to have their voices heard. A major reason for having this page, IMO, is so that if someone has done something rude or POV or unwikipedian, we can find out about it before giving them additional power. Rudeness to a newbie or edit wars with a newbie are just as bad as (worse than?) rudeness to and edit wars with Angela or Wik or any of us who would be considered "valid" voters. moink 18:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've encountered User:Pavlvsrex on only one article, and it seems he took an instant dislike to me for whatever reason (see his talk page). User:Eon is very suspect, I suspect he is a sock puppet for another user I cautiously will not now name but who is known to use many sock puppets. — Jor (Talk) 18:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are sock puppets like Eon allowed to vote? — Jor (Talk) 14:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not commenting on whether or not Eon is a sock puppet. I would say that yes, a user with a relatively small number of contributions is allowed to vote, but since things at Wikipedia don't work on strict numerical votes, it doesn't really matter. This is up to the promoting bureaucrat's discretion. moink 16:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Moink. No reason why they can't have their say, but we don't have to actually pay attention to them. Bureacrats know the community; they can recognize funny business when they see it. Isomorphic 17:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in another instance of people coming out of the woodwork, Democryt's 6th contribution to Wikipedia was to vote against Jor, saying he is disgusted by Jor's behavior. So of course, any beauracrat who has the integrity to promote Jor (now that the newer users have evened the vote) will be crucified for not waiting for consensus and at the very least, someone will inevitably want to remove his beaucratiship (is that even word?). →Raul654 17:39, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)~

Actually, Democryt said, "I am disgusted by Jor behavior", which I read as a play-on-words. I don't think that there should be a criterion of minimum # of edits or time on Wikipedia to vote on RfA and I also oppose your removal of "suspected" sock puppet votes without real consensus on this talk page (moink and Isomorphic opposed this). However, I also find it rather odd that Democryt's 6th contribution would be to such a page. Is there any way to investigate whether this user is a sock puppet and, if so, for whom?

Acegikmo1 04:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add my opinion: The primary rule is that a sysop-candidate should be supported by a near-concensus, isn't it? By determining the weight of the opposition, it's of no importance how the new and unknown wikipedians "vote", but it's important if their arguments can swing old and experienced wikipedians to not express their support for the candidate – or even to express their disaproval.
--Ruhrjung 22:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At least in theory, we operate based on actual consensus, not just "near-consensus" (but with, I would add, an appreciation that consensus does not always require unanimity). Anons are excluded for this matter, and anybody, new or old, who just opposes without stating some justification will probably be disregarded by bureaucrats and the rest of the community. --Michael Snow 23:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes we have to get to the nitty-gritty. Here's a definition of consensus, with my added emphasis: A result achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid solution is arrived at between parties to an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution to the issue or disagreement.

In plain English, we cannot come to a consensus because a person is either made a sysop or s/he isn't. There's nothing to compromise, no concession to be made. So perhaps if we reform our language to something more reasonable like: "a proponderance of sentiment" we have something to work with. Preponderance takes into account both number of votes and the views expressed. It obviously does not mean "unanimous" nor does it mean "50% plus 1". Cecropia 23:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that the discussion regarding any singular candidate can result only in "being widely approved" or "not being widely approved" by the wikipedia community. However, the principles for whom to make an administrator can be contemplated, detailed ...and whatever in the process. That's where I see the meaning of "concensus" in case of requests for adminship. (By the way, I like complicated words, but proponderance is not the best choise in a setting where people have as variant knowledge of English as here.)--Ruhrjung 10:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is not a matter of pro/con vote count, nor would that be a good idea...

IMO the question of "vote" validity is moot. From Consensus:

"Many discussions focus on whether agreement needs to be unanimous; even dictionary definitions of consensus vary. These discussions miss the point of consensus, which is not a voting system but a taking seriously of everyone's input, and a trust in each person's discretion in followup action. In consensus, people who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they do not wish to impose, and they trust that the ensuing conversation will benefit everyone."

In the case at hand, basing consensus on some fixed ratio of pro-to-con votes would be particularly pointless, as this would only serve to encourage sockpuppetry and other forms of manipulation. Rather than counting votes, the question should be whether or not any well founded concerns regarding a nominee's integrity or recent bahavior exist. Thus, any grounds for opposition (other than a simple "too new") should be looked into and evaluated by the bureaucrat making the decision. Mkweise 17:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The whole point of bureaucrats is that they shouldn't have to make decisions. Dori | Talk 17:45, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

LOL...of course a true bureaucrat would initiate the formation of an investigatory commission :-) Mkweise 17:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No no, a true bureaucrat would take credit for the formation of an investigatory committee, but that would be after his secretary/intern/lackey actually got things underway. →Raul654 18:01, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to make decisions! There are currently a lot of very new users voting here, and the percentages of support are bordering around 80% for a couple of nominees here. Do they need more 80%, or is more than 75% ok? Who should be discounted from the vote? These are questions for the community to decide, not a bureaucrat to decide. A bureaucrat. 17:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Even if we are not looking for hard and fast rules some guidelines would be a good idea. If bureaucrats are going to have to make judgement calls (and they will have to, unless Wikipedia is going to become a purely system-driven community) then its only fair to give some indication to people voting that their vote may not count for much. Here are some suggestions:

1. Anons don't get to vote. They can record their opinions but they can be ignored by the bureaucrat. Of course if an anon draws attention to some particularly nasty act by the nominee then that should be taken into account.
2. There should be a minimum time on Wikipedia and a minimum number of edits for a vote to count. However, as for anons, they can draw attention to failings of the nominee.
3. There should be a minimum approval level (after discarding invalid votes), below which the nomination should fail (something like 80%?). That doesn't mean that approval is automatic above that number - it should be a judgement call.

DJ Clayworth 17:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets: can they vote or not? (Archive 16)

I'm rather distressed by the situation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Jor;_(16/13/0)_ends_05:10,_5_April,_2004_(UTC). I would like to see a clear policy -- and even if it's not "sock puppets can't vote" because it's a bit hard to define, we need something. It seems like Jor is being derailed by a combination of: first, sockpuppet votes; second, the fact that they are staying on the page and there is debate in the voting discussion of whether these are valid votes; and third, Jor's understandable desire to point them out. I don't think thsi is fair to Jor, but more importantly, it's a terrible precedent -- especially as we're entering a period where there's a rapid increase in the number of nominations and new sysops. BCorr|Брайен 02:48, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's disturbing that RfA is starting to drift away from the "consensus" model. Just a quality of scalability, I suppose--for example, when I nominated Jor, I wish to say I had no idea about this entire German/Polish thing; it had barely entered my consciousness. What are suggestions? Meelar 02:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• As I said above, we shouldn't be counting votes in the first place. Mkweise 03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm tempted to 'be bold' and remove sockpuppet votes against him. →Raul654 03:00, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are the sockpockets allowing one person to vote more than once? If so, at least the extra votes should be removed. In fact, IMO, all votes for that user should be removed. Cecropia 03:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what about requiring 3 months/1000 edits or something before voting? Would eliminate sock puppets in one fell swoop. Maybe we can make it 2 months/500 edits or something. -- Arvindn 04:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I started that same discussion on this page about 48 hours ago. See above - "Minimum Criteria for voting" →Raul654 04:19, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Imposing time/edit criteria for voting is a little difficult, isn't it, if we don't even have time/edit requirements for adminship itself? Minimum criteria cast too wide a net, using the wrong measurements - they disenfranchise users with less experience, when the real problem with sockpuppetry is users who actually have quite a lot of experience. I'm more comfortable with just having sockpuppet votes identified and removed, along with the toctallies that are "feeding" this sockpuppet/troll monster. --Michael Snow 06:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True, but what's a sockpuppet and what's a new user? Accusations will fly, and nothing will be proven. And removing the toctallies won't be that much good--as Wikipedia grows, people will come to rely on numerical counts more and more, and I can't think of anything to do about that other than limit Wikipedia's growth, which I won't support. Is there any way to limit--one account per IP? Meelar 21:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if it were possible, I would disagree with it. I contribute from a couple of different IPs (work & home). I'm trying to convince my husband to become a contributor and when he does I expect him to use his own account, though on a computer I occasionally use. I fully expect for him to be called my sockpuppet at first, but we should be able to be different users. moink 22:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but the problem of sock puppets is only going to get worse as time goes on. Already, I don't recognize a good number of the contributors on RfA. What would you suggest? Meelar 22:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That when decided upon, whether a sysop-candidate has met general approval or not, then opponents with a short list of edits, a short time of presence here, or otherways justificably suspects of being another user in disguise, such opponents should be informally disregarded and uncounted.

--Ruhrjung 22:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)\

As long as those counting the votes don't mind going through 15 edit histories. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't recognize every longtime contributor. Meelar 22:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hoping you exaggerate I wait for their comment. :) --Ruhrjung 22:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a good suggestion. I'm just a big naysayer.  :) Maybe a minimum time/edit count as has been suggested above? moink 22:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My sock puppet is an admin already, so I don't care. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Is it your sock puppet, or are you its sock puppet? ;) Mark Richards 23:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a sock puppet with sock puppets... Lirath Q. Pynnor

My personal beliefs as far as an individual maintaining multiple logins to Wikipedia: I can understand some circumstances where you might want to do this, but under no circumstances should you, ethically, use that to stuff the ballot box, or use it for deception. I don't necessarily agree with enforcing 'one person, one account' but I think (whether it's possible to actually determine this) that an official policy of 'one person, one vote' should be instituted. —Morven 01:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree. Actually, I think we should be very hard on this: anyone voting twice anywhere ought to be permanently banned and asked to log-in as a different user (and I am serious on this). The only way to defend true democracy is by defending it to the last bit: if someone cannot understand democracy, then he cannot vote. Pfortuny 20:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polls (Archive 16)

These are polls to determine answers to the questions raised in the above discussions. Do not add new poll options - they will be summarily reverted.

Poll #1

Should there be a minimum number of edits / time someone has been here (or both) before their votes count?

Yes

1. →Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
2. Wik 18:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
3. Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. — Jor (Talk) 19:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Nico 20:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Fennec 20:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. jengod 20:24, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
8. Sam Spade 21:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC), but I also agree w the arguments below, and think voting is way over-rated
9. Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
10. Cecropia 23:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes, with the qualification that it should be just long enough and with enough edits to determine that it is not an account set up for the purpose of voting, perhaps one month and 100 edits.
11. One has to be 18 to vote in the US. One should have a certain amount of time spent here before voting for admins. Kingturtle 02:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
12. Mkweise I would look for at least one supporter whom I know well and whose judgement I trust to state that he in turn knows and trusts the candidate.
13. BCorr|Брайен 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) But it shouldn't be terribly high -- just enough to exclude sockpuppets and trolls -- as per Cecropia's suggestion above.
14. Tεxτurε 19:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) - even new users could vote but they need to participate in order to get that right. Nothing wrong with requiring some involvement to get counted.
15. Mikez 16:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Time is more important than number of edits, which is easily inflated.
16. GrazingshipIV 16:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
17. UtherSRG 16:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Being a citizen requires active participation. Simply showing up should not be enfranchisable. However, the minimums should be flexible at beurocrat discretion.
18. Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - As a preliminary filter, yes.

No

1. moink 18:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Moink's argument is persuasive. We may be too focused on vote count these days, and not enough on consensus. I admit, the toctallies I supported (they were convenient) may have contributed to this. I don't think the issue should be as much "counting votes" as gauging community support. Maybe idealistic, but it's how I feel today, anyway. :-) I am very close to the middle on this one...these are tough decisions to make. Jwrosenzweig 20:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. How can we have minimum requirements for votes if we don't have minimum requirements for admins? --Michael Snow 01:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Jamesday 02:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) though sock puppet decisions aren't based on time.
5. anthony (see warning) 22:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Is there even a way to find out how long someone has been here in the first place?
6. 80.255 19:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) New users can add articles; without new users there would be no wikipedia. Anyone who is capable of contributing should therefore be entitled to vote on articles that they themselves can edit.
7. You can never know how often someone used wikipedia before he decided to register. Only concern I have: people might use multiple registrations. But on the other hand, who would engage in such practice and not arouse suspicion by more silly actions? Get-back-world-respect 19:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Number of edits says nothing about edit quality. They can be driven up by editwarring etc. Minimum requirements are discouraging to newbies Marcika 02:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC).
9. No, since I think we should use judgement, not rules. ✏ Sverdrup 19:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vandal votes (Archive 17)

- Does a vote of a user count who continuously attacks others personally, breaks the three revert rule in order to spread his personal opinion, against the warning of many others, describes himself on his talk page as "banned from too many chat rooms to mention" and writes "Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the person's house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of its head with a note that says 'You'. After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done."? Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, but in generally the answer is "yes and no". Remember that these are not strict numerical votes. So yes, the bureaucrat will see the vote, but if said user is objecting to a nomination, the bureaucrat might consider it a non-credible objection. Isomorphic 02:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but that saying "Sometimes when I feel....'you':" is a reference to Jack Handy from SNL. Raul654 forgot to sign.

I do not see any bubble bursting, whatever he refers it shows he is not a guy with good manners. Isomorphic, I know that admins should take into account credibility, but have admins the time to check all voters for their credibility? Get-back-world-respect 19:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Get back world respect - what are you doing? You can't get rid of TDC's vote, just because you don't like him. He has every right to say whatever he likes on his userpage. theresa knott 19:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not know him, how can I not like him? I do not like his edits, and there are good reasons why. He already got banned once, he is listed as a vandal, and continues to misbehave. Get-back-world-respect 23:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, don't play word games, I don't care if it's him you don't like, his edits, his behaviour, whatever, the fact is that unless he is banned by the AC he get's a vote. How much notice a bureaucrat takes of his vote, or yours, or anyone's for that matter is up to them. They are expected to exercise good judgement.theresa knott 16:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

GWBR, on the credibility check question, I think you mean bureaucrats, not admin, as that's who has the ability to promote. And the answer is that bureaucrats are generally the most active, longest-serving, and most trusted contributors. In general they don't have to check anything, because they know the regulars. If they don't know the background of a conflict, though, it's pretty easy to go look. Isomorphic 05:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course, cf "Too many admins", above. Meelar 16:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Lst27's nominations (Archive 17)

I am removing the following nomination because I believe it is inappropriate. User:Lst27 has nominated six individuals for adminship during his eight weeks of participation at Wikipedia. Only one of these nominations has actually been approved by the community. I believe these nominations are a distraction to the community and are a source of embarassment for the nominees. I have asked for an explaination on User_talk:Lst27 and received no reply. At a minimum, I believe that Lst27 should explain his rationale for these nominations before continuning them or reinstating AaronSw's nomination, which I have moved below.

UninvitedCompany 19:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

User:AaronSw (1/1/0)

AaronSw has been making a lot of good contributions since August 2003 and has a lot of experiences with Wikipedia. --Lst27 22:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Lst27 22:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Sockpuppet voters (Archive 20)

Strange things are happening on this page lately. An unusually large number of voters who've made fewer than a couple of hundred edits are expressing strong opinions on Neutrality's Rfa. On the side of the "oppose" votes, there are charges that sockpuppets have been used to derail Neutrality's nomination. Among those voting "oppose" are User:TacoDeposit (142 edits), User:Pitchka (76 edits), User:Klanda (fewer than 100 edits), and User:Miss Puffskein (47 edits).

Precisely WHO is accusing me of using shill (ie "sockpuppet") votes? You have a lot of nerve for saying that! Rex071404 07:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of using shill votes. I'm sorry about the unclear wording. I'm going to change the wording of my comments above. 172 08:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To make matters worse, after charges that TacoDeposit's vote was illegitimate, User:Shard (24 edits), User:Lan3y (47 edits) and User:Gavin (6 edits) entered into the fold and voted to support Neutrality. Whatever's going on, it's clear that someone is using sockpuppets.

• Some people may be using sockpuppets, for all I know. But a whole bunch of people are throwing around that accusation based purely on the number of edits I and other users might have. This is silly, and it seems to be against the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Further, some of us who have been "dismissed" as sockpuppets made specific and reasoned objections to the nomination. Personally, mine was a limited objection at this time because I thought it a poor idea to elevate someone in the midst of an acrimonious dispute in which neither "side" was behaving admirably. Instead of considering this argument on its merits, it was dismissed as sockpuppetry. This is not the intellectual plane of encyclopedists. Klanda 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Checks finally need to be imposed against bogus votes on Rfa. The board of trustees elections and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 required qualifications to weed out sock-puppets; it's time for similar qualifications to be required on Rfa (perhaps 300 edits, 3 months here?). 172 06:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would be opposed to a blanket limit on voting (naturally, I suppose, since a 3 month minimum would prevent me from voting). Bureaucrats already have the ability to disregard votes which they consider to be invalid; are you concerned that this isn't enough? — Kate | Talk 06:33, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of objective standard. By virtue of this ongoing Rfa, Wikipedia has outgrown this more-or-less informal process of voting on admin status. Perhaps the standard can be 3 months here with at least 100 edits and/or 300 edits, which would opening it up to active users who haven't been here for 3 months. 172 06:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was about to post exactly what 172 brought up. Not sure whether it's sock puppets or just newbies, but it's all quite troubling. There was always talk of bringing over user qualifications similar to what was consensus for VfD voting. Notably Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Major_Change_Proposed. I would consider doubling the metrics there since making someone admin has more ramifications and requires more knowledge of a user's behaviour. This would make the threshold 200 edits and 2 months as a user. Feedback welcome. Fuzheado | Talk 06:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

200 edits and 2 months as a user sounds reasonable. How will a policy change be adopted. Can the bureaucrats can agree to an objective standard by consensus on this page? 172 07:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what we can do is draft a new "Guideline". Then people can provide feedback, and then finally vote on. We should also provide an outlet for people who do not meet this threshold to leave comments. Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right. Probably something like Wikipedia:Rating system Summer 2.0 07:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's the support/oppose ratio needed to pass a new "guideline?" 172 07:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also think that the proposal is reasonable. Sockpuppets are becoming a major problem on Vfd. They seem to actually be influencing the way wikipedians are voting. See:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America. Sockpuppets flood the page with Keep votes, then some real wikipedians flood it with Delete votes. This would not be a problem if the reasoning for voting delete were related to the article but unfortunately it was in reaction to the sockpuppets. If this reaction-opposite reaction voting contiues it will only damage wikipedia: it scares off new users who have been accused of being sockpuppets and minamizes finding alternate solutions; such as moving the infro to a new page or breaking it up and moving it to more appropriate ones, as opposed to Deleting or Keeping wholesale. It would be a lot better to have a solid policy that could be explained new users and help weed out sockpuppets.

-JCarriker 07:39, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The link above to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America is quite illuminating. It looks like a few of the users voting on Neutrality (Taco Deposit, Pitchka, and Klanda) were born on that page. It's obviously time to adopt the same thresholds for voting eligibility used, for example, during the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 throughout Wikipedia. 172 08:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, hello! I've been editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004 how was I "born" on that page? Just wondering. Pitchka 01:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004.
• 172, you are fairly casual dismissing people as sockpuppets, but what do you mean by stating that I was "born" on MMHA? I have been using WP for I don't know how long, and have been making (fairly minor) edits for almost a year! Many of you are getting caught up in thinking that low edits == sockpuppet; maybe you have developed good reason to by leery. But it looks like some people (me including) are being caught up in the wrong net. By the way, if Rex had been the subject of the RfA, I would have opposed him too. It was not an issue of personal animosity, ideology, or sockpuppery. I opposed Neutrality's nomination with good reason. 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something has to be done. I support any reasonable idea which will prevent such blatant use of sockpuppets, and which will also indirectly protect new users from being charged with sockpuppetry. Although not with as many ramifications, some people also use sockpuppets on Talk pages in an attempt to influence people's thinking unfairly (the only example I can think of the top off my head is Talk:Coca-Cola, in which Vbganesh was accused of being a sockpuppet, although there wasn't much beyond circumstantial evidence, and in which Flagfanatic was an obvious sockpuppet). Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with John that user can be judged unfairly and one of my concerns, all as stated above I support the measure, is newbie. For example, I don't think Taco Deposit is a sockpuppet. Here's why: 1. He/She joined wikipedia on April 18 that meets the proposed two month criteria. 2. While they don't have 200 edits its close and they are spread throughout the time since the user joined. 3. The first edits the user made was to the tutorial, sockpuppets don't do tutorials they go for the throat. The user first voted on Jul 18, in other words it took some time for the user to learn how to get around,a nd the only reason that they found Vfd that quickly was because an articel the user was working on was put on Vfd. There is a reason why I have digress into talking about Taco Deposit: Sometimes newbies might seem like sockpuppets. I think that Taco Deposit, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and I think we should be careful before making allegations of sockpuppetry, it scares away newbies. A standard voting requirment will help because, it removes the sockpuppet equation. -JCarriker 09:07, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. An objective threshold will not only make elections cleaner and more transparent but also protect newbies from charges of casting shill votes. As evidenced by some of the acrimonious comments regarding Neutrality's ongoing Rfa, it'll also help prevent conflict regarding voting. 172 09:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Implicit in all of this is the suggestion that bad decisions have been/will be made because of sockpuppets. I have not seen any evidence of this. I have done lots of VfD clean-up work in the past. Sockpuppets stick out like a sore thumb. It is easy to weight their votes accordingly, look at the persuausiveness of each side of the debate as well as the numbers and make the right decision. I have seen lots of other admin do the same.

I am not a bureaucrat so haven't had to make the same judgements on this page, but I am sure it is just as simple. I really dislike numeric boundaries because it immediately gives the trolls something to aim at. They make their 200 trivial edits and then crow "Oh but you have to count me, it says so in the policy."

Thus, before instituting this change, I strongly urge that proof of corruption of the process be presented. I.e. people made admin when they shouldn't have been, or vice-versa. Otherwise let's just ignore the pathetic sockpuppets and their childish little games. Pcb21| Pete 09:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my first post, sockpuppets are having an effect on the way wikipedians vote. -JCarriker 09:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen votes were users vote where they normally wouldn't bother because they are afraid that the sockpuppet vote will prevail where it shouldn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that users are "cutting their nose off to spite their face" as it were. Pcb21| Pete 09:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe that over 90% of the problem with socks could be solved by changing the software to add some sort of flag for new users (say, fewer than 90 days or 300 edits), in their sigs and recent changes, aritcle histories, and watchlist. If we had an equivalent to the "sunglasses" icon used on ebay, the sock votes would become obvious, and would need no response because it would obvious that they are obvious. uc 16:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While that might be beneficial, it reminds me of the rank system used on some bulliten boards. If we append flags to new users, someone might make a push for a gold star (or something like it) to be appended to the signatures of users with over, say, 5000 edits. It could encourage people to make useless edits.

Acegikmo1 17:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arg. Please do not list me under a heading of "Sockpuppet Voters." I'm trying to get started respectfully here on Wikipedia, and that doesn't help. I'll do anything you need to help prove I'm not a sock. Miss Puffskein 17:16, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Even if you're not a sock, how can we be sure you've been around long enough to formulate an objective opinion on the candidate? I state my support for these limits, but can we please stop the massive off-topic discussion under Neutrality's Rfa? It makes it a lot harder to understand what's going on. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean by this. I promise won't be offended if my vote is taken out because I haven't been here very long. :) Miss Puffskein 18:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

This vote seems to be affirming those who were arguing, some months ago, against keeping a "toctally," because numbers become more important than what people are saying. This does encourage some amount of sockpuppetry. Then, of course, you have what I think of as the "Percy Effect." At the risk of oversimplifying, the Percy clan was a warrior family in England that had a reputation of watching the course of a battle and then, when they decided that one side or the other was prevailing, would jump in on the winning side to end the battle decisively (and share in the spoils).

Now numbers are a comfortable thing, because they tend to shield the bureaucrat from criticism for a tough decision, but there are other things. In the case of Neutrality's nomination, there is plenty of material to make a determination when it comes to it. A lot of the voters on both sides are familiar names, some aren't. Some seem obvious sockpuppets: looking at edits (number and type) it would seem Pusher is and Miss Puffskein isn't. What are the quality of the comments? Do those in favor make cogent comments about the candidate or the process that help us? Do those opposed cite reasons for their opposition? Do the reasons cite traceable events or actions of the candidates? If the complaints are well-founded, do they show something that reasonably conflict with an admin's responsibilities to the community?

As to the question of minimum qualifications on voting. We now require a voter to be a logged-in user. My feeling is that the user should be around long enough to determine whether or not s/he is apt to be a puppet. I fear that attaching numbers may just encourage sockpuppetry--a user could "bank" a name and make enough trivial edits to meet time/edit qualifications. OTOH, a fairly new but honest user could make a cogent vote about a candidate, particularly if it's backed up by a reasoned comment, pro or con (or even just an observation, for that matter). If we're going to try for some kind of hard minimums, I think that's a separate discussion. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Cecropia and PCB21. The reason we have bureaucrats is so they can use thier judgement. Let's trust them to do it. I think the best way to deal with sockpuppets is to label them as such right after their vote, (This makes life easy for the bureaucrat). That's all we need to do IMO. theresa knott 18:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly new here, and haven't been involved in the thread listed at the beginning. However, I would like to say I have found the atmosphere pretty hostile to new contributors in some cases. There have been some wonderful people, but there have also been people quite quick to bite. I think the ideas about minimum contributions and the like will only add to the negativity and create a divide that needn't exist. Some people just can't contribute on such a level as you are asking, making their edits over a longer period of time on their own pace. Please don't hold that against them.--Che y Marijuana 21:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Voting qualifications straw poll (Archive 20)

Ends 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What voting qualifications would you like to see on Rfa? While this is a non-binding straw poll, bureaucrats may decide to use the results to include/exclude votes. - UtherSRG 18:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Time minimums

No minimum

1. theresa knott
2. No hard minimum—too open to manipulation -- Cecropia | Talk 19:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Guanaco 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Old socks no better than new; in fact, probably worse. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
7. Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Conti|✉ 23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
10. Concur with Cecropia [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. Pitchka 01:40, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004!
12. SWAdair | Talk 04:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. Austin Hair 04:18, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
14. Kevin Baas | talk 07:52, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) max. voting accuracy can be achieved if illegitimate votes are ruled on a case-by-case basis, which is feasible, given their infrequency.
15. Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) disruptive users and socxkpuppets are very much a case of "I know it when I see it". Decide on a case-by-case basis.
16. A case-by-case basis is fine with me. PFHLai 03:09, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
17. Agree with Cecropia. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
18. Same - no hard minimum Gene s 07:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
19. Goobergunch 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
20. Che y Marijuana Discourages newbies--Che y Marijuana 22:00, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

1 month

1. If anything is deemed nessesary, but should be on a case-by-case basis. This would be enough to root out any recently made sock-puppets. The only issue would be with extremely old sock-puppets. The truth is, if someone really wants to have multiple accounts, and make them look real, they will. This is unavoidable. As such, we can only identify the most obvious cases. It's my opinion that a user who has been around for less than a month would most likely not care about Rfa. Although, as long as the account has been around for longer than the vote, there is no real reason for invalidating the vote. — マイケル ₪ 19:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
2. Gzornenplatz 19:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
3. Everyking 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Ditto Mbecker. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Neutrality 21:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2 months

1. Fuzheado | Talk 02:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) - one or two months, but since I put out two months above (doubling the guidelines discussed for VfD), I'll stick with it.

3 months

1. Bishonen 19:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC). (Only been here a month but voting anyway - it's a straw poll, right?)
2. Sam [Spade] 19:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Nabla 15:13, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

4+ months

1. Erich 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (oh ok, admins could be excepted then ;-) Erich 19:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))

   Wouldn't this lead to sysops who aren't allowed to vote? — Kate | Talk 19:23, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

   A three month minimum would lead to sysops who aren't allowed to vote. Guanaco 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   And are sysops that aren't allowed to vote unthinkable? I thought sysops were supposed to be "janitors" and have no special powers. So what would be so terrible about sysops being disallowed from voting for, well, it could hardly be more than a few weeks, could it? Bishonen 19:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I think the implication is more that it's ridiculous that we trust people enough to make them sysops, but not enough to let them vote on whether others should be sysops.

   If we don't trust someone to vote on RfA, I'm not sure they can be trusted with the ability to delete articles, interpret other people's vote on VfD, and so on. Adminship is (should be) a janitoral position, but is also one that requires a certain amount of trust. — Kate | Talk 19:58, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

   The difference is: admins have been more thouroughly examined than voters. Erich 20:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   Kate and Erich, what pulled me up short about the comments above was their tone of stating the obvious - the way they seemed to assume that admins' voting rights are more important than those of "ordinary" users. I'm sorry if I misheard or misinterpreted, of course. We trust admins, but they're not an aristocracy, are they? The idea that voting restrictions placed on other voters could or should be waived for admins seems to me, well, far-reaching in its implications. Every metawiki page I read insists on the equal power, equal importance - the same say - of all users. Sorry if I sound pompous, I hope I did misunderstand. Bishonen 20:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   well, for me at least, the fact that admins have been vetted means that they should be able to vote, regardless of how long they've been here — the vetting process makes any time requirement a bit superfluous. That's all I was getting at. Erich 12:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I wasn't trying to say that admins should be excempt from voting requirements , rather the other way around—a voting requirement that prevents people from voting even when they're allowed to do much more potentially damaging tasks strikes me as possibly broken. — Kate | Talk 12:18, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Other

1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3+ Months with 100+ edits or 1 month with 250+ edits
2. 172 02:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit minimums

No minimum

1. theresa knott
2. No hard minimum—too open to manipulation -- Cecropia | Talk 19:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Guanaco 19:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. マイケル ₪ 19:30, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
7. Cecropia's right. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
8. Having a minimum is bot bait. A small number of edits should be considered when weighing a vote, but a newbie may have intelligent things to add to the conversation. VV 19:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. Conti|✉ 23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
12. David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with VeryVerily. Bureaucrats should apply common sense to possible sockpuppetry.
13. Concur with Cecropia. Judgement call in tallying. [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. Pitchka 01:42, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004!
15. The community quickly identifies likely sockpuppets. Few newbies will be interested in RfA, and those that are interested should be welcomed. SWAdair | Talk 04:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
16. Austin Hair 04:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
17. Kevin Baas | talk 07:51, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) max. voting accuracy can be achieved if illegitimate votes are ruled on a case-by-case basis, which is feasible, given their infrequency.
18. Ditto Cecropia. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
19. Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) disruptive users and socxkpuppets are very much a case of "I know it when I see it". Decide on a case-by-case basis.
20. A case-by-case basis is fine with me. PFHLai 03:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
21. Leave it up to voters' judgement - a minimum would put undue emphasis on quantity, not quality. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
22. Nabla 15:17, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
23. No hard minimum Gene s 07:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
24. No precise minimum, but common sense and logic are in order. Goobergunch 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

100 edits

1. Gzornenplatz 19:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
2. Everyking 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

250 edits

1. Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Fuzheado | Talk 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) - puppets can already artificially create edits to appear legit, a high water mark isn't going to change that.

300 edits

1. Neutrality 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

400+ edits

1. It may be easy to manipulation, but it'll slow em down! Erich 19:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 19:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other

1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3+ Months with 100+ edits or 1 month with 250+ edits
2. 172 02:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should voting guidelines be implemented in a consistent fashion across multiple voting pages? (Rfa, Vfd, etc.)

Yes - standardize voting requirements

1. Sam [Spade] 19:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Bishonen 06:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes. Pitchka 21:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

No - different voting pages should have different voting requirements

1. Cecropia | Talk 19:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. theresa knott
3. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:16, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
4. — Kate | Talk 19:17, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
5. Rfa is too important Erich 19:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Guanaco 19:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Neutrality 21:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC). RfA should have guidelines while VfD should be open. Besides, sysops are perfectly capable of understanding which pages should be deleted and what a consensus is, etc.
11. David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12. Conti|✉ 23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
13. David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. Everything is (sadly) open to abuse though. [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
15. Austin Hair 04:25, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
16. SWAdair | Talk 04:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
17. Kevin Baas | talk 07:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
18. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
19. BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Apples and oranges....
20. Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) Not every poll or survey is the same.
21. Nabla 15:17, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
22. Gene s 07:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
23. rhyax 05:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Moving comments from intro. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who are you expecting to count the number of edits of all these voters? If you start enforcing strict limits, that implies every voter is going to have to be checked. This seems unnecessarily time consuming. Angela. 19:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Angela. At the least let those interested do the counting, which can be cross-checked at the end by a bureaucrat if it would make a difference. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did say that this is non-binding. I created the poll to try to crystalize the more nebulous discussion above. the results would give b-crats something concrete to point to as to why they've decided vote "A" doesn't count but vote "B" did. Or course, b-crats are free to count or discount votes as they see fit. It's my understanding that there's a regularly run task that counts edits, but even easier is to use the "user contribultions" link with one of the pre-canned numbers and see if there is more than one page of that number. (For instance, if 300 is the number you are shooting for, and the 250 count page is not full, then that's a quick disqualification.) I'm curious why you think a hard minimum of time is easy to manipulate. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A user who might want to "game" RfA could create a few sockpuppets, make a few edits to establish a start date, and "bank" them for future use. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While that is possible, that's not a likely situation for sockpuppetry, which relies significantly more on the start of a vote for the creation of the puppet. However, I'll grant you that game strategy. Here's one I find equally likely for use with no rough guidelines for minimums: Any user could create any number of user ids and rotate through which ones they use each day, building a sockpuppet army over the course of a couple of weeks, and then bank them away just as easily. One rule I know about the gaming of a system is that each system's potential and ease for gaming needs to be weighed not in a vacuum, but against the potential and ease for gaming of others systems, particularly the existing system in place. - UtherSRG 11:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Number of edits" is used as a qualification all over the place, I know, including for sysophood, but I would like to ask in all seriousness if there's any possible alternative that could be introduced. If I write a couple of long paragraphs for an article in a text-editor and fiddle with them in my spare time for several days till I'm satisfied and then paste them in, then that's one edit. If I do the same thing directly in the wiki markup edit field, saving every so often so it won't get lost, then that's twenty edits. (I'm not assuming that anybody's clocking up trivial edits on purpose, I think that has to be rare.) I'm sorry, I realize that argument must have been many times before (I've only been here a month). But has any alternative been proposed? I sure can't think of one, but can anybody? Bishonen 19:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's still a good argument. Hence number of edits and time since registration. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about something like "3 months and 100 edits OR no time limit and 300 edits" or something along those lines? — Kate | Talk 19:06, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit by number of edits. Anyone can easily rack-up 300 edits if they want to. I'd say how old the account is is more of an identifier, even then, 3 months is a little extreme. — マイケル ₪ 19:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Then why not vote for that option above? theresa knott 19:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking more of people who wanted to vote for that option (since someone suggested it above). — Kate | Talk 19:18, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

While it may make the job of the person who makes the assessment at the end of the adminship poll that much harder, I think that it would be easiest to just note the join date and number of edits after each name, and not have any particular limits. This discussion will no doubt raise its head again from time to time, so any attempt to impose any 'membership' rules should be applied across all levels at the same time, and be part of a higher level strategy. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing when I was working on the poll, but left it out because it would not be something easily implemented. I think the best way to do that is something similar to ~~~~ but designed especially for voting signatures. Sounds like a job for the developers, I believe. - UtherSRG 21:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barring other considerations, I think it is fair and useful to point out a voter with lean qualifications for everyone else's judgment, without further comment or qualification: "Editor has eight edits since yesterday;" "editor has 25 edits, mostly minor." I would prefer not to see "OBVIOUS SOCKPUPPET AND FRIEND OF NOMINEE!!!!!!!!!!!" You know, there is also the possibility of people voting opposite to their desires in an obviously bogus way to stir up sentiment. After looking at the some of the argumentation on this nomination, I really worry about encouraging game-playing. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do we decide who gets to vote in this straw poll? *ba-dum-rimshot* Thanks folks, Remember to tip your waitron! --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:36, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I support the concept of minimal time/edits for counting as a voter. However I think even users who don't qualify for this should be allowed to comment about nominees; they may have something to say of interest to voters. -- Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Angela, I think that people who vote should mention their "status" when voting. I propose they do this between brackets to facilitate the job of the bureaucrats who have weigh and count the votes . E.g. (user:172 sysop ) or (user:Crecropia >1500 edits since may 2004 ) Andries 22:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with doing that is that it leads to people viewing editing counts as some sort of status level, which it really shouldn't be. Perhaps people could just declare whether they have less than a certain number, rather than making everyone do this. It will also lead to unnecessary load on the database if people start counting their edits before every vote. Angela. 01:45, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I am on Wikipedia for 25 days and have made some 300/400 edits, and IMO I am not completely stupid. My votes were: 3 month, 0 edits, no consistency.
"3 months" not to avoid sock puppets or any other disruptive behaviour but because how can a new user know what a good admin is supposed to be? I'm here for almost a month, been here every day, several hours a day, read lots of Wikipedia namespace pages, read through talks like this one and IMO I don't know that. Most of all, how can I know if some user as a "sysop profile" in such a short time?.And it is a common practice on "real" associations to avoid newcommers to subvert old standards easyly
"0 edits" because it's hard to make 10 good edits, it's very easy to make 200 (correct) minor edits, doesn't say much as a criteria.
"no" because, as an example, I feel that I can already have a valid opinion on VfD but do not feel the same on RfA.
Finally, maybe a bit off-topic maybe but it looks like this is all about sock puppets, so... Can someone point me the usefulness of having multiple accounts?
Really finally, if vandals, hostile editors, dishonest admins, sock puppeteers, vain people, childish adults, and such start overwhelming the rest, then that is the time to write an article on The Internet is a paradise for rotten people and disconnect the damn thing.--Nabla 15:39, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

A Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy? (Archive 25)

Can we have a moratorium on those tedious votes that crop up frequently in the following format?

Oppose, because User:SomeGuy supports, and I User:SomeGuy is my arch-nemesis. 

Except in cases of supposed sockpuppetry, these votes are completely irrational, only serve to cause pointless bickering, and are completely unnecessary. If anything, as User:Ta bu shi da yu suggested, they could be posted in the comments section rather than the vote section. I know that some of these people think that they're being really funny by putting these things here, and some people are pushing agendas, but this is just not the place for either of those. I don't know if we need to go as far as to put something in the admin voting policy, but at the very least can we all just agree that the joke/rhetoric is very tired and needs to be laid to rest? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually placing it into policy will only result in these votes turning into a simple "Oppose", and any attempt to point out that "User:StalkingTroll has been following User:BlockingAdmin around and harassing him for weeks" will quickly degenerate. A better solution would be for the tallying bureaucrat to just quietly ignore such obviously bad-faith votes. —Korath (Talk) 19:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"A Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy" makes as much sense as "A Friend of My Friend is My Friend". Maybe the bureaucrats should also discount votes like "so-and-so's support is good enough for me". Gzornenplatz 19:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Better solution" isn't remotely the same as "good solution", obviously. And I would hope that people could come up with better reasons to support a candidate, as well. —Korath (Talk) 19:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with placing this in voting policy is that there might be situations where a vote like "Cannot support nomination by User:ObviousSockpuppet" might actually make sense. If anything is added to the policy, it should be that bureaucrats can discount such votes on their discretion - and yes, I agree with Gzornenplatz that that should go for support votes as well as oppose votes. One should assume it would be common sense to only vote for or against candidates one has some personal knowledge of... -- Ferkelparade π 20:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats should count all the votes (except for proven sockpuppets). There is also a 72-80% band, or whatever, where they are allowed to exercise their judgment. No doubt the "I'm opposing because my enemy's supporting" and "I'm supporting because my friend's supporting" are comments that a bureaucrat in that position bears in mind, jguk 21:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The comments are optional, and not relevant in determining the votes for, against and neutral with regards a RfA. I don't think that RfA policy has to be changed. I was not aware of RfA policy that you had to have a so-called "legitimate" reason to support/oppose/neutral. i agree that reasons given may irritate some users, but that is totally irrelevant. I may vote against every new RfA because I think there are too many admins. That is not a reason to ignore my vote. I think that trying to squeeze out oppose votes, politicking the process itself is very dangerous. Almost as dangerous as the lack of explicit de-sysop policy. --Mrfixter 01:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Too many admins" is more legitimate, I think. And Mrfixter, the principle at RFA for years (well, over 18 mos., at least) has been consensus. Comments are necessary to help determine consensus. While RFA has come to be handled as a "straight vote" most of the time, the numbers offered are merely a rough approximation of what the community considers to be "consensus". In borderline cases, the bureaucrats are empowered (and always have been) to use the good judgment that the community believes them to have (otherwise they wouldn't have been promoted). We try not to exercise said judgment and when we do, we do it carefully. Or rather, those that do, do it carefully, since I haven't promoted anybody in several months (sorry Cecropia!). Jwrosenzweig 01:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I welcome you to start writing a de-sysop policy. I think it would be a very interesting process. I do agree with DDG that party line voting on RfA is annoying. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of bureaucrats having discretion in deciding what consensus means. What is being talked about is an attempt by some to de-legitimize perfectly legitimate votes. As is stated You may add a short comment to your vote - surely the may is important? If a vote is close, sure that bureaucrat has discretion in deciding what "consensus" means, but not in disregarding votes, apart from proved sockpuppet votes. Direct me to explicit policy if I am mistaken...

Thanks for welcoming me to start writing de-sysop policy. I don't really know how to start a policy, wanna help? It can't be any worse than this. --Mrfixter 01:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help, but not tonight. That's a start, at least, with some good links; for further reference you can look into the history of RfA when there actually was a requests for de-adminship section. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, OK so it's pretty clear that we shouldn't change the actual policy to stop these FoE votes, and that they should be counted as votes; that's probably the right thing to do- I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic, as it was really irritating me. Maybe the best course of action for the rest of us is just to leave the votes as they are and not respond to them. Right now, after each FoE vote, there are two or three trailing comments from people who get mad at them; maybe we should all just try to avoid commenting on them, as part of a Do not feed the trolls policy. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:53, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think not responding to them is a good idea. Or if you want to respond, respond in the comments section, if only on grounds of neatness. --Mrfixter 19:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Policy concerning banned users and voting (Archive 26)

Today, we had a sockpuppet come in and not only vote oppose on a legit nomination, but also nominated someone. The nomination is currently in a skeletal structure and I would like to remove it. What is the policy concerning users who have been banned from Wikipedia and what is the status of their votes/nominations? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

They cannot edit, they cannot vote, they cannot nominate. I would suggest that their edits are only made valid if another user "adopts" the edit, taking responsibility. I reckon it's safe to remove them. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of banning someone is that they do more harm than good here. Hence, there's no particular reason we should pay attention to them on a page like this. Isomorphic 21:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As the person who they voted against I'm interested in this. I don't recall having any interaction with this user in any of the guises that has been noted in my RFA. Should I (or ideally someone else) strike out their vote and adjust the tally count accordingly? I can accept the oppose from Everyking (I was half expecting it tbph), but from someone I've not had any dealings with seems a little disingenuous and for want of a better term, trollish. (discalimer, written while less than 100% sober) Thryduulf 22:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll strike it, but don't worry, you'll get adminship anyway :P gkhan 22:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Who is he a sockpuppet of anyway? If it's a user who has actually been banned we ought to revert all edits by them, so not only do we disregard the vote against Thryduulf, we actually take it out. I'd like to know which user this is circumventing their ban first though. I assumed they were just a common troll of some kind. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what BeBop's playing at, but this is a brand-new user name, yet the user proclaims things about the candidate that suggest a long-time editor. So one way or the other, this is at least insincere. Unless someone objects, I will also delete the nomination page. If anyone legitimate wants to make this nomination, feel free. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As the one who was nominated, I just want to make clear I have no problem with the nomination being deleted. AlistairMcMillan 00:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

automatic nominations (Archive 26)

A discussion started at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thryduulf:

• Comment on the process, not on Thryduulf (who I suspect will make a fine admin): By my count (from WP:LA) there are a total of about 500 current, inactive, former, or nominated but denied admins. Thryduulf is not in the top 1000 list in article space, and ranks >700 in total edits, which says to me that there are probably several hundred editors who have contributed more and probably been here longer. Based on the number of "I thought he was already" votes above, perhaps the admin nomination process should be changed to be more deliberately inclusive. One possibility would be to establish edit count and/or activity length thresholds that cause automatic nomination. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can think of a number of editors who've been around for a long time, and have large edit counts, but who wouldn't stand a chance of being adminned. Making nominations automatic would result in a number of hopeless nominations. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And, would that be a problem? Any feel for the percentage of folks who've been active for, say, more than 6 months and have made more than, say, 5000 edits who shouldn't be admins? Is it more important to avoid occasionally denying an automatic admin nomination or to avoid overlooking well deserving editors? The current system has an element of capriciousness to it that I think can and should be avoided. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, including those who wouldn't want to be admins, I'd expect the percentage to be on the high side. There are a lot of editors who contribute useful material, but who have absolutely no interest in the administration side of things,as well as those who'd love to be admins, and who'd be disasters (there are those who'd include me in that, of course). My worry is, in part, that with the significant increase in nominations, editors would have less time to consider each case, and poorer decisions might be made. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My fear about things like this is that it encourages users to stop using the "show preview" button, ie: edit counting seems to be addictive with many users, and tends to cause lots of tiny little edits that pollute the name space. In my humble opinion, the very best editors and admins on Wikipedia are the ones who have created the most content with the fewest edits. :) func(talk) 19:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I see from /Archive 23#Admin suggestions that User:Cecropia basically did this a while ago. How about if the results of an SQL query like this are posted (probably here, or on some standard subpage of WP:RFA linked from WP:RFA) fairly regularly, perhaps monthly? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the big problem is that it encourages even more edit count stuffing, and a lack of focus on the right things-being a good editor and janitor. Also auto nominations would create a mess of nominations where the nominated person had not accepted the nomination yet. Now if you want to create a list of non admin editors with over 2000 edits for ex, and contact them first to see if they would accept the nomination go for it, but I would be opposed to automatic noms, for the above reason and that it would make it difficult to evaluate the nominations properly. That could be solved by limiting the number of nominations I suppose. - Taxman ^Talk 20:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with automatic nominations for two reasons. Firstly, there would be far more nominations at any one time here - currently simply being nominated by someone is some indication that someone thinks there is some worth in what a person is doing - surely those of us who are around Wikipedia can better judge whether someone is able to perform as an administrator than simply setting an arbitrary figure? Secondly, with more nominations, there will be more rejections of candidates, and I for one know that I would have been very disheartened if I had been put forward and not accepted. There may well be some potential candidates who would be put off working ion wikipedia if they faced a formal rejection as potential administrator. I would recommend, however, that someone comes up with a list of non-admins who have produced high numbers of edits - it would give us some idea of who we are missing! Perhaps it would be worthwhile putting an asterisk after people's names on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits if they are admins, to make that search easier. In fact - I'll cross post this to W-talk:LoWbnoe, see what people think there... Grutness...wha? 01:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

See User:Rick_Block/WP600_not_admins. I'd prefer the list to be sorted by date of first edit, but I don't have convenient access to the data. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are definitely some intriguing candidates there, and I did the standard "I thought (s)he was..." to several of the names (for the record: Alkivar, Andros1337, Beland, Ceyockey, Gene Nygaard, Grm wnr, Lectonar, Maurreen, Mzajac, Romanm, Sam Hocevar, and TheParanoidOne). Definitely a few there worthy of nominating. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any kind of automatic nomination. I have no problem with people periodically pulling lists of top contributors that aren't admins, and looking over them for good candidates. But there needs to be a layer of human judgement between that list and this page. Also, edit counting in general is bad. If you really want to find out whether someone is a good candidate, you don't look at the number of edits, you look at what they've done. Isomorphic 03:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I also believe any kind of automatic nomination would not be good. Since adminship is a responsibility and not simply a title, the baseline is that someone should affirmatively demonstrate that they feel a particular person (including the person him/herself) should be an admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the system works pretty well as is; it's good to have good candidates nominated by those familiar with the candidate's work. Frankly, it is hard to amass thousands of edits without someone noticing, unless your edits are all pretty minor, and I think that good candidates are very likely to be asked. Someone who wants to be an admin can always self-nom, or even ask someone they know to nominate them, and it is rare for someone with a lot of experience to go down unless they have had some serious issues during their tenure. Just my two cents. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the minor edit thing: I have amassed more than a thousand edits in the past ten days, but haven't actually done anything.
By the way, I support this idea in principle, but we definitely need a layer of human screening, as recommended by Isomorphic. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Semi-automatic would be fine - the main point is to force a mechanism for users who contribute to be noticed rather than rely on anyone "noticing" them to avoid even the appearance that adminship is a Good ol' boy network. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think that periodically making a list like Rick has done, and looking through it for Wikipedians who should be nominated is a Good Thing. I suspect I'm not the only one perusing that list to see who to ask next... Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grutness here, but I'd also like to add that the whole novelty of being nominated for adminship and going through the process is in general an exciting experience. I also think it increases the quality, effort, and more importantly the civility of many contributors because they hope to one day be nominated based on their performance. If we institute automatic editing, being nominated would lose its mystique because it becomes something of a routine or an expectation. Automatic noms do seem like a good idea, but if you probably analyze things deep enough you'd find that the more edits a contributor makes above the 2000-3000 count mark, the less likely they are to go without being nominated, so things do iron themselves out. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 09:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think the data contradicts this last point. The list I've posted only includes editors with more than 2500 edits in article space, and includes at least 200 editors who have never been nominated. Even if half of these would not make suitable admins (which would astound me), that leaves 100 editors. At the rate of 4 per week it would take nearly 6 months to nominate all of these editors even if no others were considered (which would mean in 6 months, anyone who does not currently have 2500 edits would not have been nominated). IMO, the rate of nominations has not been keeping up with the rate of participation which I think is a Bad Thing. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Adding admins for its own sake is not useful; it just encourages paper admins. I might have given more credence to your point when it wsa more difficult to become an admin through self-nom, but lately there have been a flurry of self-noms and many of them being promoted. If someone has 2500 real edits and they haven't applied for admin, maybe they're not interested. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not in favour of making edit counting a key criterion - it rewards irresponsible editting. I would rather use the preview button 5x than save a typo. In addition, the list presented lists edits only to the Main namespace. Someone who spends time on the Talk page rather than reverting, or who spends time cleaning up VfD is more valuable to Wikipedia and probably has more of the skills needed by an admin. Someone who spends his/her time changing spellings from BE to AE (or AE to BE) will amass a lot of edits, while doing nothing useful (since their edits will quickly be reverted). In addition, people who edit war acquire many more Main Namespace edits than people who resolve their differences on the Talk page. The flip side of this would also be that people who had not met some threshold would be far less likely to be successful on RfA. Quaity of actions, quality of edits, and suitability for adminship should trump edit counts. The assumption that edit counts is the way to go should only come into play if there is some way to separate signal from noise. One edit per page per half hour maybe? Let edits less than 5 characters be worth only half? Have some maximum number of edits on a single page that count? Weight Talk page edits and WP namespace edits double? Weigh cleanup triple? Something that rewards good behaviour (using the preview button) more than less good behaviour (5 edits to clean the typos out of one sentance; revert wars)?

In addition, why put people through the pain of RfA if they know they will be shot down? There are many controvertial editors who know they are controvertial. There are also editors who show bad judgement in the heat of some dispute, but then go on the make ammends. If noms are automatic, you have no reason to make ammends for your heat-of-the-moment misbehaviour - the clock is ticking no matter what you do. As for the "old boys network" - that's why we have self-noms. Anyone can nominate themselves - and as Cecropia said, it really isn't that difficult any more. On the other hand, succeeding at RfA requires that you have made it into the network, to some extent. Guettarda 14:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any need for it; I think if somebody is being passed over, and wants adminship, then they can self-nominate. We should perhaps reduce the stigma attached to self-noms, if there still is any; I know we used to demand more out of self-noms, don't know if we still do. Occasionally somebody will be passed over for an excessively long time, that's true, but I don't think it's such a big injustice because they could self-nominate or, if they have any good reputation, ask someone who they're on good terms with to nominate them. Everyking 14:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I was nominated when I had 4000 edits (my 4000th was letting Grutness know that I would accept a nomination), after I'd been almost eaxactly 5 months (my first edit was on Boxing day). I had been considering a self-nomination, but I didn't fancy being shot down in flames. My thinking was that after I'd been here 6 months I would have a much better chance of success. Whether this is typical or not I don't know. Thryduulf 15:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The "admin suggestions" was my doing, not Cecropia's; as I recall, he was so vehemently opposed to such a list that he ultimately ended up placing a prominent "banner" on RFA with regard to the matter. While automatic nominations may be helpful, in actual fact most qualified people get nominated fairly promptly. There is also a lack of agreement about what constitutes sufficient edit counts and months of editing to qualify, and this would have to be resolved before any automatic mechanism could be agreed upon. Though Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival is now out of date, re-running the queries could give us a new list and any candidates we have overlooked would become obvious. When I did this before, at least half of the experienced non-admins either did not want adminship, had been denied adminship previously, or had been such a source of conflict that they were clearly unsuited.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I hae no problems with a periodic list of non-admins who have made the most edits, but I would strongly oppose any sort of automatic adminship. There are far too many edit warriors and POV pushers with lots of edits who should be banned, not given admin privileges. RickK 22:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested automatic adminship? I think the proposal currently on the table is to keep and regularly update some sort of quasi-official list of "high edit" (TBD) users sorted by date of first activity with number of edits listed, presumably to be consulted when thinking about nominating someone for adminship. No automatic promotion. No automatic nomination based on arbitrary edit numbers. No requirement that anyone even look at the list. I actually rather like Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fan of even a "quasi-official" list if it's based on edit counts. If people want to consult such lists on their own, great, but the point several people have raised is that edit-counting is not something to encourage. It's an anti-pattern. 10,000 edits means little if they're all spelling corrections. On the other hand, if you made 50 edits that each created a new article, 100 thoughtful posts to talk pages, and 50 constructive edits to policy pages, you'd be a fantastic Wikipedian at only 200 edits. Edit count may be a handy guage of activity, but it's not what Wikipedians should be striving for. I'd rather see a list of "Wikipedians who have written a featured article but aren't admins", or something like that. Isomorphic 07:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely with Isomorphic. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have misunderstood what Rick Block were saying. I would like to see who the non-admin "senior users" were. Actually I would like that there be a class of "senior user" that did not require the politics of an adminship vote, and which did not attract all the flak that admins tend to get. On the other hand, like Isomorphic, I have reservations about edit lists. Featured Articles is one option, though again, it doesn't capture the whole range of what non-admin editors contribute. Now, if we could also give them access to the "rollback" tool... Guettarda 13:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alturnatively we could get rid of the whole nomintion process altogether. On the basis that we know that self noms want to be admins we are less likely to get papaer adimns. another thing to take into consideration is that not all good editors make good admins.Geni 12:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. Guettarda 13:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two problems I'm hoping to address with this proposal. One is that I think it's likely there are more than a few, possibly more than 100, "senior users" (I like that term) who, for whatever reason, are reluctant to self-nom and, for whatever reason, have been overlooked. The other is that some (many?) of the current class of admins are perceived by at least some users to be highly arrogant. Whether this is true or not, I believe the perception exists. IMO switching to a self-nom only process would basically select for high arrogance, which would over time make this perception the actual reality. On the other hand, if most "senior users" (excepting problem users) were made admins and were expected to do admin sorts of things, I think they would. Unless consistently contributing to wikipedia over time also selects for arrogance (and it might), making "senior user" and "admin" essentially the same set of users might help diversify the population of admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:55, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship does not exist to reward good editing. It exists because wikipedia needs caretakers and some of the technical abilities of admins can do quite a bit of damge in the wrong hands. What everdence do you have that people percive admins as arogant? Most of people's perceptions of admins comes from those who for whatever reason do a lot of high profile stuff. Creating more paper admins isn't going to help in that respect.Geni 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which does get back to the idea of having some sort of non-admin "senior user" with a few more tricks - specifically, the rollback button (I find the process of reverting vandalism to be tedious, and it's something you do every day). But I realise that this is getting OT for this talk page. Guettarda 17:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re Geni's comments: How much evidence would you like? Would this comment and most of the exchange that led up to it suffice? I actually agree that adminship does not exist to reward good editing. On the other hand, including featured article contributions as a criteria for nomination sure makes it sound at least related to good editing (I'd think the policy would be if you're a featured article contributor you would be extremely discouraged from spending any of your wikipedia time doing administrivia tasks). Speaking of editing, I'm sure we'd all rather be editing than continuing this conversation. I think I've said my piece. Thanks for listening. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Weyes extended (Archive 27)

I have extended Weyes' RfA for 48 hours. At this point I feel I could justify either promotion or removal based on the existing votes and comments. However, I would much prefer that this be hashed out by the community if possible so as to be able to conclude without bureaucrat discretion being necessary.

Since the most significant general point of opposition seems to be the claim that Weyes is too curt with editors, especially newbies, it would be useful if voters would address this point one way or the other. It would be especially useful if those who have not already voted and presumably have not made up their minds would look at the nomination. Thanks! Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, please tell me you're not counting MasterShredder's opposition vote. It was his third edit. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ain't counting anything 'til the fat lady sings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: The 'Weyes' Case

"What we have here is a fairly shameless attempt by the pro-weyes camp to garner support through posting messages on talk pages, last minute emails and irc polling in order to push the tally over the required 80%."

"Please consider that this is a controversial nomination, and erriring on the side of caution is always advisable when dealing with such cases." Unsigned comment made by 62.253.64.19 (aka User:MARMOT) 14:35, Jun 22, 2005

Some evidence for that claim would be helpful. Also, signing in and signing edits would too. - Taxman ^Talk 18:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Weyes: The Fat Lady Sang

Everything considered, I would have a much greater problem justifying a promotion in this case than justifying removal. The simple numbers don't support the nomination at this time, and the complaints against the candidate are sufficiently non-trivial to have generated significant opposition.

I will address JfdWolff's comment about MasterShredder's vote. First, this disputed vote did not make the difference in the nomination. Since the decision was a discretionary one, I took all factors into account, including (1) the fact that MasterShredder was entitled to vote and (2) the fact that this user had but three edits at the time.

Be aware that up until a year or so ago, all votes, comments, etc., were considered in making admins, including from anons. However, we then decided that a person should at least have an account to vote--no minimum number of edits, no minimum time on Wikipedia. Another thing that has changed in the last year is that we pay a lot more attention to numbers than we did. Please keep in mind that the standard is and always has been consensus and that bureaucrat's are entrusted to determine that beyond that simple numbers.

If we want a minimum criterion for voting, this is a change of policy and we should make a proposal and have a straw poll. My opinion, and just my opinion, is that we could have a minimum to make certain that a voter has not created an account just for the purpose of voting, which also begs sockpuppetry. Perhaps a month and 100 real edits could do it. However, I'm not anxious to see "qualification wars" as the latest team sport on RfA. I'm not speaking for any other bureaucrat, but if we agree on a minimum qualification, I do not intend to personally examine the qualifications of every voter on every nomination. I believe it is appropriate for those voting to question the qualifications and put their claim in the RfA for the bureaucrats to take into consideration. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a bureacrat, I concur with Cecropia's assessment. →Raul654 19:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.

On the other hand, I do concur with Cecropia's point that we should not have voting minimums, nor do I intend to check for them either. →Raul654 21:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you let this one go, and renominate later, in a month or two. Although I sincerely believe that it is not what it appears, it has the appearance of being nothing more than "lets extend the vote until we get the results we want." By extending this vote again, you're feeding the trolls who already think that adminship is a power clique among those willing to punish anonymous users, and that this is just a formality along the way to adding a "friend" to the clique. --Unfocused 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, they can think whatever they want - sometimes what is right is not the most popular decision. On the other hand, there's clearly some suspicious goings-on there and I am not keen on turning a blind and and letting a handful of suspicious votes decide a nomination, so clearly the best thing to do would be get more votes by extending the deadline. →Raul654 21:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly second that. We shouldn't look over our shoulder every second worrying what the problem users will think. We're here to run a succesful encyclopedia project. The rest be damned as long as we act in good faith, which Raul clearly has done. While I personally think it should have stayed as being deemed without consensus, given this one was borderline it is perfectly acceptable to extend it. It's not like it was 50% support and it's being extended to allow in 30% more supports. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Raul, I respect your decision to reopen this yet again (it already had one extension) but there are also claims of campaigning in favor. I think it would have been better to wipe the slate clean, set some ground rules for voting if needed, and reopen from the beginning. Do you think that would be a better plan in the future? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be OK with that -- what kind of ground rules did you have in mind though? →Raul654 22:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't really thought that out in any detail. Perhaps no voting except by accounts at least a month old with 100 edits, as I suggested above. And in the case of this nomination only (because of possible hanky-panky and so as not to set new policy without discussion) expect each voter pro or con to give some kind of non-BS reason so bureaucrats have something to go on in making the final decision. Just suggestions. Your thoughts? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion a 100 edit limit is too strict. And 30 days is also a too long time IMO. But a rule that the voters account should be older than the nomination seems reasonable to me. Shanes 22:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe in order to vote you should either have 100edits or have had your account for a month. Most editors that come here with neither are vandals or trolls, IMHO. Falphin 22:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am personally unhappy about yet another extension, as it does look like you are simply extending and extending until you get the RIGHT result. I would personally be OK with a brand new vote, providing each user posts a valid reason (not 'because my friend voted yes'). And Matthew, you are saying there are many 'suspect' no votes, but there are also many 'suspect' yes votes that give no reason. - Marmosa

Such as... sockpuppets? :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

1. Support. Sure; welcome to the cabal. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

5. Support. --Carnildo 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

7. Support.-gadfium 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

13. Support RickK 06:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

16. Support. NormanEinstein 13:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

17. Support, Ghakko 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

18. Support. Grue 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

19. Support. --Kbdank71 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

21. Support Arwel 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

22. Support-JCarriker 11:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

31. Gets my support vote. Dan100 (Talk) 22:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

37. SupportGeni 02:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

38. Support--nixie 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

40. Support. Carbonite | Talk 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

43. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

44. Support --Duk 04:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Total = 16

On the other hand, there is only one oppose vote without an expalanation - Master Shredder.

I think you'll find sock puppetry works better if you don't actually sign both names from the same account. --W(t) 22:55, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Aha! Looks like we just found ourselves a sockpuppet! Nice job, MARMOT/62.253.96.42/Master Shredder. I guess your usage of your IP address to hide your activities as MARMOT has really done you justice.

5. Oppose I commend his vigilance, however I have seen this user undo several perfectly good edits with no explanation. Also has a tendency towards antagonisation of members he disagrees with. - Marmot

9. Oppose - Master Shredder 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure ArbCom would LOVE to heat this one. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any evidence, technical or otherwise, that I am Master Shredder. [unsigned by 62.253.96.42 23:05, 22 Jun 2005]

Okay.

On the other hand, there is only one oppose vote without an expalanation - Master Shredder. posted here. [unsigned by Linuxbeak 23:11, 22 Jun 2005]

Yes, what is your point? Like I said, there is only one oppose vote without an explanation, that of Master Shredder. You seem to have misinterpreted what I said. [unsigned by 62.253.96.42 23:14, 22 Jun 2005]

What was that, Linux? Gutted. 62.253.96.42 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. You tampered with an RFA, you used a sockpuppet in an RFA to give you two votes, and you shot yourself in the foot. You have effectively told the world that you're a sham. I'm through feeding this troll. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I created a second account, used it to cast phony votes, then signed my name as it on a talk page. You really are a fucking 'tard, Linuxcunt.

62.253.96.42 23:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I try my best :-) Enjoy your block! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Falphins suggestion of 100 edits OR 1 month. I also think that anons and accounts created since the nomination should be ineligible. The biggest problem that I see with repeated extensions is that some early voters will not revisit their votes in the light of developing discussion. This problem becomes more acute the longer the debate lasts and without such revision the process becomes increasingly akin to mock democracy and further from consensus building.—Theo (Talk) 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One obvious treatment for problems of that sort would be to open discussion for some period of time before voting begins. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Law of large numbers

I wonder if the continued extensions will make any difference; because of the law of large numbers, the proportion of support and oppose probably will not change much. --cesarb 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would be in full agreement with you. However, seeing that we have concrete evidence of vote tampering, that might change. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

In summary, what is the concrete evidence of vote tempering, please? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT was found of using a sockpuppet, and as such, this nullifies both MARMOT's vote as well as his sock's. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, David Gerard used the the checkIP page and found a match between the two. →Raul654 02:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we nullify this whole thing and start over clean? It would be seven days instead of five. I'm also not crazy about extensions after extensions. It's like the principle that there is a limit to how much you patch a program before you throw it out and start with a clean code base. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. →Raul654 03:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It'd be fine by me, though I'm not quite clear on for what reason. Yes, there has been sockpuppeting, but it hasn't effected the vote in any way that can't be solved by discounting the sockpuppets. The main problem appears to be that it insists on floating in that magical 75-80% region which makes it hard to bureaucrat. Though re-RfAring would probably solve that due to random fluctions, I'm not sure it's the normal way of resolving that. --W(t) 03:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

It is an issue that after a certain point the process is tainted. Since Raul654, the other b'crat involved agrees, I'm cancelling and restarting this nomination. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It didn't work in Washington. — Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if this nomination fails for a second time. However, I think Weyes deserves to have another go anyway, seeing that he's been more or less cheated out of a concencus. In another month, his mistakes should all have washed over, and he should be admin'd without much fanfare. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop misusing the law of large numbers. Dmn / Դմն 1 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Is this an example of poor form?

In every other case I've seen, the "Wikipedia way" when consensus fails has been to withdraw the proposal, discuss, redevelop the proposal, wait a period of time, then resubmit the proposal for another vote. Why should Weyes be treated any differently?

If the bureaucrat judging the nomination vote cannot decide if there is a consensus, then there is no consensus. It is NOT time to extend, extend, then revote. I would not have been upset had a bureaucrat used their judgement to claim that the valid, accepted votes formed a consensus the first time. We expect bureaucrats to use their judgement to make decision. I won't be upset if a bureaucrat makes that decision now.

I am highly disturbed by the unusual nature of the process used (but I wouldn't call my feeling "upset"). Even though I believe these actions were taken in good faith, they have the appearance of a vote with a predetermined outcome. Any process with the appearance of impropriety is inherently flawed, and should be discarded immediately. Unfocused 14:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. This is entirely within bureaucrats' good judgement. If the picture doesn't change substantially within the extension, the nomination will still have failed. To nitpick about this would be wikilawyering, which is clearly inherently flawed. dab (ᛏ) 14:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there needs to be a massive reduction in Wikilawyering and second guessing (acroos Wikipedia in general, but especially here). This is an admin nom, not a supreme court case. The bureaucrats have made their judgment in good faith, and that's all that needs to be done. Let's not lose sight of the more important goal, of improving the project. Voice your opinion in the nomination and call it a day please. - Taxman ^Talk 14:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these actions were done in good faith, I stated so above. But one of the things Wikipedia needs most is administrative transparency. Processes need to not only be done in good faith, but need to appear to be done in good faith. Anything less feeds the trolls. --Unfocused 14:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The RfA in question has been handled in the most shambolic way and definitely has the appearance of impropriety. It sets a very bad precedent. People may claim this is a new vote, but it is in fact an extension of the old vote by another name. Please. --Mrfixter 14:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taxman, I think the problem is people did voice their opinions by vote, and a concensus was clearly not reached (even ignoring sockpuppet business), this was subsequently ignored, and the process started again. Hence unfocused comments are, i believe, perfectly legitimate. Bluemoose 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents

This has been a very unusual case. When I originally extended this nomination (as has been done many times before) I stated the reason. Then Raul654 noticed that there were unusual circumstances (included vote tampering) and, in good faith, used the powers entrusted to him to make a further extension. When it became evident this was just getting more messy, he and I agreed to wipe the nomination clean and restart without having to sort out which votes might be socks, or bogus accounts, or whatever.

As to transparency, I would argue that the RfAs are one of the more transparent processes on Wikipedia and so has this nomination process been. The decisions have been made and explained out in the open. The only lack of transparency on the part of Raul and I would be if anyone feels that we are not acting in good faith or have a hidden motive in regard to this nomination. If anyone thinks so, say so, and say why, remembering that it is one thing to say someone made a wrong decision, or could have made a better decision, or did not make the decision that they themselves would have made, and another entirely to charge that a corrupt decision has been made.

We have had hundreds of decisions made in the last year, with little controversy, and I believe this process is working well and smoothly. In this case, this is a learning experience like any other. Perhaps we should limit extensions to one, perhaps we should set out a simple qualification for voting (like a minimum month for a voting account). We can discuss this if we're so inclined.

Perhaps voters should keep transparency in mind in their own actions; before you "campaign" for or against a candidate; or are tempted to sockpuppetry; or try to get decisions made on IRC, think: if your behavior would be embarassing to you or the candidate if it were revealed in the RfA, maybe you shouldn't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I blame the alleged sockpuppets not the bureaucrats, though to have more and clearer information about the alleged sockpuppetry would be great. Wouldn't a full investigation of the alleged sockpuppetry and a removal of suspect votes have been a better option? As a transparent no voter I want to know who has been tampering with the vote, SqueakBox 16:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Any bureaucrat or admin who takes administrative action on the process of a vote in progress should consider if it would be just as acceptable for [[Insert Notable Despot Here]] or his supporters to do the same. Although I believe the motives of the bureaucrats were in good faith, transparency of motive is almost never clear enough, even when publicly stated.

Ideally, I think Weyes should withdraw his acceptance of the nomination, and come back in a month or two (when I expect he'll pass handily). Otherwise, his administrator position could be troll bait for as long as he keeps it. If he withdraws and comes back later we'll have a clean slate to work from. If he succeeds then, Weyes won't have this giant Troll steak hanging around his neck.

Let me state again, I believe that both extensions and setting up a revote were done in good faith, but I'd rather see a delayed "clean result" than any possible appearance of impropriety. --Unfocused 17:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first extension was fully justified, since the community has indicated consistently that it trusts bureaucrats to do what is necessary and advisable in their judgment to determine consensus. The alternative would have been to make the decision then and there, which bureaucrats are also empowered to do, and that too would have raised complaints. Remember, it is the bureaucrats' job to make their own best efforts to make a decision in accordance with their best judgment, not the decision which they think will provoke the least controversy. Your reiteration of your the idea that avoiding "any possible appearance of impropriety" is the heart of this process is quite subjective, and is bound to be unattainable in everyone's eyes. Appearances of propriety or impropriety should be based not simply on displeasure with a particular result but on a knowledge of the process, the history of the process, and the record of and trust in those who administer the process. With the miracle of hindsight, I could say that it would have been better to not have had the second extension, but that is water of the dam now. More important is that every disputed call not become a Wikinquisition. I agree with Raul's general POV that we shouldn't make procedures on Wikipedia any more involved than necessary. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this embroglio is illustrative of the problems with extending votes. In general, I do not believe that a vote should be extended because consensus is unclear, unless there simply aren't sufficient votes. The practice of extending questionable votes is one Cecropia has instituted that was not followed prior to him taking near-total ownership of the adminship process after he was promoted to bureaucrat. This practice has never been voted upon by the community. Prior to its use, bureaucrats (and formerly developers) made a call shortly after the nomination closed.

It is my view that the practice of extending ending times, restarting votes, adding banner ads for certain votes, and so on generally undermines the simplicity and fairness of the process. The way it is supposed to work is that the vote runs for its proper duration and then bureaucrats make a call, with a 75%-80% threshold at their discretion as they gauge the feelings of the community. Part of the bureaucrats' job is to determine which votes are valid, and it is wholly appropriate for bureaucrats to discount sock-puppet votes, anonymous votes, and votes of people who clearly have no genuine involvement in the project. The overuse of extensions and whatnot have led to a Calvinball-like atmosphere where the rules are unpredictable. The process has become so unpleasant for nominees that it is a wonder we still have applicants.

I also believe that, in truly questionable cases, bureaucrats should close the vote and consult amongst themselves to determine the best course of action. -- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I am fine with the extensions and banner's drawing attention to votes without a consensus. All that does is allow a voter to make a vote, it doesn't encourage one way or another. But I am also fine with the simpler policy you outlined, no extensions, and if there is no consensus, simply don't promote. Also closing the vote, and making a determination amongst themselves seems fine to me. Admins and bureaucrats will always take heat for making decisions, but some greater consistency that would come from no extensions may help. - Taxman ^Talk 18:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here - I see one or two sockpuppet votes, in what way does this constitute such an irregularity to require a new vote? sockpuppets aren't exactly a rare phenomenon. I don't understand the thinking behind this action -- Joolz 21:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which action? You'll have to address that question to Raul and the other editors who discovered the problems. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's the combination of two sockpuppet, two votes that seemed to be opposing the procedure, not the user, and the fact that the voting hovered in the 75%-80% range for a long time. --Carnildo 21:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The action I refered to was the action of starting a re-vote. My question was addressed to the discussion and anyone who might have an answer. :P

The two sockpuppets could have simply been discounted, and the two users which oppose the process should be treated consistently accross all RfAs to which they voted, in other RfAs I believe that those oppose votes have counted with no need to restart the vote. -- Joolz 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda." Let's do a brief timeline. When the original vote expired, I examined it as I usually do and extended it for 48 hours. I posted my reasoning above, which you can read. At the end of the 48 hours I determined that consensus had not been demonstrated, based on the totality of the votes and comments, and ended the candidacy without promotion, but with an explanation of my reasoning in that, which you can also read above. Then Raul looked at the situation and restored the nomination for five days based on new information he had. I wouldn't have reinstated the nomination (it could come up again in another month, after all) if only that I believe that a cooling-off period would have been beneficial rather than to keep chewing this over. (For the record, I also considered another extension myself without Raul's intervention, but thought it not useful). But I firmly believe Raul acted in good faith and reasonably as he saw it, and that he was within his powers and trust to extend the nomination. After this became controversial, I proposed that the process was messed up and that the vote should be annulled. There were two ways to go: revert to the previous removal or start new. OR because a lot of editors had become interested in this we could clean out the votes, good, bad and doubtful. I proposed this and Raul agreed. And there we are. The process is back in the hands of the community, and in my often stated opinion, this is better than the other alternatives.

The heart of management is not to expect to always make the right decision, but to make a reasoned decision, and be able to justify it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UC feels that some of the actions I've taken undermine the process. OTOH I've been criticized in the past for putting to vote issues to gauge community sentiment, from which we got firmer opinions that show where sentiment lies and have enabled me and other bureaucrats to make hundreds of promotions with very little controversy. Sure, in the past we didn't have extensions but we simply left some nominations in limbo because noone acted and we had fights over the result of RfAs bcause the candidates and their supporters or detractors did not understand or have explained to them reason behind promotions and non-promotions. UC, you are mistaken. The community explicitly did vote on the propriety of banner ads by bureaucrats and on bureaucrats using their discretion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I made it quite clear in my comments above that the extension of ending times, in particular, has not been voted upon by the community. I disagree that we have made "hundreds of promotions with very little controversy," and even if that were true, it may not be a goal. Adminship, like it or not, has become a political matter. In politics, controversy is normative. But even in politics, it is vital that a sense of fairness and consistency be maintained. The problem we have now is that the voting period has no clear and unambiguous endpoint. Instead of promoting or not on the merits (and perhaps disagreeing upon them and discussing them) we end up in a disagreement about the mechanics of voting. A disagreement about the mechanics of voting is pointless, and is impossible to resolve without clear ground rules. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are correct, what do you propose as a solution? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for falling into the middle here :) I just wanted to make one comment, and that is that people who use socks to vote, or vote to make a WP:POINT, are likely to do so again if the nomination is ran again. So the best option would be to ignore them entirely. For the first that's relatively easy; any voting page (VFD, for instance) discounts sock votes. The second is a difficult judgement call, but personally I would trust the bureaucrats if they decided to discount votes that are extremely spurious (for the simple reason that the idea is to gauge consensus, not simply count votes). Of course, that also means discounting people who vote A because user:X voted B. The obvious result will be that people will still do that, but not give that reason - but it will make the voting less offensive to both parties (frankly I find voting A because a specific person voted B, rather offensive). Anyway I'm not saying that this is or is not a good idea; I'm just saying that I'd prefer bureaucrat judgement to an instant re-nomination. Radiant_>|< 10:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

What about user X voting A because user Y voted A? Is that any better or worse? I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that people will still do it and not give a reason. I'd rather know why someone is voting a certain way, regardless of how trivial I think the reason is. --Xcali 14:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extensions are potentially helpful for nominations that receive little attention, and restarts may be appropriate if significant new evidence comes to light. But as I've mentioned before, if the nominee is controversial, extending the vote will not make them any less controversial. The usual outcome is that support and opposition will continue to come in roughly the same proportions as before, as seems to be happening with Weyes right now. --Michael Snow 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove blank support/oppose votes? (Archive 27)

Boothy443, in particular, has voted "oppose" for no real reason. Should we have a policy of removing oppose votes if they are not qualified (ie. blank)? violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

I don't know if I am totally comfortable with that idea. On the other hand, given Boothy's record, I think it would be entirely correct for a bureaucrat to ignore his unexplained votes, since he has pretty much admitted that they are WP:POINT. I'd argue for case-by-case interpretation - that's what we have bureaucrats for. (Though granted, this did turn into an "attack the bureaucrats" free-for-all for a while). Guettarda 28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Oppose voters should have as much of a right to vote as Support voters. If anyone else has a problem with blank oppose votes, they can ask the voter to qualify their comments. The bureaucrats should be free to interpret blank oppose votes as they see fit. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

I agree, we should absolutely not remove votes of this sort, any more than we'd remove support votes with no reason given. Filiocht | Talk June 28, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Policy is to count all votes from logged-in users. If there is need for discretion as judged by one or more of the bureaucrats when it is time to make a decision, all circumstances are taken into account. That includes if someone such as Boothy443 is placing votes for the sake of proving a personal point. Once we begin to remove this vote or that vote or value this vote or that vote higher or lower than others as a matter of policy, we'll have endless battle on which votes should be counted. Boothy443 would just be the tip of the iceburg. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 28 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Not unless we're about to remove all unqualified support votes as well. Users who vote oppose do so for their own reasons and we should assume good faith rather than hounding them for justification. siafu 28 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

The standard for becoming an admin is "consensus," and vote count is just one guideline. It would be much much better if every voter would give an indication as to why they are supporting or opposing; but it is not required. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

No, as per siafu. Also, we choose bureaucrats for their judgment and so I trust them to use it; if an individual call seems to have been poorly made then question that call. (I find unqualified opposition completely unhelpful and unproductive, personally, both to the candidate and to others who might want to know what the concerns are before stating a position, but it should still be accepted and counted.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 28 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

I really dislike unexplained oppose votes, and often ask for people who oppose to at least give some indication of their reasons, but I wouldn't like to see them removed as a rule. Boothy's are a little different though. His behaviour is distinctly trollish. Good candidates are having unjustified objections put against their name because of one user's problems with the admin system and his disruptive way of expressing them. I'd be quite happy to see these removed. — Trilobite (Talk) 28 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements. Perhaps we should (informally) ask people to consider qualifying their vote if they, on multiple occasions, vote blankly. I really think that Boothy443's votes should be removed, though, as I can't see how we can assume good faith on that. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)

I think we should certainly encourage people to leave a comment, but never ask people to qualify votes (however annoying it is), as there is a much greater propensity to challenge opposes than supports, leading to a situation where people will either vote support or not at all. In extreme situations, such as boothy, I would still not challenge individual votes. Note that boothy has supported FCYTravis. Bluemoose 28 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

In discussion relating to my draft proposal I was informed that I was incorrect in calling it an election as there is discussion and debate following a request or nomination (unlike a political election where one casts one's vote and that's the end of it). Here we have the ability to change a vote throughout the nomination week depending on discussion in the original request. I think that if RfA just becomes a simple voting procedure, it is not only harder for the bureaucrats to determine consensus, but RfA will turn into an election - and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Therefore, I think that people who oppose without substantiating their reasons (even a simple "per <otheruser>" is sufficient) should be discounted. For support votes, I do not think they should be discounted if no reason is given, however I think it would be polite to offer a reason as to why. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

On what basis should silent oppose votes be removed whilst silent support votes stay? This seems neither fair nor logicial. -- Joolz 28 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)

In general, uncommented "support" votes mean "Support. I agree with the reasons given by the nominator". --Carnildo 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Because there is specific reasoning needed for a support vote - it means "I agree, given this person's previous contributions and statement, that this user could be a good admin". An oppose vote means "I disagree, given this person's previous contributions and statement, that this person could be a good admin". The first is more self-explanatory, while the second needs clarification with a reason. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is the first more self-explanatory than the second? siafu 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)

The nominator usually explains why they're making the nomination. Personally, I would like to recommend recommending more detailed nomination summaries (see below).

Indeed the nominator explains why the nomination is being made, but both support and oppose infer an understanding of that explanation. That is, assuming good faith, a "support" vote that's left without any comment means something like: "After having researched the issue as much as I needed to to satisfy my own personal criteria, I agree with the reccomendation of the nominator," when expressed with maximum pedantry. Change "agree" to "disagree" for an uncommented oppose, and unless I'm missing some clear difference that can be inferred a priori (a priori because this is a blanket policy we're discussing), both are equally self-explanatory. Therefore, assuming good faith, there is no reason to treat them differently, unless you drop this assumption. I do agree that there are times when it needs to be dropped, but I don't think it would be a good idea at all to institutionalize the practice beyond a case by case basis. siafu 29 June 2005 05:39 (UTC)

I find that refusing to leave an explanation is often an act rudeness, but some oppose voters may have quite legitimate reasons for doing so. For me, one of the most frustrating things is when users I respect leave no summary or only a deliberately vague one. When they do, it makes me more balky about supporting, but the only reason I have to oppose is peer pressure. However, my frustration does not mean that we should require explanations. Instead, we should encourage posters on both sides of the aisle to explain their reasons, and be pleasant if others request elaboration.

A policy of removing unexplained oppose votes can only be justified if we remove unexplained support votes as well. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 28 23:08 (UTC)

While I agree we shouldn't be removing votes either way based on this, there is a fundamental difference between support votes and oppose votes: All votes are based on the edit history of the user in question; if all the edits in the history are deemed "good" the person should be an admin and if there are "bad" edits the person shouldn't be an admin. So a support vote means you have by some method reached the conclusion that the entire edit history is "good", whereas an oppose vote means there is a "bad" edit. So in the support case it is based on the entire edit history, but an oppose is based on a small amount of bad edits, which should be linked or described as a witness (in the mathematical sense) of the person's unsuitability for adminship.

(The above ignores the experience requirement but that doesn't harm the argument. Also, there could be users nominated who have a large (>0.5) fraction of "bad" edits, but these would generally be troll nominations, and given one of those it'd only be easier to give a witness for the person's unsuitability). --W(t) 29 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)

"All votes are based on the edit history of the user in question" No, that's incorrect. Votes are based on whatever the Wikipedian wants to base them on. If a candidate has raised a user's animosity in some way, s/he may vote Oppose for that reason. If the candidate has raised enough users' animosity, the nomination will surely fail on that basis alone. Many voters will vote for or against on the basis of what they perceive as enough experience. Or the most important factor may be fear that the candidate will use the powers badly: take sides in edit wars; block editors they dislike; throw around their weight because "I'm an admin." Some long-term editors will probably never make admin because they're on the "wrong" side of an issue many other Wikipedians feel strongly about. Some feel that a candidate is too rude or has too short a fuse in dealing with others. Some think a user just doesn;t understand what an admin is supposed to do. And those reasons probably only scratch the surface. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 29 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Users should be free to vote as they please. Forcing users to justify their vote will create endless battles about whether the user's justification is valid. It will also discourage users from voting freely and with confidence. Bureaucrats can use their discretion in judging votes without explanation. Acegikmo1 29 June 2005 06:31 (UTC)

To my mind, the fundamental point that is repeatedly lost here is that we are trying to build consensus. That is, we are trying to find a proposal with which almost all of us are in agreement. Although the format leads us often to see it otherwise, this is not a binary vote. The motion is not "do you agree?", it is "are most of us in agreement?". This is a debate, not an instantaneous poll. Consequently, an unexplained vote is only constructive if it goes with the consensus. Since we assume good faith, a proposal will only be made if the proposer believes it to merit consensual support. Because of this, few support votes require explanation and most oppose votes do require it if they are not to terminate the voter's participation. An unexplained oppose vote that is not part of a consensual opposition says "there is no way this proposal can be modified to make it acceptable to me", or at least, that is how I read it.—Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 13:08 (UTC)

My view is that unexplained votes are fine, whether they are supporting or opposing. I think as a contributor you have a right to a vote regardless of whether you want to explain it. Remember also that there are some cases where a person may not wish to state their reason, as opposed to mere laziness. Everyking 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Now of course we shouldn't remove blank "votes", but they are certainly not helpful either. Yours and similar opinions are correct, you are allowed to vote without an explanation. But you're allowed to do lots of things, that isn't exactly a compelling factor making blank votes a good thing. The two major points, that have been made on this page, but seem overlooked, is that blank oppose votes and blank support votes very different. Based on the assume good faith policy, we are expected to assume an editor is worthy of trust unless there are good reasons not to. That's one reason opposes are different from supports. The other is that the nominator has already made positive comments about the user. Supporting is more or less just agreeing with that, so no comment isn't as much of a problem. The other thing your point and many other people on this page are missing is that the RfA process really isn't a pure voting process, it's job is to determine consensus, not count votes. It's just that it involves votes because a better way hasn't been found. So blank oppose votes are unhelpful in determining consensus. Allowed currently, but that doesn't change that they aren't helpful. - Taxman ^Talk June 29, 2005 19:56 (UTC)

"Oppose - shouldn't be an admin". There, a non-blank vote, which adds absolutely nothing over a blank one. Unless you want to start declaring certain forms of non-blank votes invalid and removing them too, the intent of this policy can be defeated with only a few words. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 13:53 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, let me make this explicit: I do not argue for controls on the ways that people state their votes/opinions. I contend simply that unexplained votes against the consensus admit of no consensus-building change to the proposal. I think this undesirable but I see it as each editor's prerogative to comment as they wish; just as it is each editor's prerogative to request clarification as they wish.—Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

• In a perfect world all votes would carry a qualification. We do not inhabit a perfect world. Nor do we have the right to demand an explanation for an individuals decision whether that be one of oppose of support. If a candidate really has no idea why a vote has been cast in a particular direction, he has the right to state that, which gives other voters etc. the opportunity to assess the vote concerned if it still remains unqualified. Boothy's is an odd case, but equally odd was the procession of ten editors, during Theo Clarke's nomination, arriving on Boothy's talk page demanding an explanation, that can hardly have helped his temper. My conclusion is all votes must be valued, until such time as policy dictates both support and oppose have to be equally qualified. I would then oppose such a policy as it smacks of intimidation.Giano | talk 29 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)

• When I go to vote on election day, there isn't anyone asking me my reason for voting one way or another, and threatening to ignore my vote if I don't answer. My reason is my own. If I want to help shape consensus here, I'll certainly give my reason. But I shouldn't be under any obligation to do so, regardless if I'm supporting or opposing. --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)
    • And that is not an argument. Everyking 29 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. I was merely giving an example. Sorry for the confusion. My point stands, though. My reason is my own, and I shouldn't be under any obligation to give it if I choose not to. --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

I've avoided commenting here, but some of the comments are just too ignorant of Wikipedia policies for me to take it anymore (and no, I don't mean to single anyone out). There are people here who are arguing that they should be entitled to make votes without having to give any supporting reasoning. These people clearly do not understand how decision making on wikipedia works. OF COURSE YOU SHOULD HAVE TO. The whole point is that this page, like all others, is supposed to work by consensus - reasonable people discussing ideas, and coming to a collaborated decision. If you are so inclined as to express an opinion, then it is expected that you help others reach a decision by giving your reasoning. If you don't want to for fear it will make you look stupid or petty - too bad - that's the risk you run. (Note - everything up to here applies equally to both unexplained supporting and opposition votes). Now, here's the critical difference between a support and an oppose vote -- Taxman was getting at it earlier but I don't think he expressed it clearly. Generally, people support on the basis of a good track record with no "bad" incidents. That is, you think someone is a good admin because of a lack of evidence they are bad. So when someone asks you why you think they would be good admin, you have nothing specific to point at (merely a lack of bad behavior). On the other hand, when you oppose someone, generally you oppose on the basis of one or a small number of incidents which exposed that person's judgement as questionable -- that is, you have a small set of incidents which you can point at affirmitevely and say "these are why I oppose". So, in summary - Yes, you are expected to give you reasoning, particulrly for oppose votes since they are much easier to give reasoning for.

So to clarify my position - while I don't think removing the oppose votes is a good idea (it's a really bad one, quite frankly), it's not a practice that should be condoned. I have no problems with people inquiring why someone voted one way or the other, and I fully expect that when questoined, the voter will respond honestly and in a forthright manner -- particularly for oppose votes, since (as I showed above) those are so much easier to respond to. People who refuse to give an explination should be given a good whack upside the head. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 21:14 (UTC)

• Raul, I have never read such a load of pretentious, pompous and intimidating codswallop in all my life. People can vote however they please, frequently do, and should be allowed to continue to do so, without people who should know better suggesting they should be hit, are weak or basically snivelling. Many people have many reasons for not wishing to disclose their views, if candidates allow themselves to be put up for what is in fact (whatever you choose to call it an election) then like anyone else wanting to be voted into authority they should be prepared for the the occasional rotten egg, if they can't stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)

• I would echo your comments back to you. Just because people can do something does not make it the right thing to do. People may not want to disclose their views, but they don't have to vote either. You have to reallize this process is whatever we want it to be. It has long been decided that voting is bad and what we really are after in RfA is the consensus that a user is worthy of the extra trust. We unfortunately vote anyway. But as has been said, voting without comments is extremely unhelpful in actually judging the consensus. - Taxman ^Talk June 29, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

• Voting is bad? Let's vote on it. Everyking 29 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)

I agree with Raul completely. The RfA process is a debate, not a vote, and not an election. I say it's not an election, because adminship isn't a job. It is just a set of tools, and the RfA process decides whether someone is likely to use them responsibly. In my opinion the only truly valid reason to oppose is a reasonable worry that the user will misuse one or more admin tools. A vote to oppose, therefore, should explain why you believe the user might misuse the admin tools (for example inexperience, hot temper, ignores policies, etc.) Now, I don't support removing unexplained opposition... but I have no problem with bureaucrats ignoring it. Isomorphic 29 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Unexplained opposes are anti-social and unhelpful. Unexplained support votes just mean everything's fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 29 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)

It's a vote. This silliness where we try to pretend democratic practices don't exist in the community needs to be tossed out. In any case you can't give and take in an admin vote, there's no compromising, the person either gets the adminship or doesn't. I think from now on I won't explain my oppose votes just to stand up for the principle that a contributor is entitled to a vote. Everyking 30 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

While I agree that blank oppose votes should not be removed, WP:POINT. That doesn't help anyone. Ambi 30 June 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Everyking: many democratic/voting/polling processes are employed on Wikiedia, but they are de facto processes. Such systems are not necessarily the best way to get things done, but they are nevertheless employed because many users refuse to doubt them. Though you are correct in asserting that RFA is a vote, please note that it shouldn't necessarily be a vote. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 30 06:56 (UTC)

What is wrong with a de facto process? The reason a process becomes de fact is because it works well. The implication here is that there is some other de jure process, but no such thing exists. Under what situation shouldn't it be a vote? I'd like to hear your criteria for deciding to override a majority of oppose votes. If you can't specify said criteria, then your entire argument is invalid. Ingoolemo, every single argument you've made so far can be equally applied to the opposing argument, it holds no water at all.

As for WP:POINT, if you actually read the page you'd see it's not a valid argument either. It's a guideline, not a policy. Also it specifically applies to DISRUPTING Wikipedia to making a point. Can you _honestly_ say that someone refusing to provide a reason for an oppose vote is disrupting Wikipedia?

In any case, I just love how the admins here are trying their absolute best to disengenuously change the process in order to ensure their continued status. The admins keep pretending that they're arguing from some "official" standpoint about the purpose of Wikipedia, but their standpoint is not one that was reached through consensus, it was reached through the views of a small minority of users (mostly vocal admins). Proof by contradiction, you are arguing that you need general consensus, but your views regarding the purpose of Wikipedia have not been reached through general consensus. Now is the point where you try to take some guidelines or policy and try to grossly distort their meaning to "prove" you have consensus (such as distortion of the meaning of WP:POINT).

Also, I notice no one is providing ANY criteria under which votes can be overridden. IF you are unable to specify this criteria, then it amounts to a secret rule used to silence dissenting views, which isn't valid from any standpoint. Nathan J. Yoder 1 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

I don't think removing blank votes would be a useful policy. If we adopt it, they'll generally be replaced by boilerplate I think this candidate would make a bad admin votes, or something equally unexplanatory. I understand we want people to give reasons for their positions, but if they don't want to we won't be able to force them. Josh

I think this is getting a little out of hand. I've argued that, Jimbo's famous quote notwithstanding, if many Wikipedians consider that this is a little more than "no big deal" (and they do) then it is more. But the argumentation here looks more like a rehearsal for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court nomination debates. It seems to me a hefty consensus has just expressed that the process was working well, and that if there were glitches, the bureaucrats could work it out. There is a long and honorable history of finding pleasure in "disputing" (check out Marlowe's Faust) but if this is supposed to be a policy debate, I think we should put more of this energy into the encyclopedia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 30 June 2005 07:04 (UTC)

• indeed. plus, oppose votes without comment more often than not trigger sympathy with the candidate. It is possible to oppose for all sorts of reasons. If users choose not to give theirs, that's up to them. But they should be prepared for questions, and not have a nervous breakdown over the cheek to question their motive like Netoholic just did. Everything is working fine, let's change things once they stop working. dab (ᛏ) 30 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)

OK, in the interests of experiment I've just thrown a question into FA, [1] this user has challenged what I feel is a very good prospective FA. I've never done this before and never will again, but am I intimidating him, challenging him , or encouraging him to vote, or never to vote again (I use the word vote loosely) lets all watch, (it's the Gauss article we are looking at) it won't prove anything but how comfortable does it make us all feel. I'm squirming already. Is this what some of you you all really want? Giano | talk 30 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Absolutely! This should not be an experiment, this should be regular practice. The person obviously has a valid complaint about the article, but he hasn't described it. How is the article going to improve, in his opinion, without his feedback on what is wrong with it? I'm not sure I understand why you would *not* want to do this. Talrias (t | e | c) 30 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)

I agree fully with Talrias. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Well I think he may feel imtimidated, he's stated his opinion and probably (with justification) feels that's the end of it. Knowing my luck he'll be somebody's sock anyway, but let's just see - be patient. Giano | talk 30 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)

He shouldn't feel like that's the end of it or be intimidated in the least. Are you kidding? How would be be intimidated? If he's here to try to help make the best articles (which of course we should assume he is), stating an opinion that the article is not good but not elaborating on how doesn't reach that aim. That's ok, he may just not have thought of that. Asking for clarification (as long as it is done nicely) on what he feels is wrong with the article is common practice on WP:FAC, and will actually help the article improve if he has some insights on the article's failings. The same applies to RfA. I also fully agree with Talrias. Remember polls are evil. We're here for consensus, not voting. - Taxman ^Talk June 30, 2005 22:16 (UTC)

I agree with what Taxman said, and I'll go one step farther -- on the FAC, at the very top, it explicetely states "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. " for the reasons Taxman has just lain out. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that quote? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

It's at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (it's actually found on the FAC instruction template - template:FAC-instructions) →Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:03 (UTC)

This is not FCA, Mark, it is RfA, where all votes count, it's been that way as long as I can remember, and those charged with promotion use their discretion only when absolutely necessary. Are we trying to change policy here? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Um, with respect, did you read all of the above discussion? Giano was making a comparison to the FAC, trying to use the FAC to justify not explaining opposition here. Taxman and I were pointing out that this is totally untrue, that the FAC rules *explicetely* require commentary, thus refuting his analogy. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

OK, since it seems I misunderstood, I apologize. But this discussion seems to have gotten quite rambling and diffuse, and I'm trying to understand the point of it all. Even if FAC did not have such an explicit statement, it is a different situation, since articles are chosen at FAC that are supposed to represent Wikipedia to the world. All we're doing at RfA is gauging sentiment on whether users should have the relatively few abilities that are restricted, though I think it is a little more important because admins are considerd, correctly or not, the human face of Wikipedia. Still, I can't find the promotion problems that are implied by all this verbiage. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

If you read my large comment above ("I've avoided commenting here, but some of the comments..."), you'll see it's not a matter of verbiage, but of principle. I believe that refusing to explain one's opinion inherently goes against the way wikipedia works -- it actively works against forming consensus. I also suspect this opinion is a pretty common one. Now while I don't think ignoring votes is a good idea (and removing them is an even worse one, IMO) I would support a rule requiring people to answer questions (with specificity) when asked. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 06:08 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that this principle - answer someone when they ask you a question - is an obvious bit of Wikiquette. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Then why aren't you for removing unexplained support votes? Your view is entirely inconsistent. All but one of your arguments can be reversed and easily applied to the opposing argument, especially considering your personal views don't represent any kind of consensus despite what you say. The only argument that makes an actual differentiation is with Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, which is not a valid argument anyway. That article was created specifically in the context of editing, not votes. It is also a guideline and not a polilcy. That is a complete distortion of the meaning of something which has nothing to do with voting procedures. It doesn't even make sense to apply it in the first place, since that would mean all admins would have to be self-appointed because, following your logic, denying them a chance to do with would be an act of "bad faith."

Interpreting it correctly though, it turns out that YOU are violating the guideline by assuming that an unexplained vote is in bad faith. They could very well have reviewed the evidence and used that to determine (not ASSUME) bad faith. No part of the guideline requires explanation and lack of explanation does not in any way, shape or form imply that they are ASSUMING.

If you _really_ think your views are supported by a general consensus, why don't you hold a vote to see what people think? I don't think you will, since you know the idea would get shot down by the vast majority AND you'll also try to argue that oppose votes in that case don't count either. I'll bet you the vast majority of those who would vote support are admins. Nathan J. Yoder 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

There are so many things that are blatantly wrong with your statement, it truely boggles the mind. It's quite obvious that you did not even attempt to read the earlier messages in this thread. I won't waste my time trying to refute all the totally wrong claims you just made, but here's a few of the whoppers:

• You say: "Then why aren't you for removing unexplained support votes?" while earlier I said "while I don't think removing the oppose votes is a good idea (it's a really bad one, quite frankly), it [voting without explination] is not a practice that should be condoned"
• You say "All but one of your arguments can be reversed and easily applied to the opposing argument" as if it is some revalation, not noticing that one of the very first things I said was "(Note - everything up to here applies equally to both unexplained supporting and opposition votes)." and then went on to explain why supports and opposes are different (supports are harder to explain for reasons I mentioend earlier).
• You say "your personal views don't represent any kind of consensus despite what you say" while I notice that my first comment had 3 of the 4 respondents (taxman, Iglomo, and Isomorphic) saying that they agreed with me.
• You say that "The only argument that makes an actual differentiation is with Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, which is not a valid argument anyway." which is obviously wrong because, as anyone can tell you, the consensus policy applies here just as much as it does everywhere else.

...and I could go on debunking you but I quite frankly, it's not worth the effort. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 00:23 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on what you wrote specifically, but on the amount of debating that's been going back and forth here since Weyes original nomination. As a general point, I always prefer people to make a useful comment when they vote; especially if they are voting oppose, since "opposes" are powerful when you're looking for 75%-80% positive feedback. Opposes should always comment, IMO, because (1) if they don't comment, their concerns cannot be addressed and (2) if they feel strongly enough against a candidate to oppose, they kind of owe it to others to share the reason for their opposition; if the oppose is well founded it might encourage others to oppose also, but if it's BS it might encourage others to support--either way, the candidate is being looked at more closely, which is proper.

Having said all that, keep in mind that if we drop a doubtful candidate, s/he can always come back in a month, and often get promoted on the next try. But, Nothing personal to a Wikipedian just promoted, but a 10-0 vote is the most minimal possible definition of consensus to me; it implies that few took the interest to really consider the nomination, and once an admin, (almost) always an admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Votes by newly registered users (Archive 27)

User:Facethefacts appears to have registered just to oppose WMC's nom. I was trying to figure out how this fits into voting policy. Do we have a policy on new users or sockpuppets voting? Guettarda 23:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's up to the closer's discretion whether or not to discount such votes. Jtkiefer 06:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting that that just came up. I have created Wikipedia:Suffrage for discussion on this topic; I would appreciate it if one of the Bureaucrats dropped by and briefly told us how they handle the matter on RFA. Radiant_>|< 12:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Question for B-Crats (Archive 27)

Do you guys count votes by user:Boothy443? He/she only votes oppose and does it without reason. So do you actually take it into consideration? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

He has voted support on at least 2 occasions. Lots of people dont give reasons. (i'm not a b-crat though) Bluemoose 20:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Really, he seems to only oppose. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is a quote from Denelson83's RfA. "This user has never given any specific reason for mass-voting oppose, which he does periodically. Oh, my bad, he has given a reason once: "BECAUSE ADMINS ARE LIARS AND CHEATERS! THEY ARE EVIL AND EAT PUPPIES FOR DINNER!" or something along those lines. So don't expect answers from him. His vote amounts to nothing on this RfA, anyway. --Sn0wflake 07:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)". Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me :) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FCYTravis was one support, cant remember the other. Also, his contributions seem perfectly reasonable as well, I would like to understand his reasoning properly though. Bluemoose 20:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

All this talk about puppies is making me hungry. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Stupid Admin!!! Oh wait, I want to join you in four days. I'll have to aquire a taste for puppies. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

No one's vote is discounted out of hand, including Boothy443's. In the event that such a vote might make a difference in promotion or removal, his vote as well as all the other votes are considered on the basis of their content. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. What do you mean "on the basis of their content"? All Boothy443's votes are blank. But thats what we have B-crats for. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 21:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I consider the content of the vote, the voter's degree of participation in Wikipedia (particularly when their participation is limited), and the voters' history of RFA participation. I consider the comments included in "neutral" votes. I have a greater expectation of rationale from "oppose" voters than "support" voters except when the nature of the objection is clear from other discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's one vote. And this isn't an election anyway, it's consensus-building. In the unlikely event that any troll or vandal or whatever casts the vote that means the difference between getting 80% or not, it should still be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, like the rest. If it comes from a generally unreliable source, and gives no specific reason whatsoever (Boothy), then it adds nothing to the attempt at consensus-building. The vote isn't discounted, but its total contribution to the consensus (0) is added with no change. That's how I'd go about it. But it's highly unlikely that we are going to decide an adminship based on Boothy's vote, so I don't know why everyone's getting so worked up about it. Of course, IANAB (I Am Not A Bureaucrat). --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You have answered my question. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

More about self-nominations (Archive 29)

User:Salvag recently voted support in his/her own self-nomination for adminship. However, User:Ulayiti did not do so in his, and copying his behaviour, neither did I in mine. What is the policy, is voting support in one's own self-nomination recommended, voluntary or discouraged? — JIP | Talk 06:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to know the answer to this as well. --Ixfd64 06:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

I was just about to post a question about this here myself... It's not generally done (I haven't seen anyone vote for themselves before, and I've been hanging around at RfA for quite a while), but there's not actually anything in the instructions that would prohibit it. It actually says, 'All Wikipedians with an account are welcome to vote.' That seems to imply that even the user themselves could vote, but I don't think this has ever been discussed. I took a quick look at the archives of this talk page and couldn't find anything about this issue. I think we should establish consensus on the matter and include it in the instructions, since this will just create more confusion if it's not addressed. Anyone else in favour of a straw poll? - [[User:Ulayiti|User:Ulayiti/sig]] 12:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of a strawpoll per se...isn't the user voting for themself by the mere act of accepting the nomination? Straw polls aside, ultimately the decision is not made based on a poll alone—it's based on the decision of the bureaucrats... Tomer ^TALK 12:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a poll is really necessary. Since the votes are not simply tabulated, they'll never be case where one vote puts the candidate over the top. In practice, the vast majority of RfAs are overwhelmingly supported or opposed. In really close votes, bureaucrats may choose to disregard the candidate's own vote. Carbonite | Talk 12:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you ask my opinion, the candidate's own vote doesn't count, as it is implicit in accepting the nomination. Therefore I support a policy of disallowing voting for oneself. The nominator should vote support, though, if he is not the candidate himself. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an election, bureaucrats gauge the consenus and make their decision based on that. Obviously they realise a self nominater wants to be an admin, regardless of whether they vote for themselves or not. However I think it would be a bit odd to vote on your own nomination. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, in real world elections, the candidates vote, presumably for themself... and their vote is counted along with everyone else'. The relevant point here tho, is that the bureaucrats look for consensus, not simple votecounts. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Tomer ^TALK 12:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

That actually varies. In an official governmental election, candidates can (and usually do) vote for themselves, but in smaller, private elections, voting for oneself is generally forbidden. I suppose the criterion is having far more voters than candidates. If all, or almost all, voters are also candidates, allowing voting for oneself will cause an (almost) completely homogenous distribution of votes, making picking a winner impossible. — JIP | Talk 12:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"...in smaller, private elections, voting for oneself is generally forbidden." Not under the rules in Robert's Rules of Order, or The Standard Code, or indeed, any other manual of parliamentary procedure I am aware of. Of course, Wikipedia is different because we (theoretically) don't vote, we have a conversation which does or does not show consensus. Jonathunder 16:00, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I was not talking about official political elections, but instead about informal elections in a private community such as a fanbase. Hence the term "private". — JIP | Talk 19:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, self-noms on RfA do not usually vote for themselves. A recent candidate, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK did vote for himself, insisted on his 'right' to do so and took quite a bit of heat for it. Since it's not a simple vote count, it doesn't really matter anyway. -Splash 12:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship is not simply an election, so I don't find the "you can vote for yourself" argument persuasive. The real issue being considered is whether the community trusts the candidate. We assess this by assuming that comments here are generally representative of the opinions of those familiar with the candidate.

The opinions of candidates about themselves are not terribly relevant to whether the community trusts them. It's worth noting that candidates who have insisted on "voting" for themselves have invariably failed — rightfully so, because it shows a lack of understanding about how things work on Wikipedia and disqualifies them for the level of trust that is required. --Michael Snow 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How can it be 'lack of understanding about how things work on Wikipedia' when the instructions say nothing about it? If we have 'secret rules' like that on RfA, it's only going to add to the impression of having an exclusive cabal in charge. Sure it's not an election in the conventional sense, but I think this is insufficiently explained in the instructions. - ulayiti (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

How many people read and follow every one of the instructions provided? (I've added it there, anyway.) The key word in my comment is insisted. The problem is not with people unfamiliar with this page and its customs, it's with people who aren't able to take guidance when someone says, "We don't do that kind of thing around here." --Michael Snow 17:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, voting "for" other people is too much! (Archive 30)

For the sake of the comments, I paste below the vote for Szyslak which Gordon, not Szyslak, added to section 1 above, claiming that it must represent Szyslak's opinion. Gordon, it was bad enough when you merely tried to order people to vote in your poll; actually voting FOR them really crosses the line. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently User:Szyslak opposes. He gave this logic when reverting: "this is not a common reason for RfAs to fail. GordonWatts' poll doesn't ban me from reverting this change" [2], but he can't take the time to discuss it on the talk page first like we did here, lol.--GordonWatts 19:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

His revert seems appropriate to me. You need to have consensus to make a change first for something like this, and there's clearly no consensus. Tuf-Kat 19:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary. WP:BOLD. On the other hand, if someone reverts you, then seek consensus for the change. [[Sam Korn]] 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your opinions, but can I say something? First, User:Bishonen, is wrong in her claim that I "voted for" the other fellow. I did *not* "vote' for him. Rather, I expressed my opinion (that's OK, right?) in saying that this is hop apparently to me I thought he was trying to vote. That's what concensus is all about, after all: Seeking to get feedback and see what the concensus is. Hey, I'm actually glad this fellow voted against me: It makes it easier for everybody to become an Admin (not just helpful to me) --because the text I added unnecessarily raises the standard, but I did it because I be bold and thought I was speaking for concensus. No one really knows what concensus is here: They say one thing in policy (no mention of "diversity"), but do another (voted me down, giving that as one of the reasons: I was not diverse enough, but instead too concentrated on one area of Wikipedia).

• Let's be clear on one thing: I did not pretend that I was this other fellow, nor did I say "he voted this way;" Rather, I said it was "apparently" the way he was attempting to vote. Don't put words in my mouth: I'm trying to eat, and it won't fit in there with all the food?! ;-) --GordonWatts 09:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody thinks you pretended anything, your straw men are as the leaves in the forest. I was charging you not with pretense but incivility and bullying. I'll add bad faith and rhetorical shamelessness, since you have to know Szyslak ("the fellow") wasn't "attempting to vote" at all. Or haven't you noticed nobody wants to vote here? Bishonen | talk 16:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "but incivility and bullying. I'll add bad faith and rhetorical shamelessness," I am sorry if I made you or your friend feel unwelcome, but I was merely trying to get feedback in my quest to identifiy the true concensus; I am going on (have gone on) a "Wiki-break," and may be busy with other things morerelated to my real life instead of Wiki, but I wish you all the best. Thx again for your feeback and concern, and I am sorry I was a little bit pushy to "get information" and "get your thoughts on these subject; My "mind-reading" powers are currently a bit low at the moment ;-), lol.--GordonWatts 18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the issue here is that you seem to be under the impression that the guidelines at WP:RfA are meant to be strict and all-inclusive. None of the guidelines listed say that you have to be promoted (or conversely, that you cannot be promoted) for any reason, no matter how many edits you have over any number of articles and any length of time -- people are allowed to vote as they see fit. Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, but apparently there is consensus that your edit history is a big deal. The guidelines are not supposed to be an exhaustive list of hard requirements for adminship, and I very strongly doubt there will ever be consensus to make them that. You nominated yourself for adminship. There was a clear consensus that adminship would not be appropriate for you, and your nomination therefore failed. That is precisely what is supposed to happen. If you think RfA would be better if there was something else there, then propose whatever change you like, but be aware that any change that turns RfA into something other than people voting as they see fit for whatever reasons they feel are a big deal, is certain to fail. Wikipedia is a chaotic, inconsistent and unpredictable system, but that is its greatest strength because it allows the flexibility to adapt to new situations and circumstances. You're not going to lawyer your way to adminship, and the more you try, the more it will convince people that you would be a woefully inappropriate admin -- possibly that's not what you're trying to do, but that's what it looks like, and that can only harm your reputation, cause a lot of ill will and waste a lot of people's time. Tuf-Kat 19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

^Kudos, very eloquently put. Ive repeatedly said that this will only tarnish his reputation. Now, even if the RFA process if "fixed", I doubt that he will have any support in the future if he keeps this up any longer.

^{Journalist C.}/ ^{Holla @ me!}

I've read every single post, and currently am on a "Wiki-break" because I am simply too busy, which now makes my RfA moot. So, did I go on the break because I found it "less" worth my while to stay around, or, instead was I too busy anyway and simply did not realize it? I don't know, but anyhow, I have posted a note regarding being too busy on my user page, talk page, and over at Jimbo's place. Thx again for all the feedback, and perhaps, I hypothesize that being busy and over-worked may have made me a little combative, but I was only trying to get some extra tools, and afterwards, decided to try and clarify some unclear areas to help other users (future RfA candidates, etc.) so they could be more clear on what the guidelines and policy really are: My gripe was that if policy said one thing and editors did another, it was unclear and ambiguous, thus prompting my request for feedback to ascertain consensus (something folks have said I needed to follow) -so, when consensus is identified and ascertained, we can more easily follow it. OK, Thanx again for your feedback ,TUF-KAT, Journalist, and colleagues.--GordonWatts 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

New proposal? (Archive 33)

First let me say that I am one of the strongest proponents of having every voter count, but do you think we should encourage RfA nominees to withhold from voting on other people's RfAs until their's is completed? I know I might take some flak over this, but RfA nominees may be voting support just to gain reciprocal support. It doesn't have to be a firm policy, but perhaps merely a suggestion? Anybody? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I promised to avoid doing just that, but I feel that Rob Church's RfA is something I want to contribute to. Yes, I could've waited, but I can see how maybe another user can have trouble doing that (because of time constraints). It opens the door for "misuse" but I think the policy is fine as it is. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I wasn't commenting on a specific person. I am not intending to single out people who may have done so in the past. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

LV, I didn't take it personally, but it did struck a chord, especially because of what I wrote when I voted. I know you it wasn't your intention. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a fair amount of that going on, even if partly unconscious. It's probably a minority of cases though, and even then not likely to get enough votes to actually influence the outcome. People that will be promoted will be anyway and those that won't, won't. That said, I am generally in favor of encouraging candidates not to vote while they are being considered, but I'm probably not in favor of making it a rule. To justify a new rule, it has to meet my instruction creep guideline which is, is the new rule important enough to overcome the cost of complicating the guidelines. In this case I don't think it is; there is a lot more cost to complicating policies and pocedures than many editors reallize. - Taxman ^Talk 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is, as usual, no need to constrain the RfA process in any way. It works fine as it is. People can see if people vote for others while their RfA is in progress and can reach judgements of their own based on that observation. We also have Bureaucrats who are skilled in understanding how RfA works. There is no need to add instructions to the process that wouldn't enhance it any. -Splash^talk 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Splash. The RfA procedure is working fine without further restrictions on who can vote. Joyous (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If a candidate is worth voting for (or merits opposition), anyone who holds this conviction should vote accordingly. Consider the possibility, rare as it may be, that your silence may make the crucial difference for a worthy candidate who would better promote the ends of Wikipedia through the judicious exercise of admin powers.  BD2412 ^talk 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally do not vote on RfA's while I am active in one, but that's a personal choice. I don't think we need this type of restriction, as it will be obvious if there is a rash of cross voting. Plus Splash points out that we have Bureaucrats for monitoring these things. Not to sound absurd or condesending, but will the next request be for other nominee's not to read another ongoing RfA, so as they don't get any ideas on how to respond on theirs? :-p m:instruction creep. Actually, I think they should all send in pictures of themselves in a chicken suit, because at one point or another you're gonna feel like a fool. Btw, my pic is in the mail. ∞Who?¿? 19:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I just see a lot of odd behavior lately around RfA, and thought about pointing some of it out. Stirring up the pot a little. (No, not WP:POINT.) We already have plenty of unnecessary rules and guidelines, so why not talk about a few more. BTW, BCrats are really no different than regular editors (same thing with Admins). Yes, I know they have different features, but they're really not better than the non-vandal, non-troll everyday editors. But that's a discussion for another place, another time. And this chicken suit you speak of... do we have to buy our own, or is there a community one that we can borrow? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A minor, very nitpicky point to raise here, BD2412. If one vote really is crucial to turn an RfA around, if it's that close, the user really shouldn't be promoted. There is obviously not consensus for him being adminned. gkhan 22:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you get into a problem of infinite regression - if a nominee gets 15 support and 5 oppose votes (75% support), you could then argue that but for a single one of those support votes, the nominee would not have enough suport and "really shouldn't be promoted" - that moves the bar up, but the same argument can be made again for the nominee who falls on the edge of the next level, until you reach the point where only 100% support qualifies a nominee for adminship. Of course, the argument is also reversible - if a nominee has 15 support and 6 oppose votes, and one of those oppose votes should not have been cast, you could argue that if it's that close (and with that much support), the user really shouldn't be denied promotion. An overarching concern, I think, is that under the prohibition being discussed here, not only would current nominees not cast votes, but they would also likely not provide the underlying rationale for those votes. If any editor can point to particular evidence of why another should or should not be promoted, that information is as important to the discussion as the vote itself.  BD2412 ^talk 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You're looking at this waaaaay to much like a vote. RfA is not, nor has it ever been about numbers. If there is general agreement ("rough consensus" i think the wording that's used), there are no major arguments against him/her, then the user should be promoted. It is a matter of bureocratic judgement. Ofcourse, if a user has important information about another user that would lead to him not getting the promotion, that's a whole 'nother cupcake, but this is not the case here (besides, that stuff always gets out one way or another). Lord Voldemort was talking about reciprocal support votes, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"-kinda-of-a-deal. One more "Extreme hula hoop support" should not, nor does it ever, tip the scales for a voter. gkhan 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In short, RfA does not violate the Sorites paradox :D gkhan 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

But bureaucrats do, to some extent, hang their hats on raw numbers (as they must, where not every vote to support or opposed is qualified by an explanation). Moreover, my overaching concern remains intact - that prohibiting some editors from voting will discourage their participation altogether, thereby depriving the process of the substantive comments which that editor may have made along with a vote.  BD2412 ^talk 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be a nice way of blocking someone who you think might vote against you, nominate them! ;-) --TimPope 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point. I assume good faith and hand't even thought about it that way--just business as usual, but can understand how appearances can be. I will also refrain from participating in RfA(s) (uh starting now) during a time period that I am involved. However, one should be careful with such restrictions--it could be proposed for other such consensus gathering activities such as AfD. We've all seen an individual nominate an article for deletion only to find one of their own nominated as well in retaliation. Such is communal life, I suppose.  :-) >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

One could argue that it is simply a matter of good taste and etiquette to refrain form voting when your RfA is up. On the other hand, if we cannot trust candidates with excercising their right to express their support or opposition to other RfAs, how can they be trusted with admin tools? I would argue that an "effusive" voter who's RfA is up, will be too evident of a trolling for votes excercise as to raise a red flag, visible for all to see. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the point BD2412 was getting at (or maybe he wasn't, but I took it this way), is that if an voter (whether up for adminship himself or not) can potentially bring to light things which would sway the votes of others, he should be able to vote. I see no good reason to restrict voting on RfA's while one is going for yourself, if a significant problem of reciprocal voting starts to occur, I'm sure we can do something about it then. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly the point I was getting at, thank you. I shall, in the future, endeavor to eschew obfuscatory rhetoric! ;-)  BD2412 ^talk 03:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A point to consider: Administrators should be sufficiently mature that they won't let their candidacy affect the opinions they express here. In my opinion, most of the cases where this occurs will probably be obvious, and should be dealt with accordingly—with closer scrutiny. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason not to vote on someone's RfA just because you're nominated for adminship yourself. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nominating people you don't know (Archive 34)

I think it is mildly strange that there are lots of users who clearly would benefit the 'pedia if they were admins, but have just never been nominated and don't nominate themselves for one reason or other. I also think the 'pedia is in pretty desperate need of more admins to help with AFDs, Copyvios, speedies etc. Therefore I want to start nominating more people, but people who I don't know and have had no interaction with, basically starting with the Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts, of course making sure they are suitable candidates first. I think I am pretty good at finding candidates (of the 4 I have nominated, including myself, non received a single oppose) but would it seem odd to nominate people like this? Martin 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not try to get to know them first? If you look at their contributions, you'll surely find some page that you have a personal interest in and could start contributing to. (And personally, I think how people interact with others on Wikipedia is far more important than a high edit count, which can come from not using the preview button, or even from engaging in edit wars!) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just zip them a little note saying that you thought they might make a good admin, but haven't really interacted much. If they are interested, then go ahead and nominate them. It never hurts to ask. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has nominated people with whom I've not had a personal history of interaction with, I see no problem with doing so. In such cases, it does pay to spend considerable time reviewing the potential candidates contributions, especially in talk space, to make sure there are no personality problems. Unfortunately, because people changed the RFA process, it is no longer possible to nominate and run. I once nominated someone and the first message I ever left on her talk page was that I had created the nomination . Dragons flight 19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case I'll try and find some good candidates! Don't worry, I will check their contribs thoroughly. Martin 19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why can't self nominate myself? (Archive 35)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minimum edits to vote? (Archive 36)

Should we have a policy that a person with less than 100 edits may not vote on RFA? This is to discourage sockpuppetry. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We have this rule on AFD and various other "votes", we should do here too. Make it 50 rather than 100 and you've got yourself a deal. Martin 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think adding a strict policy to that effect really does much more to discourage sock-voting. I mean, realistically such clear sockpuppets already don't get counted even on RFA, but people still attempt them. --Aquillion 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Its easy to rake up 50 edits in two days. PS I meant minimum "edits" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Which rule do we have on AfD? The only thing I could find is "suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin" on Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Deletion process. Since I close AfDs myself, I'd like to hear about customs that I'm unaware of. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer a mixture of duration and edits. Both low, but enough to discourage sockpuppets. Perhaps two weeks (from the date of the first edit) and 50 edits? At the very least, it would prevent sockpuppets from being created with the intention of disrupting a specific RfA (since they only run for 7 days). Carbonite | Talk 19:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Alas! I suspect that a few sockpuppets feed at least 2 kids (accounts) for a relatively long time. The suggestion would help fight newly created SP's (just hours/days before voting) but will never help stop other live SP's from voting. Same applies to AFD's. -- Svest 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Very true, but there really isn't a way of stopping determined sockpuppets without alienating newbies. I think's it's best to work on eliminating the more obvious ones. You know, the user created yesterday whose second edit was vote on an RfA. Carbonite | Talk 19:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree. A day of harvest is better than 10 of droughts ;) -- Svest 19:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Are you sure there isn't already such a rule (100 edits)? I always assumed there was, so I must have read it somewhere. I'd personally say it should be one month plus 100 edits. Before that, there's no proof of commitment, nor any guarantee that the voter is familiar with Wikipedia policy. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I kinda like Ann's idea, both limits are low enough to allow most users but high enough to discourage some sockpuppets. Also, it is important to point out that if somebody creates 2 or 3 socks and keeps them live for a long time, there is really nothing we can do. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Several points:

1. We elect Bureaucrats to make decisions on RfAs and I expect them to weed out socks as part of that. If they can't adequately determine raw sockpuppets, they should probably surrender their bureaucrat flag.
2. There is not and has not been a minimum requirement to participate in AfD. Those suggesting otherwise above are simply wrong (no offence, but they are). Admins routinely discount very new users or those with few edits when closing deletion debates. What constitutes "new" and "few" is left to their discretion. This appears to be working out fine, for the most part.
3. You can't stop sockpuppets. If I want to vote with a sleeper-sock, you can be sure I will, and you'll probably never know because I'll make sure my IP changes before I do so.
4. Will people please stop trying to policy-police RfA? It works. I repeat: it works. It works. It's a vipers nest at times (which probably contributes to its success in weeding out poor candidates), but it works. One of the reasons it works is because it is probably the free-est process page we have, and the less free the less successful it will become.
5. Very few socks actually participate here anyway. This is a solution that has no problem.

-Splash^talk 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suffrage#Formal_suffrage. Martin 21:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

...which makes very clear that there is no 'usual' threshold for participation in AfDs. -Splash^talk 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

...and that there is a precedent for this type of thing. Martin 23:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tempest in a tea-cup. In my looking at it, I can't think of a single RfA which has been borderline to the point that putative sockpuppets make the difference. The fundamental difference between a bureaucrat and an admin is closing RfAs. I assume they do their homework and surely if they do there is no issue; we don't need to say didactically "don't count votes from usernames started after the nomination." I'm premusing they don't do that anyway. Marskell 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to Splash's comment #1 above: Weeding out known sockpuppets is fine, but how do we determine who is a sockpuppet if the account is unknown? We just gone through Anon Editor's RFA which saw sock voting. I've asked for a guideline so that those with few edits can be marked as possible sockpuppets. I want to know the threshold for few. Unlike AFDs, RFA is a lot more sensitive and attracts a lot more votes. We're dealing with people here, not inanimate articles. We can't stop determined sockpuppets, I know, and if you look closely at my post, it was to discourage casual sockpuppetry. Very few socks actually participate here anyway. That's not a helpful statement nor a panacea for bogus voting. =Nichalp «Talk»=

• To answer your question, there is no set threshold for "few", because any such threshold would be arbitrary and gamable (e.g. if we were to set the threshold at X edits, any sockpuppet with X+1 edits could start rules lawyering about it). See Wikipedia:Suffrage for details. Radiant_>|< 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Should I ignore a vote if the account has <50 edits and/or was created <1 week. (I must add that I have a personal stake here. A newbie opposed my RFB just because I removed copyvio images from an article!) As for the n+1 vote: "gaming the system" is always possible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say 100 edits, at least a week combined is more than enough to stop 90% of sockpuppets  ALKIVAR™ 12:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, 100 edits and a week are reasonable guidelines, however we do not strictly write them down like that, because that would imply that a user with 101 edits and 8 days can never be a sockpuppet. There is an obvious gray area here, but for instance an account that has made two edit a week to certain kinds of votes for the past year, and no other edits, is a probable role account and may in some cases be discounted on that grounds. Radiant_>|< 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Socks should not ever be able to influence an RfA because the Bureaucrats should be able to recognise an established editor's well-argued oppose vote and distinguish that from a 1 week old account, or a newly pseudonymous troll unable to construct a coherent argument. If someone is using a well-established sock and writes a cogent argument, you can't stop them anyway. There is no reason to start dressing RfA up in hard guidelines. I reiterate: RfA works, and has worked well in the past due to the experience and care of the Bureaucrats. I do not see a problem that needs fixing. If a 'crat finds it hard to weed out socks, then they can leave such RfAs to 'crats that are happy undertaking that task. -Splash^talk 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Maximum number of nominations per week? (Archive 44)

I agree with Eric who says we need to scrutinize nominees more carefully. But it's very time-consuming, especially when so many are being nominated. Should we consider putting a cap on the numbers nominated each week to give us time to pay more attention? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Obvious problem: start of the week gets flooded, nobody can add through the rest of the week. I think a steady-random trickle's easier to keep track of and fairer to the people doing the nominating. The Literate Engineer 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a much less acceptable "solution" than a quorum. However, I'll re-iterate that I would oppose any measure which would make adminship harder to attain, as I see RfA's main problem being that it rejects too many perfectly good users, often for spurious reasons. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about limited nominations per day? That would be a bit fairer and would also limit the number of candidates being voted on during any period of time. That way, they could be scrutanized better. I think that would cut down on the amount of jerks being elected admins. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 06:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Same problem - what if the jerks all self-nominate in the morning? Then the quality editors are stuck waiting while we waste time debating the hopeless cases. BD2412 T 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• As Wikipedia continues to grow, so will RfA. Various projections I have done all have pointed to the possibility of more than 100 RfAs per week ~1-2 years in the future. I've noted the very real scalability issues before with that possible situation. Capping the # of RfAs per x time period only serves to reduce the pool of active admins vs. the number of active users. This is a poor solution. --Durin 15:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A better solution (or maybe partial solution) to both these problems is to implement rollback privileges only (actually the software feature to support the privilege is in place, but it can only be assigned by stewards, so a little more work has to be done). It will be somewhat easier to vet nominees when they have a history of using (or abusing) one particular privilege: I agree that admin behavior in general doesn't seem to have been very good lately (deletion, protection and block wars; edit wars on the interface), but a fixed number is always going to be problematic. Similarly, decoupling admin privileges from each other might help the scaling issue pointed out by Durin. Demi ^T/_C 15:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm going to retread an old proposal and say that we should have two levels of adminship, with regular admins getting the rollback button and the power to semi-protect pages, delete pages in the article space, and impose short-term blocks on individual anon IPs, and who would be promoted with a fairly low threshold; and senior admins getting the full array of powers, and requiring approval for promotion under the current system. Almost everybody could become a junior admin by just not being a vandal or a complete ass, and they would get the powers most useful in fighting vandals and doing the basic cleanup tasks. This would serve as a vetting ground for senior admins, who would be able to fight the more clever vandals and deal with edit warring by imposing indefinite blocks and imposing full protection on pages, and who could delete images and user pages as needed. BD2412 T 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Deletion and semi-protection are powerful tools which can easily be misused by an inexperienced, if well-intentioned "junior-admin". The fact that these actions are "reversible" is only partially true; the damage to the community from an incorrectly speedied article or a semi-protection hastily applied to enforce one POV over another cannot be undone. Granting such powers to an inexperienced user may quickly alienate many others who suffer the consequences. I do, however, strongly support implementing the Rollback permission class, and granting it liberally to any registered user in good standing (2 weeks, 150 edits, zero vandalism). Owen× ☎ 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not suggesting we hand out the powers willy-nilly, just that we use a lower threshold for some lesser powers - the candidate would still need the support of the community, so we would not be "granting such powers to an inexperienced user", but rather to the user with enough experience that we don't think they'll run off on a deletion/semi-protection spree (but perhaps someone we'd like to see more from before they get the full array of powers). Anyway, someone who misused the powers would lose them (and obviously would never get to handle the full powers). BD2412 T 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In organizations that promote individuals to positions of responsibility, it is not unusual to have an organized system for research into that person's past. A research report is made available to the entire community that documents the person's record of past activities, particularly activities that may be diagnostic of the person's trust-worthiness. The advantage of such a system is that it reduces duplication of effort. Currently, if someone knows of something that is particularly good or bad from a candidate's past, they mention it during the vote. This does not prevent many people from performing the same time-consuming research on the candidate. Some of the research could be automated, such as determining what percentage of a user's contributions have been reverted by administrators. There could be a "background check" page associated with each candidate where other users would share all of the research that they have done on a candidate. For example, if a candidate nominates many articles for deletion, I might check and count how many of those nominated pages were actually deleted. I could provide a list of links to the votes for deletion on the candidate's "background check" page, making it easy for everyone else to quickly review them. If we were systematic about listing the components of such background checks, it would probably be possible to automate many of the most useful ones. --JWSchmidt 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The only slight problem is that many Admins use rollback to revert stuff they should be reverting manually. And why only Admin reverts, many regular editors do great revert work. Just sayin'. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While such a "background check" seems reasonable, it will be very vocally opposed. There are and will possibly always be at least some Wikipedians who would be against any given measure of a candidate's acceptability. For example, you note the number of nominated AfDs vs. number actually deleted; there are going to be people who vociferously oppose that as a measure of the suitability of a candidate. There is not one single attribute of a candidate's acceptability that is without controversy. People have and will argue against any measure that might be raised. Putting a bunch of measures together on one page and calling it a "background check" is likely to produce much concentrated animosity. I for one would support such a page; let everyone contribute to the research so it doesn't need to be re-done over and over again, and let people review the page for their particular measures; not that a candidate needs to pass all of them, just the ones a particular viewer wants to see a candidate pass. But, any attempt to create a page like this for candidates will be met with very vocal (and in my opinion misguided) opposition. --Durin 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to any new rules about the minimum number of votes per admin or maximum number of nominations per week. This is all instruction creep and not clear how it will make better quality admins.

Let the bureaucrats decide please. And if you see admins who don't seem to be doing their job well, just talk to them; they may need advice and guidance. If they abuse their position, report them at WP:AN/I. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, thank you Oleg for being a voice of reason. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure I agree with the proposed changes (need to give it some more thought), but just a comment: over at the steward elections, they're using a 30 vote minimum and 80% support in order to be selected as a candidate for the board to choose, and that system seems to work pretty well. Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I approve of a kind of background check. Sure people will make a stink about it. That's why I propose it not be as extensive as is done in other organizations. Another problem with this idea though: Power tends to corrupt. People who me have been very courtious may turn sour once given higher power. Most murders are from first-time offenders. Many have a clean record. I do believe that this problem will never fully go away, but it can be reduced and managed. And that's what we should be trying to do here.

P.S: I'm one of a handful non-admins to post here. I feel so alone ;). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless their's a concern the RfA page might get too long, this is ridiculous. -- Eddie 04:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  WP:NOT a democracy. We are not conducting a vote. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Voting (Archive 44)

The two current/recent bureaucrat votes show a problem with voting for this position. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the community expects a higher degree of consensus for bureaucrat than admin. Put numerically this has been about 90% or better. The circus surrounding voting is bothersome. Not just looking at these nominations but for the future, remember that bureaucrat judgment is a "lowest common denominator" situation; i.e., the most liberal bureaucrat can promote even if the others don't think promotion is merited.

It would seem that a number of editors are voting Support in a popularity contest. It would seem others are voting Oppose for petty reasons or for personal spite.

Therefore: I propose we consider that only admins (of which there are now more than 600 as opposed to about 300 a year ago) be allowed to vote for bureaucrat. This makes sense for two reasons: (1) by definition admins are our more experienced users and have already gained a community expression of trust; and (2) admins do not have a vested interested in some person becoming a bureaucrat, since their adminship status cannot be affected by a bureaucrat in the future. Another aspect of (2) is that admins are less likely to engage in petty tactics, "beauty contest" or spite voting.

I have divided the voting into admins and non-admins, so we can see the relative sentiment in these groups. Please feel free to elaborate your positions, but if they are extensive, put it under Comments. Thanks, Cecropia 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: Should administrators only be allowed to vote for bureaucrat?

Yes

1. Support - Bureaucrats have one key purpose, which relates to the promotion of new admins. The skills necessary for this purpose are best evaluated by those who have had sufficient participation and interest to garner adminship. Non-admins can still participate in the discussion, and can raise legitimat points of concern. BD2412 T 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Logical, as potential admins are only affected. But to say that "admins are less likely to engage in petty tactics, 'beauty contest' or spite voting" is extremely short sighted - cliques and pile-on popularity voting is equally likely to occur amongst admins, especially considerring VfB and the votes made therein are decidedly nothing more than unnecessary popularity contests. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per BD2412 with Jeffrey O. Gustafson's caveat. I'm not a fan of instruction creep, but considering the role of bureaucrats its not a hard step to take. --Syrthiss 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. To reduce popularity contest and sour grape modivated votes.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No

1. Oppose I don't think the problem is so grave as to require such extraordinary measures (I did look at the votes in there). Besides, whoever decides to promote the bureaucrat should be smart enough to sift through frivolious oppose votes. Also, I don't want to give other people more ammunition in claiming that the admins are above ordinary users. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose seems like instruction creep to me. We don't need more restrictions on voting. One of the reasons that many new users (including me, when I was one) like wikipedia is beacuse there only a few things restricted to admins only. This seems like a solution in search of a problem, I for one have not seen any need for this in recent RfBs. At some point will we only allow bureaucrats to vote for stewards? -Greg Asche (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
3. oppose for similar reasons to those expressed above. However, see also comments. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose (1) it is not as if admins are the only ones who are experienced. (2) are you trying to suggest that non-admins will vote for a b'crat expecting favours (?!) later if they go for an RfA ? Tintin Talk 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   See comments -- Cecropia 05:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Unacceptable, unless the bureaucrats are prepared to put a stop to adminship being denied users for trivial reasons. Many perfectly trustworthy users are denied adminship on spurious grounds (at least if we are interpreting adminship as a measure of trustworthiness). As long as admin candidacies continue to fail for reasons like: too few edit summaries, not enough talk page posts, etc., adminship is not an effective way to single out trustworthy users. (I also merged the comments section, as it seems you would want people to respond in thread whether they are admins or not. Feel free to revert.) Christopher Parham (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   As long as I've been at Wikipedia it's been policy that admin voting can be for any reason whatsoever, even a stupid reason. Bureaucrats are only empowered to sort out the reasoning in close votes, and we do. A change in bureaucrat policy on this would require an expressed desire for a different policy from the community. -- Cecropia 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   I understand this, but that policy unfortunately conflicts with the idea that the admin population coincides with the population of trusted users, which is pretty fundamental to your proposal. There's no reason to restrict voting for bureaucrats to admins when adminship effectively means "this user meets the arbitrary criteria of 80% of whoever happened to be voting that week." Christopher Parham (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Absolutely not. Being an admin only entitles users to a few extra tools. Their vote does not become more important than that of any other user. Wikipedia is communist, everyone's the same. Proto t c 10:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Hell no! Regular editors are not second-class citizens, and adminship should be no big deal (including no extra privileges) ^BlankVerse 12:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Administrators should not be granted extra priveleges when it comes to voting anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose there should be no Cabal. Izehar 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Strongest possible oppose - Regular editors are not, and must never be, treated as second-class citizens. Nandesuka 13:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Echo a number of sentiments above regarding equal treatment of all Wikipedia editors. We all started with one edit. There is an increasing elitist attitude, perhaps fostered by bunker mentality, that experienced editors have more valid opinions on Wikipedia than others. This is antithetical to our purpose and must be put down. Any sufferage issues need to apply to all users equally, admin or no. --Durin 13:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose. I'm not a fan of separating the value of the vote of an admin and the vote of an editor. However, this is a weak vote because I agree that something has to be done. I've seen so many perfectly valid admins get voted down for relatively minor reasons (such as "we don't need more bureaucrats"). Indeed, there's only been one successful RfB in a long time, and he only succeeded because a bunch of people on IRC got wind of it and piled on their votes. I think RfB needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure if this is the way to do it. --Deathphoenix 13:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose This is not necessary and not democratic. But maybe a rule should be imposed that all votes (also for RFA's, and for support and oppose votes) should have a minimum of two lines of explanation. --Kefalonia 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I agree that there should be some reform, but this might be a bit too much. I would, however, be open to the idea of some less-extreme form of limitations on who can cast meaninglful votes on RfBs. Youngamerican 14:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
15. I am not an admin, yet I think I should be able to support or oppose candidates for Bureaucrat. TacoDeposit 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
16. No. Let any registered user vote for bureaucrats. We don't need a hierarchy like "only people at level n-1 may vote for level n". — JIP | Talk 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose.Registered editors should retain the right to vote for RFB's. I do agree with User:Kefalonia that explaination for support or oppose should be a requirement.--Dakota ~ ε 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Nandesuka said it best. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Please note that I am not trying in any way to demean non-admins or suggest admins are a higher life form. I am saying that bureaucrat is a position which merits a bit closer scrutiny because bad choice can have almost impossible-to-reverse consequences. -- Cecropia 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your statement above doesn't seem to explain why you think that encouraging 75% of the editing population from looking at the nomination would increase the amount of scrutiny provided. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Everyone can still look at the nominations and comment. I'll put it this way. Until now, bureaucrat voting has not been so massive and seems to have been taken more seriously. As of now, I (and very possibly other bureaucrats) would have to fail the current nominations, and I don't feel they are being seriously enough evaluated. -- Cecropia 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems pretty likely that people will be less eager to contribute to a discussion when they are relegated to an advisory role underneath more privileged users. And again, there seems to be no evidence that the RfA process will produce users more likely to take the nominations seriously. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean discouraging? In regards to Cecropia's comments, I don't think admins scrutinize say RfA candidates any more thoroughly than non-admins do. Also, your comment about admins not being affected by bureaucratic decisions isn't true: an admin can be de-adminned and be up for adminship again. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• part of the problem here is that 90% is ridiculously high. One oppose vote (and we are getting a few spiteful-seeming oppose votes) can wipe ten support votes. I'm not saying we aren't getting "popular: support" votes, but in this context they are far less of a problem than "unpopular: oppose" votes. The question is, how to handle that - do we let bureaucrats decide which votes are "for valid reasons"? (tricky and problematic), do we restrict voting as has been suggested (which won't remove the problem, just reduce it), or do we do something else? I'd personally favour dropping the requirement to 83% (5/6), but admit that it doesn't address the original problem directly. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Since we are looking at ensuring only diligent voters vote, why not restrict it to people with minimum 3 months & 450 edits on a trial basis for the next two RFBs? Personally, I feel 90% is justified given the trust that is placed in the post. I understand that arbcom posts have only an approval rating, however. --Gurubrahma 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  The general consensus for the minimum RFA nom is 3 months & 1000 edits. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  I think Gurubrahma was saying that there should be a minimum criterion for voting on an RfBs, not the criterion for being an admin. Or were you proposing that the 3 months and 1000 edits be a criterion for voting on an RfB? -- Cecropia 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I didn´t see it that way. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• What about trusted and experienced users who do not want to take up adminship responsibilities? Would it be fair to them? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage requirements (Archive 45)

Today's failed RfA of abakharev demonstrated how sock puppets may rig voting and mislead other voters into believing there is a substantial opposition to the nominee. Bonaparte's socks exposed in this case also voted on other RfAs. To avoid such problems in the future, I suppose we should articulate some clear suffrage requirements on the par with those applied the in ArbCom elections. It is unacceptable when admins are elected by people totally uninvolved in Wikipedia. Only those who have a certain number of edits (say 300) and a certain time of editing (say two months) should be allowed to vote. I'm curious what others think about it. --Ghirla | talk 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here's my wacky thought on this process. Since only registered users can vote, and votes by new users are discounted, let's semi-protect RfA's (thereby automatically knocking the newest 1% of users out of the voting pool). BD2412 T 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting idea, though I don't think we should prevent anons or new users from simply commenting in RFAs. --Interiot 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree in principle, have you ever seen an anon (or even a newbie) make a truly useful comment in an RfA? It takes some time on Wikipedia just to have a frame of reference on what admins do, and which non-admins would be good at doing that. BD2412 T 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they could always just use the talk page... but that's not what we were told Semi-Protection would be used for. Wouldn't we need to amend the policy first? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sometimes my brain works faster than my fingers - what I am proposing is indeed a change in policy. BD2412 T 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you preemptively SEMI RfAs, what about preemptively SEMIing AfDs then? Then why not just preemptively SEMI articles mentioned in the news or on certain blog-type sites? I know, I know... slippery slope arguments are weak sometimes, but would it not fall under instruction creep? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It will work for the time being but the puppeteers will eventually get around it with 'experienced' puppets. It would not have stopped Bonaparte. He has 4000+ votes; he could have easily created three or four pups with a few hundred votes each. Tintin Talk 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's idea has been going through my mind lately as well, and in fact I was planning to discuss the subject here asap. Not only because of Bonaparte's now notorious exploits, but a simple analysis of other current RfAs also show other suspicious votes. Indeed, it has been as if you had read my mind, Ghirla - the recent ArbCom elections have shown that establishing minimum requirement for voting can effectively shed a light of transparency over the process. It shouldn't be as rigid as semi-protecting the RfA pages, imho, but to establish a criteria of minimum participation prior to the beginning of the voting in order to qualify. Since, for obvious reasons, the requirements to participate in the ArbCom elections were set in a minimum of 150 edits and 3 months of registration, I think that those to take part in RfA should be lower; i.e. 100 edits and a month respectively.

It is certainly a possibility that eventually a few "professional" sockpuppeteers could go around it by making accounts beforehand and artificially incrementing their edit counts. Yet I believe that taking the effort of doing so will also discourage many potential sockpuppet voters not as dedicated as Bonaparte, since it will surely take lots of work to have merely one sockpuppet account with flawless looking contributions, properly distributed in time and subjects as to not to arise suspicion - not to mention many of them.

Interiot's comment is also correct: while this newest part of the community may not be allowed to vote, they should nevertheless continue to be entitled to express their comments at the proper RfAs. Although this may not be a complete solution, it would imho solve a large part of the problem.-- Phædriel ^*whistle* 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom voteing standards have not been contiversy free and 300 would be way too high a barrier.Geni 15:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support a suffrage of 100 edits & 1 month. -- JamesTeterenko 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a Poll (Archive 47)

I think the bottom line here is that this is a democracy and as in society we do not get to pick and choose who gets to vote!!! Mjal 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT.

Well I'm going to assume that because were voting this page is a democracy!! Mjal 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't assume that here. It'll just upset you and lead to more exclamaton points. See WP:NOT again.Gator (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Without intending to take a stand on who should and shouldn't vote, all democracies have the concept of enfranchisement. Taking the U.S. example, there are age requirements, citizenship requirements, residency requirements including minimum time for state and local elections, felons in many states cannot vote. -- Cecropia 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking Cecropia - I would have never thought of that! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine we will call this a poll because all members are allowed to vote as it states under the who may vote section "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote" Mjal 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

True, with the exception that Bcrats now consider "very new users" for the likelihood that they might be socks or vandals. There have been numerous attempts to formalize a minimum time/edits, but they've all talked themselves out without setting a rule. I don't think minimum edits is a good idea, since it is so easy to rack up trivial edits, but a month in time might be useful. Just my personal observation, nothing more. -- Cecropia 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the merits of it, but as Gator implied above, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Deathphoenix 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there appears to be reasonable support on WP:AAP for requiring a suffrage of (1) 100 edits, and (2) account age of one month. >Radiant< 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If in fact that is a requirment then I have ment that requirments standards but I don't think it is. Remember I not discussing whether or not the rules should be changed but I'm stating that my vote is legitimate. Mjal 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• (Responding to Radiant) 36-19 on first blow through. That's 65%. That's at the very bottom edge of consensus, if you can call it that. I grant that there's support; I don't know that there's support sufficient to cause change. --Durin 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am not sure how widespread the support for that is. Can you explain exactly why a poll on admin accountability included a poll on minimum time periods/vote count on RfA? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• There was a discussion in Archive 45, and I'm sure previously. The people who discuss things on this page are of course only those with an interest. NoSeptember ^talk 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, aye, this discussion has been going on as long as I've been here. But those who discussed it there are of course only those interested in creating an "administrator accountability policy", which many aren't. I'm questioning its relevance, more out of curiosity than anything else. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think the nomination trolling (Bling-chav's nominations and previous instances like BabyBaluga) is the bigger problem. Bureaucrats are good at discounting socks and suspicious newbies, maybe we just need a policy to prevent nominations from those with under 100 edits (including self-noms). At least require them to get a bureaucrat's approval first. With such a policy, we could revert bad nominations on sight. NoSeptember ^talk 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't the activists here just tag a suspicious voter's vote by displaying their edit count and WP age. That would reduce the burden on the b-cats and would be simple to verify. No special rules needed, just displaying the voter's profile (and by that perhaps intentions). hydnjo talk 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and if you want to know what I really think well, for openers no self-noms and for a followup, nominations must be by an admin. With 668 current active admins there should be no problem getting one of them to agree to nominate. Sort of a voucher or good faith credential. hydnjo talk 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• To Durin - true. I didn't mean to make that suffrage policy now. I was just pointing out that several people found it reasonable. It's obvious that there is some support for suffrage. I have not as yet seen much opposition to it but that of course doesn't mean there isn't any. Suffrage is not something we should reject on principle (nor, of course, instate without thinking).
• To Sam Korn - the issue of how accountable admins are has obvious reflections to the promotion process. Besides, it needed a concise name. I think if you'd look over that poll you'd find a broad number of people who expressed their opinion on it. It is obviously relevant; we can argue about whether it's representative, but to me it seems to be so.
• >Radiant< 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It just feels like we can't really do anything because we are NOT this and that. I'm starting to wonder what the diddly are we, then? We work for consensus, but on some forums, including this one, we can't get one. Perhaps we are deluded, in the sense that we still believe that an utopia is possible? Redux 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• We are an encyclopedia. People are promoted to admins if there is consensus to do so, as judged by the bureaucrats. We are discussing changes to that system on this talk page, and if there is consensus for a change, it will be implemented. It's not perfect but it works most of the time. >Radiant< 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We are an encyclopedia on the "front" of the articles. But the places where we interact as a community are the talk pages (of all namespaces). In those places, we work on the encyclopedia, but not just that. This very forum, for instance, is not directly related to the encyclopedia, which is the articles, but rather to the community. And on this aspect of the project is where we seem to be lost. We are so concerned with not being so many things that we run the risk of ending up being nothing — ok, a little melodramatic :P, but you get the point (I hope). Redux 01:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Am I totally off-the-wall by suggesting that a nomination be done with the imprimatur of one of the 668 active admins? hydnjo talk 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, of course not. It is a valid suggestion. Our problem is that we can't articulate any kind of general agreement. We talk, talk and talk, and after all this talk, someone asks if there was a problem to begin with. And we just keep talking, and getting nowhere with it. Of course nothing changes because no consensus to change has been reached. We are working in a way that makes reaching a clear consensus all but impossible. I've lost count of the suggestions to improve RfA that have been made, both here and elsewhere. Some were good, others not so much. Bad ones are peremptorily rejected, but the good ones usually end in the same way: "no consensus reached". I actually made a suggestion not directly on improvements to RfA, but rather on a way that could make it possible for us to review RfA effectively (change or not, and if so, how? — you can see an outline here), but most people didn't pay much attention to it. So we just keep talking, and talking, and... Redux 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've had interaction with several newcomers who seem to think that they haven't really arrived unless they carry the admin badge, and for no other discernible reason. It becomes a goal or a status symbol rather than a tool or a privilege. I hate that but I do see it happening. Within their first month of existence here, seeking advice and posturing for the admin badge as though it bestows importance as in a usenet environment. hydnjo talk 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hydnjo has a point. I joined in November, and the first month or so I was here I thought the same thing about admins (I wised up when I decided to go see what an admin really was). Right now, it someone were to nominate me, I would not accept their nomination because I'm not ready for that kind of responsibility...yet.:)-The Scurvy Eye 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I could be an army of "one" with my oppose vote (just like you know who from our past) and post an oppose vote for any self-nomination or any nomination from a non-admin. My preference however is for the community to agree that these fairly liberal requirements for nomination become our guidelines. Please respond with your argument against my position so that I can re-examine my position. Please note that this isn't a suffrage issue but a candidacy imprimatur requirement, no big deal if the candidate is of admin caliber. A fairly minimal threshold. hydnjo talk 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To require that someone be nominated by an admin is to make being an admin a bigger deal than it is now. Admins would be priviledged in personnel issues too, instead of just janitors. That is not a good trend. Nor do I have a problem with self-noms, it would be strange to require a nomination to request adminship while at the same time requiring self-nomination to be a bureaucrat (which seems to be the preference there). A good candidate is good independent of who nominates them, or whether they self-nominate. The suffrage issue is just about avoiding complete newbies who likely don't understand wiki (or socks) from distorting the process. To treat users (who have enough experience to understand the system) differently is a major change in creating a hierarchy of rights, and is something we should want to avoid here. NoSeptember ^talk 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to banning self-nominations. Yes, most editors worthy of Adminship would have little trouble finding someone to nominate them, but we shouldn't make personal relations a requirement. I can understand the desire to bar sub-par nominations, but surely there is something to be said for relying on edit history instead of charm and relationships.

hydnjo, did you not say in my RfA "I commend your courage in self-nominating, always it seems a risky approach towards adminship." -- Ec5618 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did say that. A reflection of my observation that some of the "regulars" here will discount a self-nom and therefore it takes more courage than to have been nominated by a highly regarded editor. hydnjo talk 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the feedback:

• On the most recent remarks. Yes, Adminship is being perceived by newer members of the community as some sort of "status symbol", which is insane. More and more I see people who have been around for three months or less applying for Adminship — and because an RfA can be a popularity contest, some end up getting it. No one who has been around for three months can be completely schooled on how the project works in all its complexity. In my book, a three-month old account is barely out of the "newbie category". I only applied for Adminship when I had been around for over a year. By then, I knew exactly how the project works, what an Admin does and, very importantly, I was "prepared" to manage well Admin-restricted tools. That's where clearer criteria could help RfA: no one with less than X experience can become an Admin, period. Some believe that we don't need that because inexperienced candidates don't stand a chance. Meanwhile, I've seen people who had been around for as little as two months be promoted, because they had managed to amass enough "friends", and/or "admirers" to carry an RfA to success.
• About the nominations, I don't believe that it would be essential to restrict valid nominations to Admins. The first step to a serious, worthy RfA is having a nominator that knows the potential candidate, has been in contact with the user extensively and knows that that person would make a good Admin. With 800 Admins and a general community of 800 thousand (closer to 900,000), this kind of mining just could not be done by Admins exclusively, and if other users had to go ask Admins to nominate candidates, this could generate a kind of politics that I don't believe would be productive to the project. And plus there's the work load: some Admins could be overwhelmed with "requests to nominate", and unless the Admin happens to know the potential candidate as well (which would not be usual), (s)he would have to do some "background check", which can take some time. And consider this: is it fair that an Admin unilaterally turns down a candidate? And what then? The nominator (or the candidate) just moves on to the next Admin?
• I also see no point in banning self-noms. No reason why a good user/candidate cannot self-nominate. If anything, we need to try and eliminate a trace of "prejudice" against self-noms (there's usually more opposition, and for no good reasons; and an overall smaller participation of the community, also for no discernable reason, except for it being a self-nom).
  Does that addresses your questions? Regards, Redux 03:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am opposed to hydnjo's suggestion of allowing only admins to make nominations. There are many editors who have more experience than some of the admins and who, for their own reasons, choose to remain non-admins. Admins have no unique insight as to what makes a good admin. The tools should be conferred by the community. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • One problem with putting specific dates as baselines is that they are not flexible - I don't have a year in the project, and yet I believe that I have a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policy, as I've spent a large amount of hours going over it, reading precedents in archives, and in some cases, helping to draft it. I was nominated at about 5 months in, because I saw that I couldn't help as much without the extra buttons, and I'm sure many other users feel the same. I've also been impressed by some "newbies's" knowledge of Wikipolicy. My point? Some users like to dive in at a "steeper angle" into Wikipedia than others. I don't think we should be looking for time here, but rather for balance in a user's work - that usually indicates that the editor is more familiar with several aspects of policy than one (which is one of the reasons many noms have failed recently: many vandal-whackers want adminship just to get rollback).
  • I agree wholeheartedly with not having "Admin-only" noms. That would lead to unnecessary campaigning, which deviates from our goal. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • • Time as an editor and edit counts are being used as shortcuts to evaluate candidates. The answer is to do a good job of vetting candidates. Ask tough questions to see if the candidate really understands policy and key issues (and different questions for each candidate so they can't just look at past RfAs for answers). We don't need to formalize all sorts of requirements, we just need a group of people who will make sure that each candidate is properly vetted, and those that are found wanting are opposed. That is what you need if you want stricter standards. But many here feel that adminship should not be so strictly dealt with, a bit of on-the-job training is ok as long as the new admin is not likely to abuse the new powers. So decide where you stand and act based on your standards, but we are nowhere near having much consensus to formally change any of the rules, so enforcement must come from your votes and letting people know what you expect. NoSeptember ^talk 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whew - I'm glad we got that one out of the way! hydnjo talk 04:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No consensus to change anything any time soon... Wasn't that what I was talking about a while ago? All we do here is intelectual speculation. Meanwhile, nothing changes. And at the same time, nor do we come to the conclusion that nothing needs changing. This is like a treadmill: we keep running, but we never actually move. Just saying, is all. Redux 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A treadmill is good exercise. ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But if you overdo it, it could give you a heart attack. And in the meantime, it makes you sore. <8O Redux 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whew - I'm glad we got that one out of the way! I don't remember having that many edit conflicts - ever. OK, so anyone can be a candidate for admin. Our collective wisdom therefore will prevail as to who's who. I've no problem with that except for its lack of efficiency expensed in favor of democracy, and that's not bad. I brought it up in case any of us felt a need for an initial screening. That having been soundly trounced I'll concede defeat for that idea. OK then, anyone can present themselves for community approval to be an admin. What about then the introduction of first timers to have a say in the promotion? I'm OK with the b-cats figuring that all out but does anyone have an objection to some of us providing ID profiles to suspect votes? And, can someone start a new section please? hydnjo talk 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Other suggestion

Interesting paradox... there are many nominations failing for lack of experience; the easiest way to fix that is to impose minimum requirements on a candidate (e.g. 1000 edits or two months or whatever), but in doing so we would make adminship more of a badge of merit. What we should be doing is convincing newbies that adminship really isn't a badge of merit, as well as convince people in general to employ meaningful voting standards. There are quite a lot of people that support just about anybody on grounds of the "no big deal" koan, and doing so will result in us having inexperienced or untested admins. Case in point, we now have someone deadminned (by arbcom) barely three months after being mopified. Closer scrutiny to the candidacy may have prevented that. >Radiant< 10:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is as I said: clearer rules would make it easier. We can try and defuse the whole "badge of merit misconception" by trying to explain better, or perhaps more effectively, what Adminship is really about. But with rules that are more specific about who can apply, we would not have newbies, or "seminewbies", if we can call it that, applying for the job (and sometimes getting it, which only entices other inexperienced users to apply as well). Clearly, the "widom of the community" is not always enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially when a RfA turns into a popularity contest, which happens sometimes. Regards, Redux 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always felt the title administrator is a bit of a misnomer that leads to RfA being the Wikipedia equivalent of levelling up in an RPG (with all that XP from your edit count!). Perhaps officially calling it 'janitor' would reflect more accurately what we can and can't (or at leasn't aren't supposed to) do with our "powers". --W.marsh 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I've noticed is that a fair number of newbies also support these newbie (or seminewbie) candidates, hoping to get a support vote in return for their own RFAs. Such actions make it appear as if a seminewbie candidate is more qualified than reality. --Deathphoenix 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I see that going around too. It goes right back to what I said about certain RfAs turning into popularity contests. And concernng marsh's post, seems that part of the problem is exactly that people are considering "Administrator" to be some sort of "title", as if it were some sort of nobility title, denoting a social status. That's all wrong. "Administrator" should be viewed as a job description. Redux 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't need more rules. I don't think it matters how many newbies we reject. 10 a month or 50 a month. Maybe we can just put up a bolder warning at the top of WP:RFA making it clear how unlikely newbies will be approved, and that it is better to wait. If they insist on applying, so be it. NoSeptember ^talk 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see a bolder warning than more rules. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning! You should be familiar with guide to requests for adminship, what adminship is not, the administrators' reading list, and how-to guide before submitting your request. A premature request for adminship is likely to fail, and will also likely have a negative impact on any future RfAs. You are encouraged to ask an experienced user for advice on this process.

How about something like this to replace the 3rd paragraph of WP:RFA? NoSeptember ^talk 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

very nice. Something that stands out is goodness... ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it too, but if I might, I would like to suggest this slight rewording (no need to reproduce the board design for this):
Before submitting a Request for Adminship (RfA), you should be familiar with the guide to requests for adminship, the clarifications about the meaning of Adminship at what adminship is not, the administrators' reading list, and the how-to guide. A premature RfA is likely to fail, as well as having a negative impact on future RfAs. Should you be unsure of whether or not to nominate yourself or someone else, you may find it useful to ask for advice at the RfA talk page, or to consult experienced users on the appropriateness of the RfA.
I believe this would make it clearer, as well as a little more...incisive — the "RfA talk page" sentence is not a bold, it's supposed to be a link to this page. It will appear as such when posted on the project page, of course. Thoughts? Redux 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote and promote? (Archive 50)

I though bureaucrats didn't do this. -Splash^talk 15:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash, for the benefit of the rest of us who don't follow this page like hawks (ahem), to what are you referring? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Danny voted for and promoted Essjay to bureaucrat. And Talrias, there is no excuse for unhawkish behavior ;). NoSeptember ^talk 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not a good thing to have even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't think it was deliberate in this case. It is clear that Danny has not done an en.wiki promotion in a long time given the edit errors he made in closing it (such as appending the Essjay RFB to the Ed Poor RFB). Since he is active as a steward, it is easy to see how his confusion could result from the likelihood that each project has slightly different procedures and traditions, and the process at en.wiki has changed a bit since he last promoted someone on 17 Sept 2004. NoSeptember ^talk 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• There's no policy preventing Danny from doing so, though I grant the appearance of conflict of interest is not good. Still, his vote amounted to a .06% difference in the percentage, which is not exactly significant. --Durin 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The promotion is, though, given that it was carried out by a declaredly non-neutral bureaucrat at a level fractionally less than 90% and with more opposition than a successful RfB has ever seen before. It leaves an unpleasant taste, at the least. -Splash^talk 16:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. It's ironic that the "threshold" for admin appointments was such an issue in the RfB, and itself ends up being promoted with the lowest support/(oppose+support) ratio in "modern times" (two years, when the voter turnout was a grand total of 16). It's also rather more than fractionally less than 90% incidentally if one counts the (rather reserved-sounding) neutrals in the "votes cast" denominator. (A couple of opposes were also removed rather late-on without their clearly expressed concerned being addressed in any noticeable way, though that's entirely up to them.) The support vote with two prior edits I won't make a big deal of, as there's no actual identity concern, though it does make me wonder if there shouldn't be some minimal enfranchisement requirement, as with Arbcom "elections". Alai 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• It is not the impact of one's personal vote that is at issue in a potential conflict of interest, but rather the value of one's discretion as a bureaucrat (which has a significantly bigger impact). The thing is though, even if you refrain from voting, this does not mean you don't have a personal preference when you exercise your bureaucrat's discretion. NoSeptember ^talk 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • One would like to think that in such cases, there would be consultation between the existing 'crats. That we now have the situation were one BC resigned during this request (striking out his opposition to it), another who has expressed and maintained opposition, a third voting for and promoting it (with < "the usual" 90%), and now a fourth as the direct result of this, does not give the impression of a 'crat-corps who are of one mind in matters of permission-setting. Alai 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You didn't mention the bureaucrat who voted neutral ;). NoSeptember ^talk 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I forgot. :) OTOH, "contentious neutrality" seems a less concerning issue. Alai 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • One would like to think that in such cases, there would be consultation between the existing 'crats.
      You're sounding a lot like Essjay now, as this was precisely his suggestion that created controversy over his RfB, just applied to an RfB instead of an RfA. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Not so very precise: The controversy was that he cited 70-80% as the "grey area in which to consult", as opposed to the conventional wisdom that it's 75-80%. (i.e., that there might be circumstances in which <75% was promotable.) For RfBs, there's no such clearly established zone, other than by precedent (and the lack thereof), and I'm making no particular suggestion as to what it should be (other than throwing out a few obvious possibilities). And also, I'm not standing for bureaucrat, and suggesting actually directly implementing such a thing. Though given the size of the Essjay fanclub, I should be flattered by the comparison, exact or not. Alai 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, Danny is a long-term and respected Wikipedian and one of only three who does paid work for Wikipedia. Also for the record, he has now made his second promotion at RfA. His other promotion was made on 17 Sep 2004, shortly after he became a bureaucrat. I did not look forward to the possibility that I might have had to make the decision on Essjay's RfB, but, if necessary, I would have. Consensus and precedent are highly prized at Wikipedia, and I will assert that, considering the non-participation at RfA of the promoting bureaucrat, I will not respect the circumstances of the promotion (<90% and 16 opposes) as a precedent for future RfBs unless the community explicitly decides to lower the bureaucrat standard. -- Cecropia 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of oppose votes is not a good standard to stick to in an environment where the average number of users casting votes is rising dramatically. At least 2 bureaucrats have been promoted with under 90% support (not counting the appointed crats), and it wasn't a very close 89.94% like this time. I agree through, that it is the community standard that matters, but given the diversity of views expressed in the many discussions on this, what that community standard is is not as clear as some would suggest. NoSeptember ^talk 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's kind of selective analysis. I believe the two Bureaucrats you are referring to were those made at the very beginning of the Bureaucrat system, when no one thought about it much or the implications of what would happen in contentious nominations. One was promoted with (11,3,2) which is 78.4% and the other with (6,1,0), which is 85.7% and so few votes that he could not be made Bureaucrat now even if there were fewer opposes. Of those two Bureaucrats, one has made two promotions in two years and the other made three admin promotions before making a controversial bureaucrat promotion and then resigning. -- Cecropia 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• User:Alai noted above "less than 90% incidentally if one counts the (rather reserved-sounding) neutrals in the 'votes cast' denominator". Neutrals are NOT counted in this way. If that were the case, then neutrals effectively become a form of opposing. Neutrals are just that...neutral. Secondly, whether a person votes 1 second into the nomination or 1 second before the closing time, their comments count. It doesn't matter when they made their comments. I do think Danny should have recused himself either from voting or from promoting this RfB, but a lot of hay is being made out of a promotion that had considerable support. I too would not use this RfB as a precedent if I were doing promotions, but we're only talking about .07%...one more support vote on top of 143 and you have that. Let's stay focused on the project, and not on .07% in this case. --Durin 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The way 90% seems to be used here as a line of separation, one wonders just where the range of discretion is (the equivalent to the 75%-80% range in RfAs). Is 91% a clear pass?, is 89% a clear fail? Is there no discretion? There must be a range of discretion, and it seems quite likely that 89.94% is in that range. If 90% were a firm line, then we could promote by bot, as the cliche goes. NoSeptember ^talk 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment on <90% etc. wasn't to say that that was the operative issue in this candidacy. The comment was made to argue against it being used as a precedent for the bean counters. THe operative issues were the points brought up in support and opposition. There are not so many Bureaucrats or bcrat nominations that we have to start casting numbers in stone. -- Cecropia 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if frequency is determinative of the need for numbers-engraving. It would do no harm to say explicitly where people thought the "grey area: personal judgement and possible consultation indicated" zone is, just as currently it's said to be 75%-80% for adminship. Where we have supporting and opposing (as well as neutral and resigning!) existing 'crats, some additional caution is surely indicated. Alai 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. _→AzaToth 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (ecs)Cecropia; indeed, the possible significance of Danny's role as a "WMF Wikipedian" did cross my mind, though I'm going to assume that has no direct bearing unless and until I hear otherwise.
  • Durin, your quote-cropping is a little too close for comfort: it's less than 90% regardless, as I said, and I was discussing the possible "counting" of neutrals not to suggest that they were established as "de facto opposes", but because it's recognised that in close cases, the neutrals be taken into account (in some nebulous and unspecified manner). (In different fora there's by no means complete consistency about the counting of "neutrals", though: after one CFD I was informed that 3 "delete"s, one "keep" and one "comment" was "no consensus", as the comment was a "neutral"...) Given the strength of Cecropia's statement above, it seems pretty clear to me that firstly, there should have been some consultation between bureaucrats in this case, and secondly, that there's no signs of this having occurred.
  • NoSeptember, AFAICS no-one has been promoted with <90% within the last two years, as I mentioned above. (If one does count neutrals, it was <90% in Francs2000's case, but those were remarkably neutral-sounding neutrals.) Given that two years ago, a literal order of magnitude less people were taking part in that venue (and otherwise, in many respects) I really don't see that was comparable. Alai 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • ...and we're still fretting about .07%. I don't see the need. --Durin 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh. I think "fretting about 0.07%" is a distinctly ungenerous characterisation of of the concerns that have been expressed, if not to say an inaccurate one. Had the final tally been 90.07%, with the same number of opposed-leaning neutrals, late withdrawals of opposing "votes", multi-way existing BC split, inactive BC making the promotion after supporting, and without wider consultation, etc, etc, I for one would have essentially the same comments as I have. There are issues here worth clarifying here beyond mere "bean counting". Alai 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The neutrals are not counted as oppose leaning or support leaning. They may be considered for subjective value, but not strictly as votes. Whether a vote is withdrawn late or not does not matter. It was withdrawn, period. If there's a bureaucrat disagreement, the decision still lies with the deciding bureaucrat. There's no dissension. Danny did not make an error per se in promoting. He made perhaps a poor judgement call in voting and promoting, but doing so is not against policy. Please state exactly what issues you would like to have clarified. --Durin 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Since we're fretting about .07%, a little history: In June 2004 promotions were simply not getting made because Angela was the only one really active, and with her other Wikiwork, it was starting to be too much for her. So she explicitly asked for more Wikipedians to stand for Bureaucrat, and a number (including me) responded. Some were promoted and some not. Since Angela's request we have made 13 Bureaucrats, starting with Ilyanep. Of these 13, and not counting Essjay, there was ONE person made Bureaucrat with less than 92% support (Warofdreams at 15/2) and TWO with more than two opposes (Nichalp with 4 (at 92%) and Francs2000 at 5 (at 93.3%). The two opposes on Warofdreams were over a relatively minor understanding of process complaint, and on such a small voting base, it was 88.2%. So this most recent nomination's 143/16 at more than 2% below all other post-fill nominations except Warofdrams' really stands out, which is why I don't want it to be seen as a precedent. -- Cecropia 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • There are just too few data points to make much out of these RfBs in terms of precedents. Before Essjay, there were only 5 successful RfBs in the last 18 months, which is an eternity in terms of the growth of the participation in this process and the reduced personal interaction active Wikipedians have with all other active Wikipedians. I think all these standards and precedents are just assertions of personal standards rather than clear and community agreed upon precedents. NoSeptember ^talk 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • We had considerable discussion on bureaucrat standards, with a significant number who said they didn't feel there should be any significant opposition by a regular user. So what I hear you saying that everything is subjective, so promotion standards are whatever the most liberal (or most lax) bcrat says it is. That is a recipe for the breakdown of a process that has promoted 800 or so admins and removed maybe half that many with very little controversy. -- Cecropia 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Where do you get the idea that "whatever the most liberal (lax) bcrat says" is my standard? And yes, there is an element of the luck of the draw in which bcrat reviews the RfB, but you are just as likely to get the "hanging judge" as the "slap on the wrist" judge. The "no significant opposition by a regular user" breaks down when the size of the voting pool gets so much bigger than it used to be. Essjay and Francs have the most oppose votes of promoted bcrats, but only because they ran in 2006, not because they are in any way less liked than bcrats from 2004 and 2005. We can't have a standard to allow any "regular user" to have what amounts to a veto. Only 6 bcrats have been promoted in 2005 & 2006. You can't compare them to those promoted in 2004, when Wikipedia was much much smaller. NoSeptember ^talk 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Cecropia and I have both, on occasion, promoted candidacies in which we have voted, and I imagine that others have as well. There is no requirement that bureaucrats refrain from promoting those candidacies in which they vote. As for a .06% or .07% difference, parties quoting these figures may wish to check their math. As for neutrals, bureaucrats are expected to read them and consider the sentiment behind them but they are ordinarily not included in any numerical totals. And finally, as to the promotion itself, I am of two minds. I have always believed that the standard for bureaucratship should be high. On the other hand, I believe that the overwhelming support of such a large number of voters speaks the community's mind. To second-guess the plainly obvious wishes of the community based on a mere numerical formula seems contrary to our way of doing things. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Math: 143 support and 16 oppose yields 89.937107% support. To get to 90%, you'd need .062893%, thus .06/.07 ... Yes, you shouldn't round to .07 until you get to .065. So, I guess we're now on about .002107? :) --Durin 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I see. I misunderstood. You are correct. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Interesting. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • (parallel edit) 90-((143/(143+16))*100)=6.289308176100405e-2, if that's enough checking of maths. More to the point, I have to question this "plainly obvious" characterisation, though I'll chalk it up as a retrospective entry in the "other BC opinion" I was feeling the lack of. Is an unprecedented level of support in itself sufficient to allay all concerns as to a greater level of opposition than any other previously successful candidate? What if the next candidate gets 400 supports, and 80 opposes, is that still "overwhelming", and "plain"? A "mere numerical formula" sets a more objective test than the likes of "overwhelming support" and other just rhetorical characterisations and linguistic hedges. I'm by no means suggesting we apply one in a "bot like manner", I think it's worth discussing whether a) there really is an numeric criteria, as (admittedly somewhat fuzzily) cited on the howto page, and b) whether there's a "grey area" in which some form of caution or consultation is indicated (whether this be somewhere short of 90%, or somewhere over it is another matter). If existing BCs overwhelmingly support this as being "overwhelmingly support", then so be it. (As settling the broader question; the narrower one already "be", obviously.) Alai 21:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• If we're talking about raw numbers, you can see that one less oppose vote would have brought the nomination above the magical 90% mark. However, if you start considering the nature of the opposes, you can see that two are questionable, as they have a strong ring of personal vendettas to them. Whether Danny should have voted and promoted is a different question, but not something that is out of the ordinary, as UninvitedCompany tells us above. There were also substantially more support voters in this nomination than in other ones, so the higher opposes could be just a measurement of RfA becoming a busier place. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, let's not be so fast to let bureaucrats casually cast votes aside. There were many "petty supports": supports with no comment at all, more than two dozen, including Danny's. Many more are non-responsive: "certainly," "of course," "why the hell not?" There is nothing in these votes to give a hint that the voters had even read the issues involved, and they certainly don't present issues that could be addressed by opposers. If you want to say "remove one oppose," also consider that Francs2000 never really withdrew his reasoned opposition; we just removed his vote from the count because the upset of the attacks on him left him undesirous of being involved at RfA. -- Cecropia 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (ec)Then again, some of the supports have a strong ring of "sheep-like", "whimsical", or "having only two prior edits", etc. I may be biased for the obvious reason, but I don't think the opposes were in any general sense lacking reasonable justifications. Alai 21:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Durin's reliance on fractions of percentage points here is taking his usual good analysis too far. It is not important what fraction of a percent one person is worth: we could discount an enormous number of editors as irrelevant on that basis. It is not reasonable to suggest that one should make a vote (which is all that Danny actually did, he failed to reason, comment, debate or address issues), consider oneself overwhelmingly irrelevant and thus to conclude you may decide the issue any way you please with no regard for what has gone before. It is not Danny's purevote that matters so much as his promotion following this explicit statement of non-neutrality in an extremely close nomination. We cannot begin the favourite process of casting stones at the opposers alone as Cecropia points out: the supporters are far more stoneable, even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if an opposer does say "Jehova". The question is "was this RfB of the standards reflected in past successful RfBs and in past community discussions on the issue". It is my opinion (as a declaredly oppositional editor) that it was not. There was substantial reasoned opposition from well-established members of the community, including the bureaucracy. This was Danny's sole bureaucratic action in an absolute eternity, and it is questionable at best that he should choose to use it in a knife-edge decision on an issue on which he was clearly on one side of the fence. I should make clear that I have previously expressed a desire for the standard to be "no significant opposition", with subjectivity on "significant" to be the standard: it is imperative that the process of promotion to bureaucrat, and the actions that a promotee takes on the back of it, be uniformly acceptable as correct. If there is any siginificant opposition, this cannot be the case. (That said, I do fully recognise that the prevailing position is not aligned with my personal preference: 90% is what we expect at the moment. Even so, that is not the sole consideration, as I have indicated above.) -Splash^talk 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Splash, I am NOT relying on fractions of a percentage point. In fact, I was doing precisely the opposite. --Durin 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Splash, please do not take offence at what I am about to say (a tipoff that maybe I should not say it) but in reading through all this, it feels like if this is dragged on indefinitely that something bad will happen. Perhaps Essjay will feel pressured into resigning. I did not like to see that happen to Francs2000 and I would not like to see it happen here either. Perhaps Danny will feel undue pressure. I would not like to see that either. I have to ask, what is your intent? It just feels like that you want to chivvy someone else into deciding to overturn this outcome, or to chivvy Essjay himself into resigning. I'd like to ask you sincerely to consider not continuing if either of those are a likely outcome. I'm just some random user but that's how I feel. Please consider it. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That reads as though you mean that, even though it seems obvious enough to me that the RfB was closed in a poor manner, I should say nothing about it. The easiest way for people to avoid criticism is not engaging in actions that deserve criticising; bureaucrats should know that better than the rest of us. -Splash^talk 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Amen. (Did I just violate the Separation of Church and Wikipedia?) -- Cecropia 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I know I've been told to keep shtum about this and haven't, an action in itself that presumably draws criticism. I'm just not really sure that "it's April Fools day" is an especially good reason. -Splash^talk 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Splash: (gee I hope I put this at the right place in the nesting!) It was not intended to suggest you should say NOTHING. Merely that, at the time I spoke up, it was my perception that the points had all been made and I wasn't seeing what continued repetition of them was going to achieve. To be clear: Our community does not work by stifling discussion and that was not my intent. I see now that the discussion seems to have moved somewhat. However my concern still remains. (on the other hand perhaps bureacrats ought to be expected to have thick skins and to be able to take whatever is dished out, so I dunno)... ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Lar, here's my suggestion for something good that could happen: the Bureaucrat Conclave (to continue the religious theme) might have a private discussion, to determine whether they on the one hand, wish to come to a private understanding as to whether there's a consensus (as it were) about how to handle future "borderline" cases. Or on the other, do make something similar, but make the results public (85%-90%, 88% to 92%, 90-90% or whatever else is noted to be a "grey area" roughly analogous to the "75%-80% zone" for adminship). Or on the third tentacle, make it explicit that discretion of the closing BC is paramount, and that mere numerals are but a passing illusion (in which case they should probably be removed or more heavily caveated on the howto page). Alai 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, no. Bureaucrats are asked to implement the will of the community, so if there is any determination of a gray area, it has to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. I do agree on the need for a gray area, by the way, to avoid these kinds of things. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • We're not talking about making policy here, we're talking about documenting what's already being done (or noting that it's inherently undocumentable). If the community does want to make a policy telling B'crats what to do, it's free(ish) to do so, but that's not what I'm suggesting, isn't necessary, and would be tantamount to kicking it into the long grass indefinitely. Alai 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What should be done?

• I will address the point of what should come out of this. First is what I have already said: I will not take this as a precedent. The second is more complex. I take this process very seriously. I feel that the only thing Bureaucrats have is respect and credibility. This is what makes it possible to make a decision and have the great majority of RfA participants believe that the decision was reasoned and unbiased. In order to promote this credibility, I stand ready, and look to other bcrats to stand ready, to explain reasoning and stand by decisions, our own and each others', as I recently did with Francs2000. Am I wrong? That is not a rhetorical question, because if I'm wrong than I'm wasting my time and spinning my wheels trying to make reasoned decisions in a process that has been evolving for two years. Now, the issue isn't even whether or not Essjay should have been promoted. I realized I might be the one whose lap it fell into and, frankly, I was still reading and considering last night. Now to Danny. Danny is a fine Wikipedian and far more valuable to the project than I; I don't think that is false modesty on my part. But the way Danny handled this conflicts to an extreme with what I believe the process is and should be. He became a Bcrat about the same time I did, but (as far as I can tell) has taken three bcrat actions in two years: a promotion two years ago, a rename a week or two ago, and now this bcrat nomination. I don't think anyone believes this was not a controversial promotion, no matter which side you're on. If I had made the promotion (or removal) I would have expected to have to explain my reasoning at length. All I can find from Danny (correct me if I missed something) is a note on Essjay's talk under the heading "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" saying "You know. Danny 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)". This looks to me like a WikiGod coming down from Wikolympus with a Deux ex machina to trump the actions of the foolish mortals who have taken this process seriously. Another Wikipedian, Angela, at least as respected as Danny, also a Bureaucrat (and a Steward, and heaven knows what else) long ago proposed that all Bureaucrats (including herself) should periodically have to stand for renewal. At the same time, she proposed that lightly active Bureaucrats reconfirm immediately, and never active Bureaucrats be dropped, but be allowed to reapply immediately.proposal here The proposal died of ennui; maybe it is time to renew the idea. -- Cecropia 00:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Without getting into the details of the actions of alleged WikiHermes, WikiZeus, etc, I'd certainly agree with the reconfirmation principle that you and WikiAthena^WAngela suggest. In particular it would be useful to determine which of the "inactives" are truly "retired from duty", as the ambiguity here tends to be construed one way by those who think we're severely short of BC cover, and another those who suppose we have plenty (and another 18 besides). Alai 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem with that idea now is whether anyone would actually get 90% during a reconfirmation process. I expect it would have been a lot easier in October 2004 when I first suggested it, but considering the recent arbcom elections where only Filiocht and Mindspillage had more than 90% approval, we'd probably need to lower the requirements. Angela. 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's probably self-correcting to a degree; arbcom elections being elections (well, sorta) rather than a true suitability threshold test in any realistic sense, people may oppose (or at least fail to support), simply due to having a preference for another candidate. If there's a perceived need for more BCs, people are less likely to whimsically oppose, and it's not a job that necessarily attracts disapprobrium in the way that some admin activities do. But I'd be in favour of an "ordinary consensus" confirmation process, or even just a simple majority, come to that. Reverse-consensus might be over-egging things, but even a minimalist process for checking the renominee still has a wikipulse would be a start. Alai 05:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would make sense that bureaucrats who are not active more than once or twice a year and who seldom if ever read/comment on this talk page simly be debureaucrat-ized, reconfirmation or not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

'debureaucrat-ized'..? Puzzling vocabulary, Mr. Alexandrov. -Zero^Talk 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, Angela, I see your concern, though (absent some weird "let's dump the 'crats" campaigning) I'm not sure we'd lose bureaucrats who aren't dormant anyway. You yourself proposed breaking 'crats into groups based on activity and whether or not they were appointed or elected. I think the appointed/elected shouldn't make a diff now, since it's so long ago, and all would stand for confirmation now anyway. So why don't why have three groups rather than the six you suggested divided up something like this:

• Group A: Active Bureaucrats, defined as having made at least one promotion at RfA for each whole month since appointment/election. I mean, if a Bcrat for 18 months, 18 promotions total, not literally one promotion in each 30-day period.
• Group B: Less active Bureaucrats, who have made at least one promotion for each three months since they became Bureaucrats.
• Group C: Inactive Bureaucrats, who have not made at least enough promotions to fit into Groups A or B.

I suggest a cutoff date of March 31, 2006, so we don't have bcrats trying to pump up their numbers to get into a higher group. Voting would go on for the usual week, and no 'crats would be exempt and every bcrat must say whether they wish to remain bcrats (I know a few who may not want to). I suggest that every candidate must have a total of at least 50 votes by the end of the voting period. Then set up the vote as follows with one group a week, starting with the least active 'crats, and the following threshholds:

• Group C: Week of April 10-16 (Monday-Sunday). Same standards as for a new candidate, ~90%.
• Group B: Week of April 17-23 (Monday-Sunday). Same standards as for a new admin, ~80%.
• Group A: Week of April 24-30 (Monday-Sunday). I know for neatness sake, we would say 70%, but I think any bureaucrat should be able to garner three out of four votes, so 75%.

I think a week is plenty of time argue about the levels or even if we should do this at all, but I think we need to do something. -- Cecropia 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Angela proposed annual re-affirmation. Each year Group A will be those who made 12 promotions, Group B at least 4 promotions, others Group C. We would make the anniversay dates the second, third and fourth weeks of April every year. It seems appropriate to have an annual "April Fools" election for the Bureaucracy. :D. I think they should be promotions, though, not Renames, because the former can be a contentious process and the latter not. -- Cecropia 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to hear the reasoning behind more active 'crats needing a lower threshold of approval. I mean, 75% is probably not enough to make admin, so it seems awfully low to use as the threshold for remaining a bureaucrat. It seems arbitrary, but I assume there is a rationale behind the proposal. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

75% is generally enough to make admin. It's in the zone generally identified as requiring some sort of judgement or consultation -- or rather, it's the lower boundary of same -- but at least one recent promotion was done with <76% without any obvious signs of debate or consternation. Alai 04:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need reapplications for bureaucrat. I have no problem with some inactive crats staying around. If all our active crats went on wikibreak at the same time, I'm sure we could convince one of the inactive ones to fill in for a bit. Its not like we have bureacurat wheel warring, or a rogue crat sysopping all of his friends without RfAs ;-). The idea of reconfirming admins has failed repeatedly, the idea of doing it for crats should fail too. Besides, if you were to do something like this, handle it like the Steward elections, rather than having arbitrary definitions of what qualifies someone as inactive or active. NoSeptember ^talk 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But we have had two instances of inactive 'crats suddenly popping up to make a controversial promotion to Bureaucratship. This proposal was not made on a theoretical basis. I think it has now been twice demonstrated that we shouldn't leave a button like this lying around to be used on a whim. -- Cecropia 06:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is controversial and then there is controversial. It is not like these promotions were completely out of line, they were in the area of discretion. Even active bureaucrats can disagree on promotion on a case by case basis. Being active does not neccesarily mean having better judgement. Are you claiming that any promotion was actually "wrong" (outside the area of discretion)? NoSeptember ^talk 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some promotions were "wrong," particularly Luigi's, which brings us to the original defect in the "70%" error cited by the last two RfB candidates. And some promotions may or may not be "wrong," but can be made in a "wrong" way, eroding community confidence and standards, which is why we have so much verbiage on this page. I am not going to characterize EssJay's RfB result as "right" or "wrong," but it was absolutely made in a "wrong" manner. -- Cecropia 07:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, how terrible. Am I missing something here? Are you percieving one b-crat promotion in the area of discretion and one admin promotion just below the area of discretion (but higher than the old area of discretion - it always used to be 70-80%, when did it change?) as really big problems? Has Luigi ever done anything to misuse his powers? Will Essjay? I doubt it. This feels like a mountain out of a molehill to me - something out of nothing - and definitely not worth the hastle of discussion, compilation and voting on a major new proposal. Get on with editing some articles already. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit articles? What a great idea! You're a genius, celestianpower. Thanks! :) -- Cecropia 09:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like to think so. I'm fantastic, me :P. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A crat-war is impossible since they cannot reverse their own actions. Reconfirming admins fails principally because of scale issues, which don't exist yet in the bureaucracy. It also fails because admins upset plenty of people fairly regularly: bureaucrats very rarely do so just by the nature of their limited 'increase' in powers. -Splash^talk 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I like Cecropia's idea. I'm not sure we'd actually have problems with a 90% approval threshold: all three of our recent 'crats before Essjay have cleared that no problem, so it certainly can be done. I'd also go slightly further and simpy de-crat Group C automatically. If we were left with not enough 'crats it would quickly become obvious and we could make ourselves a new one or two: at least we'd know that the new ones were current and relevant. But Cecropia's working seems ok, and unlikely to have unforseen problems. We all know that most of our existing crats are functioning alright, but that the bureaucracy could do with some dusting down. We'd possibly remove some 'crats: this might make it easier to see whether we do, in fact, "need more bureaucrats", even though RfA is not obviously backlogged. It does seem to me that those 'crats who are not in touch with RfA and the community's standards do not need their additional button. -Splash^talk 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since we have the precedent of elections for Board members, Stewards, and ArbCom members, if we are going to have another position become non-permanent, why not handle it with an election as well? NoSeptember ^talk 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because elections have fixed numbers of places which the candidates compete for. RfB and RfA do not and this is good for all the usual reasons, not least the possibility of scaling at the community's pleasure (particularly when we start to lose 'crats...) -Splash^talk 15:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually an election could ensure that we have enough active bureaucrats to handle the job (promotions, name changes, and bot flagging apparently). Only actively interested admins will run for the job, so we won't have to worry about inactive crats too much. Btw, I don't believe there is a fixed number of positions in Stewards elections, just a certain approval level needed to pass. We can make the rules fit the nature of the bureaucrat job and how many we think we need. NoSeptember ^talk 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to let the process itself determine how many 'crats we need. It is enough to have them all seek (or decline to seek) reconfirmation. If we finish up with too few, people can step into the breach then. Limiting 'crat promotions to once a year may not take account of sharp changes that occur between-times, whereas leaving the process open to all volunteers, but reconfirming them once a year avoids that kind of thing. It also avoids any need to go campaigning and any need for "i am better because..." type work. Everyone would simply be standing on their own two feet. -Splash^talk 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Its best we have it staggered as per the requirements of enwiki. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ah... I feel as those I've missed something, but I've tried to be thorough in reading. I can't quite understand why this hasn't been suggested: Rather than "de-b'crat"ize, simply adopt a policy/guideline/firm written expectation that no b'crat should ever close a nomination on which he/she voted. This seems the simplest direct remedy to the complaint against Danny's "conflict-of-interest", and less cumbersome than instituting a process to account for b'crat inactivity. Xoloz 21:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think that's a bad idea. When I vote for a candidate, I vote purely as an editor. When I promote, I look at the overall consensus of the community, and treat my vote as just another wikipedian. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sure, but with the number of b'crats we have (21 says the table), somebody ought to be sufficiently uninterested in each given RfA to be able to "sit out" and close it in a clearly "no conflict-of-interest" disinterested manner. I don't doubt your capacity to do this, but why bother with that practice (which some might honestly question) when we have plenty of b'crats? I, for one, would heartily admire a b'crat who promised never (or rarely) to vote at RfA. Xoloz 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yup, I'm aware of such a situation (It happened to me in an AFD I once closed), so I usually sit out if my vote is in the 75-80% region, unless of course they is a considerable delay in the promotion. I rarely vote in RFAs these days, and have opposed a candidate just 3/4 times. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for more intelligent voting (Archive 51)

Problem: We ask people to make sensible voting choices based on their complete history, looking for good editing, civil behaviour and proof of mediation capabilities. But no one has the time. So people vote on readily available metrics such as edit counts, edit summary usage etc, instead.

Problem: People who fail to follow the RfA procedure correctly get shot down in flames, and annoy everyone.

Problem: There is a strong preference against self-nominations.

Solution: As part of the RfA process, a candidate must find a nominator, ideally an admin, but certainly someone with significant experience here. This nominator is obliged to:

• Provide a month-by-month summary of the candidates edit history (of the last, say, 10 months, and a quick summary of the rest, if any). This summary would look vaguely like:
  • Jan 2006: 100 edits in article space, mostly copyedits to Pokémon or related categories. No disputes, though this edit [1] was contentious. Mediated dispute here [2].
  • Feb 2006: Only contributions were to vote "Strong keep" on 30 Pokemon related articles.
• Provide basic assistance with the RfA process to ensure that the candidate doesn't stuff up.

The nominator would not necessarily have to strongly believe in the candidate, but simply aim to provide a balanced and roughly neutral summary of the candidate to voters, so they can base their vote on something solid.

There should also be a place (formally or informally) where potential admins can find someone to nominate them. Comments please. Stevage 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like instruction creep and then some, sorry. Self-noms succeed all the time... we currently have a self-nom blowing away all previous records for support. The problem is that people who can't find a nominator, because no one really thinks they're a good candidate, make up a substantial portion of the self-noms... it's no wonder these people fail. --W.marsh 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with W.marsh. There doesn't appear to be a need to formalize the process to this degree at this point. the cream rises to the top. If a self-nom candidate is good enough, they will be approved, it's as simple as that. full disclosure: i self-nominated and got through 25-0.--Alhutch 16:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since June of 2005, self nominations have had a 29% less chance of success than non-self nominations (all RfAs for candidates with 750 or greater edits). Since January 1, 2006 that same rate is 33% less chance. In general, I don't think we should deny people the ability to self nominate, even if it does mean a less chance of success. I do very detailed nominations in part because few people do the extensive reviews necessary to truly determine if someone is ready to be an admin, and I don't want to nominate someone who isn't ready; that's bad for the project. It'd be nice if all nominators were as detailed in their reviews, but only a handful are. But, in my opinion we shouldn't stop people from nominating or self-nominating if they are less detailed. --Durin 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well like the above user say, I think part of why you're seeing a lower percentage of self-noms being accepted is the generally higher quality of sponsored candidates...Sponsors aren't generally likely to nominate a user with 300 edits, yet every now and again one will pop in and get quickly removed. Generally, if someone is sponsored, they've impressed someone enough to sponsor them (especially if the sponsor is a well established contributor to RfA), so they're generally pretty good whereas both good candidates and random schmucks can self-nom just as easily. Either way, the issue needs to be on the candidate, not how they were nominated. The reality however is that a nomination from a respected user will help you, probably more so than being a self-nom will hurt you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have an interesting proposal, but the main problem I see with that is potential Instruction Creep. I agree that RfA voting is a difficult task...it's hard to give the time and energy needed to properly analyze a candidate to each and every nominee. For me, I only tend to vote on the more controversial ones (the yellow ones of DFBOt's summary), and I generally only vote after doing some research. For me this is a combination of quantitative analysis using various metrics, such as edit count, distribution of edits across namespaces, analysis of edit counts to articles, time on Wiki, etc. Then there's the qualitative side of looking through the candidates edit history, looking at what their contribution list looks like, looking at their User Page, their User Talk record, and what other voters have commented on about the candidate. Because I generally focus on controversial ones, I analyze why people support this candidate, and why people oppose. Do I find their reasons for opposing valid? It's not an easy process, I agree.

Your second point, Problem: People who fail to follow the RfA procedure correctly get shot down in flames, and annoy everyone. I think this is true, but I don't know that I would personally phrase it as a problem. I think you're talking about incorrectly formatted RfA applications and such things. To me, I'd agree with that. In my mind, a person needs to be familiar with and knowledgeable about Wikipedia to be an Administrator. I think the sign of a good Internet user is one who is willing to lurk in a forum before contributing to the forum, and to slowly build up their contribution levels. For example, I read Wikipedia for months before I signed up for an account and began editing. When I began to be aware of the Admin position, and became interested in becoming one, I researched the position and how one became an Admin. Obviously, this led me here. I lurked in RfA for months before I went through the process. For my own reasons, I wasn't comfortable voting heavily on RfA's, but I observed RfA's going through, I observed discussion here, and I occasionally made comments here. Thus, when it came time for me to go through the process, I knew what I was doing, made sure to correctly format my nomination, and I was promoted without opposition. To me, if a candidate incorrectly formats their RfA, if they add their RfA to the page without accepting it or answering questions, if they transclude their nomination to the RfA page with no edit summary, these are red flags that the candidate is unfamiliar with RfA procedure and basic Wikipedia culture, and is therefore not yet ready to be an Administrator. Whether that is in fact true or not, an incorrectly formatted RfA gives a very poor first impression. It's like sending out a resume with typos on it...no one will hire you, even if you're fantastically qualified, because you can't be bothered to spell check your own resume.

Your third point: Problem: There is a strong preference against self-nominations.. Is there? I think that's a complicated issue with lots of differing opinions. I nominated myself and passed unopposed. I had wanted to be nominated by someone else, but I also was opposed to the idea that I should ask someone...I wanted to be noticed for my own merits, and have someone offer to nominate me without solicitation on my part. However, had I sat around waiting to be nominated, it might have taken me much longer to become an Administrator, so I nominated myself, got promoted, and got busy making Administrative contributions. I think in the ideal world, candidates are nominated by Administrators, who approach the candidate unsolicited. Both nominations I have made so far were completely unsolicited on the part of the nominee, and I think that's a nice way for things to be. However that doesn't mean that I would reject out of hand someone who happened to approach me and ask me to consider nominating them. I think that's a nice ideal, but ultimately it's not practical...if worthy Admin candidates sit around waiting to be noticed, waiting to be nominated by someone else, well then they're spending time not as Admins that they could be spending contributing Administratively. I personally have no problems with self nominations, having been one myself, and I think a self-nom shows gutsiness and a willingness to get down to the business of being an Admin. If someone really prefers to be nominated, they can ask another editor they respect to consider nominating them. The worst they other person can do is say no, and even then they're still free to ask someone else or self-nom. I think though that ultimately, some people are biased for and against self nominations and sponsored nominations. I think the real issue needs to be "is this candidate ready to be an Admin?", not "did they nominate themselves?" or "do they have a popular sponsor?".

I also don't think it's good to restrict nominations to Admins. While I think that Admins are perhaps more suited to understand the role they play and what are good attributes in a candidate, we don't have a monopoly on that knowledge, and I don't think it's good to place further restrictions seperating Users from Admins. I think it's good if Users feel comfortable and able to nominate other Users for Adminship..to me, thats a positive sign that a given User is willing to commend another User for a position of greater responsibility. Personally, the first person that I wanted to nominate for Adminship was another editor, not myself, and I would have nominated her if someone hadn't beaten me to it before she'd reached my personal minimum standards (fortunately she passed nonetheless, but my reasons for wanting to wait to nominate her were in fact a defining issue of her RfA).

I disagree with your statement The nominator would not necessarily have to strongly believe in the candidate. When I make an RfA nomination, I only do so when I firmly believe a candidate is ready. I am not only putting their reputation and record up for consideration, but by attaching my name to the nomination, I am essentially saying "On my record as a good contributor to Wikipedia, I believe this other user would be a quality Administrator". I'm literally weighing in with my reputation to support another User. That is certainly not something I would ever give lightly, and I don't think that I am alone in that opinion. I believe an RfA nominator should completely believe in a candidate they nominate.

There should also be a place (formally or informally) where potential admins can find someone to nominate them. Comments please. That I have mixed feelings about. I don't think it would be a horrible thing to have candidates to are interested in Adminship speak up and ask for advice from older users. However I think personally the best thing to do if you want to be nominated is to just approach another editor you respect and ask them to consider you. If you pick someone known for making successful RfA nominations, so much the better. My personal preference for candidates is for me to approach them, but even through I keep an eye out that doesn't mean I would be averse to someone asking for my consideration.

Well, Ive said a lot here, but I hope my comments are helpful to you. I bet I'm totally getting an edit conflict on this. I was right. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Another modest proposal (from further up):

1. Do away with RfA completely. Designate all admins older than ~3 months as "certifiers" (right now I think that means about 700 certifiers). Say that only certifiers can actually nominate new admins, though of course anyone can ask any certifier to nominate someone. Certifiers should only nominate after checking that the candidate meets some informal guidelines roughly like the current ones and deciding they support the candidate. Maybe another certifier should have to second the nomination. The nominator writes a statement in support of the candidate.
2. Once a nomination is entered, 12 certifiers from the total pool get selected at random by the wiki software (this group doesn't include the original nominator unless by coincidence). The random selection is intended to prevent self-selected cliques from pushing people through as happens now. The 12 certifiers then hold an semi-formal arbcom-like process to decide on the nomination. As with arbcom, an oppose vote cancels a support vote. They discuss the nomination on an rfar-like page and maybe privately, review the nominee's edit history and ask the nominee questions on-wiki and/or on irc and invite public comment. With 730 certifiers and one new nomination per day (365/year), and 12 certifiers per nomination, each certifier should expect to sit on about 6 nomination panels per year. That allows them to examine nominees more closely than the current rfa scheme does, since regular rfa voters now look at basically every nominee, so they decide on lame bases like mathbot statistics. I'd hope that each certifier would spend at least an hour or so on each nomination they consider.
3. If the vote is +4 to certify then the nominee is promoted. Otherwise there's a soft 6-month waiting period before permitting renomination.
4. Certifiers can self-recuse or be recused when there's obvious conflicts of interest, or be deselected if they're unavailable for reasons unrelated to the candidate (e.g. they're on wikibreak or have outside commitments), but otherwise participation once selected by the software should be semi-mandatory (like jury duty). Again, this is intended to decrease self-selection effects.
5. If desired, the certifier pool can be expanded somehow to include non-admins, but I'm not sure exactly how that should be done. It shouldn't be wide open.

70.231.136.114 16:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No more instruction creep, please. The system works just fine in the vast majority of cases, and people can always apply again, or otherwise, if they screwed up, they can be de-adminned. These proposals are just red tape with no guarantee of improving things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the occasional close call decision makes it appear that RfA is somehow broken. But I think that is not the case. A close vote means that the system is working, and that there is legitimate decision making going on. I say let the RfA system work. The value of properly nominated versus self-noms is already taken into account in people's votes, as are the other key issues that come up. Changes in standards will be determined by the voters and will evolve naturally over time. NoSeptember ^talk 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage requirements on other language editions (Archive 51)

I would like to collect some data, just for comparison. On de: to be allowed to vote on RfA you need 200 article space edits and two months, on fr: it is 3 months and 300 "significant" (non-botlike etc.) edits. nl: has one month and 100. Other languages, anyone? Kusma (討論) 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fair comparison here. Each language operates independently of each other, and the voting rules and promotion guidelines vary from language to language. For example, on nl, it is strict voting - anyone above a certain percentage (80 percent, I think) is automatically promoted. That's why they have strict voting suffrage requirements. Also, because of that, in nl bureaucrats aren't given the responsibility of deciding consensus - it's a strict number count. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On ru: you need five edits prior to the nomination. Conscious 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Italian Wikipedia: logged in user, registered at least 30 days before start of nomination, and having done at least 50 edits - Liberatore(T) 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I like what they do in ru: - let us adopt that, my friends. BD2412 T 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, five edits is a nice small number, and the requirement of having them before a nomination could help avoid sockpuppet votes. — TheKMan^talk 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The downside is that you can create ten accounts now, make five edits with each and use them for all the following nominations. Conscious 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the requirements would be to discount votes by suspiciously new users, rather than to legalize sockpuppet voters that pass the requirements. — TheKMan^talk 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to go to the trouble of setting up a sock puppet to lie in wait, anything we come up with isn't going to be a huge hurdle. I think, as TheKMan pointed out above, the requirement of having the edits before a nomination could help avoid sockpuppet votes, which seem to be triggered, on occasion, by a particular nomination. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with TheKMan and DS1953. Also, having a minimum number of votes - even just five - would also make sure that well-intentioned new users know how Wikipedia works before casting a vote. (^'-')^ Covington 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ten edits and seven days registration prior to opening of nomination. John Reid 23:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think 11 edits and 6.5 days is better. -Splash^talk 23:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, then how about 1 year and 50,000 edits. ;-) BD2412 T 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess who just passed 50k edits last month ;-) Seriously, is setting a specific number really so bad? Kusma (討論) 23:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we say that 50,000 edits is mandatory retirement level? Wikipedia can't take any more of those carpel tunnel lawsuits ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous voting (Archive 54)

Does anyone here think that it would be a good thing to allow anonymous voting? By which I mean that only registered users may vote, but *who* is voting a particular way would be kept from the candidate and others. I worry that when I vote 'oppose', it's going to come back and bite me. - Richardcavell 02:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But whoever votes can still be seen in the edit history.—G.He_(Talk!) 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say don't be afraid to oppose someone. If your reasoning stands up, there are a lot of people out there to make sure it doesn't "come back to bite you". --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As GHe said, everything's in the history anyways.--Alhutch 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There already is a mechanism for anonymous voting - your account name. Um, unless that's your real name... but I am quite hopeful that no one is going to track any voter to their home and beat you up over a Wikipedia RfA vote. BD2412 T 03:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that he means biting him on the wiki. You know, maybe having revenge votes cast against him in the future or something. Just my guess though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably that, or maybe personal attacks in worst case scenarios.—G.He_(Talk!) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is, this is teh internets - if the worst thing that happens to you is that people say bad things about you on the internet, count your blessings! BD2412 T 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Touché on the real username. I'd like to start a sockpuppet account so that I can edit abortion and other medicolegal topics without getting User:Richardcavell into trouble. I am worried about revenge votes, or more precisely, cliques forming. Any voting system will always inevitably degenerate into a two-party system with each side attacking the other to gain a steady state of mutual attrition. The fact that votes are on view here makes this doubly inevitable. - Richardcavell 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. That happens only when you have everything being determined by plurality winner take all systems. Since we vote up or down, not choosing candidates, that sort of issue doesn't apply (there are a variety of other reaons it wouldn't, but thats certainly one). JoshuaZ 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe we should make a page called Wikipedia:Users willing to make difficult oppose votes in RfA's, so that paranoid users could request help in expressing their concerns in RfA. No, I don't think that would work. ;-) Seriously, it would be very difficult to keep RfA votes anonymous while at the same time preventing sockpuppets and vandals from messing everything up. --TantalumTelluride 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In my book, anonymous voting misses the point anyway. If an editor has a legit reason to cast an oppose vote in an RfA, he or she should have the integrity to stand behind it. Retributive actions on the part of the nominated admin should be easy to point out as vandalism, WP:CIVIL problems, etc. Really, I don't think there's many people who receive an RfA that would "turn against" editors casting an oppose vote that wouldn't do so anyways. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA IS NOT A VOTE. Sure, we ask people to "vote here" and we often refer to people's comments as "votes". But, the point of RfA is to generate consensus. People can, do, and will change their votes based on additional information added to the RfA. If we had an anonymous ballot, that would not happen and we could readily promote people who just aren't ready. I don't think there's reason to be concerned about retributive actions based on votes or actions on contentious articles. Just do what you feel is right, while being prepared for having community consensus go against you at times; adapt, and move forward. --Durin 12:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still voting.. still democratic (as is consensus). Denial of wikipedia as democracy and it's history of democratic control is doublethink . -- max rspct leave a message 13:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's policy. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, guys. Did you miss the great Florida recount that ended with Jimbo elected to God-King? ;) NoSeptember ^talk 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes pal, we know what the official 'policy' line is. BBC etc calls it democratic:
"Perhaps Wikipedia is not about trusting the idea that the definitions it carries are accurate.Indeed, a recent article in The Post-Standard in Syracuse slammed the idea. It suggested because anyone could contribute, Wikipedia was not a verifiable authority, or trustworthy.Wiki-advocates would argue that is missing the point.It is more about trusting that humans can respect someone else's opinion in a democratic public sphere, and that contributors will not ruin the fun for everyone else." [3] -- max rspct leave a message 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that - shock horror - the BBC may not fully understand how Wikipedia works? After all, most journalists don't even get the URL right, let alone policy/process etc. Martin 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So now BBC sets Wikipedia policy, and not Wikipedia? Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe YOU don't fully understand how wikipedia works? Yes Wikipedia sets policy - you pretty much make my point. Funny how the article on consensus states : "As this example suggests, the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." Check these two books hint that academics might actually consider consensus decisionmaking Consensus democracy, deliberative democracy or participatory democracy [4], [5]. Democracy isn't necc good or beneficial per se (eg military dem, boardroom,)unless those affected by the outcomes are the decison makers. I have a funny feeling that our democratic process iz going to expand this section.. unless an admin chops it. Surely the act of click that button to edit an article is a blatent democratic step. And in answer to Infinity0's question about my handle/username ... they were the first two words i uttered when i realised i could edit!! and how empowering wikipedia is and can possibly continue to be. "Maximum Respekt!!" - Ali G -- max rspct leave a message 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is a cornerstone of democracy in the same way that having a vagina is a cornerstone of being a prostitute. Not all people with vaginas are prostitutes, and not all organisations run through consensus are democracies. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, while that was probably the funniest example I've ever heard — I should barnstar you for that one — this is strating to stray pretty far from the original question of "anonymous voting." Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While this praxis does at times cause eventual misunderstandings, it is my impression that most of the [minimally experienced] users who post here understand what the RfA process really is, even though they say "vote". I believe the word has come into use largely due to [ok, also an original misunderstanding because of] the procedural resemblance that the process bears to a vote. It's just a lot more practical to say I have voted to support than I have submitted my rationale in order to help achieve consensus sufficient to promote userX to Administrator. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to be so absolutely precise about the terminology during discussions that aren't even focusing on whether or not RfA is a vote, or voting, etc. That only causes the discussion to digress. For my part, I've accepted that I'm cheap and don't want to wear out my keyboard ;). So please, let's relax a little about the terminology stuff. Redux 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with referring to most of our processes as votes, since we actually run discussion-based strawpolls (where the term vote would probably be accurate). I do take issue with people referring to any process as a "vote" however; we really ought to replace such references with "discussion" or "strawpoll". Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to join this (pointless IMO) discussion, but you might want to read that post again... It doesn't make sense. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...you're right. My bad. Just strike out the first half of the first sentence. :p Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes democracy is more than just voting. But "procedural resemblance" GET A GRIP! As for vaginas and prozzies - that's a pretty sick, schoolboyish way of 'putting' things..and it doesn't stand up at all. -- max rspct leave a message 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia procedurally resembling a democracy doesn't make it one any more than a sluttily dressed woman being a prostitute (to continue the analogy). And why doesn't it stand up? Do kindly explain. I don't care whether it's juvenile or not -- it's clearly getting the point across. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind the civility, Max. The point was exactly to learn to let go of the little things. Redux 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A more tame analogy would be, just because one has a colorful signature, does not mean one has a colorful personality. -- 127.*.*.1 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee for Newbs (Archive 54)

This is my first time editing wikipedia. I've enjoyed the creation of this community as a user but I really am turned off by the welcoming committee we have around here.

I'm apparently labelled a troll, etc by the welcoming committee. When I vote against a candidate, some random person who supports that person invariably comes along and tags my vote with a comment about how I am new or created some article that was deleted.

When I make a joke about this on a vote page, saying you can go right ahead and tag this with a comment, I'm edited out as a "troll vote". I suspect this will go forward as reason enough to edit out my future votes since, afterall, I'm a troll. Once labelled a troll, always a troll-- that's what I'm thinking.

Perhaps, encylopedias like law and sausage are something you should enjoy without getting your hands dirty by creating.Profundity06 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general idea is that someone as new as you doesn't really know what qualities and characteristics an administrator of Wikipedia should have. If you seem abusive in your opposes then you will be deemed a troll since it seems like you're just going around opposing to cause arguments. I would suggest that you steer clear of voting on RfA for a while and observe the process, to see what is appropriate. Nobody should blame you for acting a little inappropriately when you are new, since you're still adjusting to what is expected of users in terms of conduct on Wikipedia. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 10:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Profundity06--you are wrong about the "Once labelled a troll, always a troll" thing. There are several well-thought-of users here who started out as vandals (well, ok, not several. But some. Well, maybe I can think of one.) Likewise, some of our most prolific and respected editors (respected by some subsets of editors, anyway) are called trolls quite frequently. Anyway, the point is that even straight-out vandals can reform, so certainly people calling you a troll won't cause problems for you after you have a few solid edits under your belt. If you want people to stop disregarding your votes, for instance, all you have to do is spend a while building up a few decent edits in the encyclopedia itself. If you're serious about arguing against overaggressive vandal-fighter admins, I would also suggest you make your argument by linking to specific edits by the candidate in question that you think show them going over the line; no matter how new you are, I believe people will take your comments seriously if you back them up well enough and detail your concerns. --Aquillion 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if marked as such it's our ('crats) responsibility to judge whether the user is too new to wikipedia. In such a case we may or may not fully consider his vote or not if the nom falls between 75-80%. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IP Votes (Archive 57)

On my RfA an IP user mysteriously came along and voted. What is the procedure for handling this - should I just remove the vote and inform the user that IP votes are discounted? Or should I leave it as it is with the minor comment stating so? Cowman109^Talk 01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment it out, that is, replace just # with #: so that it indents it but doesn't interrupt the numbering of votes below it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Cowman109^Talk 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A caveat: Replacing # with #: doesn't work if the vote is the first one. It still gets numbered so you'll have to remove the # altogether. Kimchi.sg 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. However, if the first support vote is an IP vote, it may well be the nominator logged out, as the nominator traditionally casts the first support vote. Might be a good idea to notify the nominator, unless they are signed below. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Qualified opinions. (Archive 59)

From the 'About RfA' section:

"Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to express their opinion, including the nominator, however, expressing an opinion on one's own nomination is discouraged..."

Why are nominees allowed to comment on the nominations of others? --Folajimi 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And why not? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they are Wikipedia editors like everyone else and should be free to express their opinions about RfAs? Did you have a specific reason in mind that lead you to think they shouldn't be allowed to? Gwernol 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider the following pair of scenarios:

1. A group of users decide to seek administrative access, and they all vote to support one another. If you have enough users teaming up, what would keep them from pushing the nominations through?
2. Consider the case where a nominee expresses opposition to another nominee's candidacy. Is it without the realm of possibility for the second user to become petty and start mudslinging? --Folajimi 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this text is a great example of why blindly substituting words doesn't work. The original version—which discussed voting on one's own nomination—made perfect sense; the new text seems rather silly, since a nominee will obviously express an opinion on their own nomination, by accepting it if nothing else. Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... and on this corner "Voting is evil!" Okay, let's run the blind substituter to get "Expressing an opinion is evil!". --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I need to dig out the diff on that, it's hilarious. Way to go, misguided idealism! -- grm_wnr Esc 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at how it continues: "expressing an opinion on one's own nomination is discouraged, and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat.". So we've gone from vote-counting to opinion-counting? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you find the diff. I'd like to inclde it on my userpage as a source of humour. It seems "vote" is Wikipedia's new four letter word. I made the following as a commentary on AfD, but I think it applies here: User:Deathphoenix/When a vote is not a vote. If it's so evil, maybe we should call it a "!vote" (said as "not-vote"). Like "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote, including the nominator, however, !voting in one's own nomination is discouraged, and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat" Remember, folks, voting is evil, but !voting is perfectly acceptable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Or "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote, including the nominator, however, !voting in one's own nomination is !encouraged, and will be !counted by the closing bureaucrat", just for consistency. -Splash - tk 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That appears to read "failure to vote in one's own nomination is discouraged, but it won't be counted because there's nothing to count." — Jun. 9, '06 [16:06] <freak|talk>

Any Wikipedia with an account is !welcome to !vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Resurrecting a proposal: jury voting (Archive 65)

Whose consensus is RFA supposed to represent?

Well, let's look at how we currently determine it. What we have now is a conventional vote: anyone who stops by can throw in their opinion. So whose consensus do we gather? That of RFA regulars, of the nominee's friends, and probably of the nominee's enemies. Assuming there's significant off-site discussion of Wikipedia matters amongst the wiki-savvy, such as on IRC, and given that people who have had interactions with someone are more likely to notice that person's RFA on RC or wherever, it's safe to say that a very large percentage of those who currently vote in RFA will have preconceptions as to the candidate's worthiness.

Is this good or bad? At first glance, it would seem good. Who better to judge a candidate than those who know him? But actually, I think it's probably not good. The acquaintances of a candidate surely have better knowledge, but they may also have unusual opinions. One example of this is, of course, where a candidate has consistently enforced an often-resented policy, such as WP:FU: those who have had their images removed (the minority of active Wikipedians who disagree with the policy) may feel resentful, and as discussed above are probably more likely to see the RFA than others. Basically, someone's pool of acquaintances may be skewed due to the spheres they walk in. Likewise, people may hold personal grudges if they were involved in a difference of opinion with a user. These people are not impartial, but they'll be disproportionately likely to vote in the candidate's RFA.

Now, the current process is not "broken". That's true. Most people it lets through are deserving, most people it bars are undeserving (or at least not clearly deserving). But "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The current system could use improvement; the mere fact that it works at an acceptable level is not reason to fail to improve it. Let's not oppose change just because it's change.

So, I would argue that consensus should be the informed opinion of the Wikipedian community as a whole. Obviously, we can't ask every single Wikipedian what they think of every single admin candidate. But an interesting possibility comes from jury votes, and the idea of a statistical cross-section. Select fifty or a hundred people randomly from the community for each candidate. (A bot could pick them and leave messages on their talk pages linking them to the discussion.) Have an open discussion for perhaps three days, longer if necessary, where people present diffs and other evidence and discuss the candidate's merits. Then let those in the jury (who showed up) vote. If they agree by a margin of 80% that the candidate should get the tools, then they get them.

Of course, many of these people may be inexperienced in RFA. They might not understand what adminship means exactly. But I think this could be overcome quite easily: just tell them all when they're selected what powers an admin gets and how difficult it is to remove them. It's really quite simple, not something that you need any experience to grasp.

Is the scheme overcomplicated? I really don't think so. A simple bot running on open-source code could handle all this quite invisibly. And unlike the present system, it's also completely immune to vote-stacking of any sort. People with open minds and average opinions will consider the matter, not people who may have preconceived opinions based on personal slights or out-of-date facts.

Of course, the question of how to select the jury remains, but that's more of a detail not important to the main thrust of the scheme. What are people's thoughts on this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the system broken? What percentage of RfA's do objective wikipedians think have been opposed with unfair predjudice? David D. (Talk) 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The system is not broken. It is merely imperfect. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it would be bad to block people from raising legitimate concerns, uncivil diffs, etc., comments to that effect would be made and allowed anyway, and the jury members and the closing bureaucrat will see them and they will have a similar effect as they do now; and supporters will object to those objections and bring up countervailing diff's and we have a similar system as we do now. Except, the selection of the jury is the key part. If they are randomly selected, a significant majority will have no idea what an admin does, etc., and many of them will, aside from being new, be uncivil or fringe or otherwise problematic; it is not sufficient to give a paragraph explanation, even if they are all good faith jury members. So we end up with people raising objections about the qualifications of the jury in any particular case. That is—if more than a handful of the randomly selected jury cares to give any careful evaluation, if they do anything at all. I think, if anything, this will result in a less careful evaluation or less discussion. If the current RfA participants were to still review contributions of the candidate in this proposed system, we would then have a situation where the people who know the most about the candidate have their opinions not count, and then the people who just happened to login one day so they can edit their favorite band article don't know the qualifications, haven't reviewed the contributions, and may not even vote reasonably if they had. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think problems with the current system are related lack of thorough discussion. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because RfA is a vote. We're kidding no one. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

With the proposal, keep in mind that not everyone is on every day. Some may visit once a week-maybe less. It also doesn't seem right to block some from having the ability to vote. Michael 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of people's schedules, the idea depends on having enough "jurors" feel an obligation to participate. In a volunteer project, that's a dicey proposition to rely on, and the combination makes me skeptical about whether the result would be a reasonably representative body. And that's without getting into the technical challenges of selecting them, which may not be critical to a theoretical discussion, but which are large enough that the theoretical side may not be worth spending much time on. --Michael Snow 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, current "bottom up" system works best. Wikipedia is a distributed, community based system. For certain very exceptional things, like ArbCom, etc., it is important to have a "top-down" approach. However, for editing articles, voting things for deletion, voting for admin, and others, it is best to let things at the hands of the community (will all the disclaimers of the supposed silliness of the masses, etc.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The technical challenges are negligible. Anyone familiar with pywikipediabot could probably knock up a bot to do this in a day. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody could easily create a bot to pick a jury pool, no doubt. What I meant by technical challenges was the issue of making the pool random, or otherwise ensuring that the jury is a representative sample of the person's peers. Addressing those problems goes beyond mere skill in programming. --Michael Snow 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who only visit once a week will, of course, not be able to participate as often. There will be an inherent bias toward more active members of the site, but I don't think that's a bad thing: they're the ones who will most likely have to deal with the new admin, after all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a few concerns here. First, as you say, the jury will not know what an admin does. As I said: so? What's there to know? Be told what they can do, what use giving someone the tools is and what harm it could cause, and you're pretty much set. You don't have to be an expert in Wikipedia policy to judge admin candidates, any more than you need to be a lawyer to judge a legal case.

Second, you suggest that the jury might be uncivil or otherwise fringe. To that, I think all I need to say is, are contributors to RFA at present really all civil and mainstream? You'll always have some jerks in the crowd.

Third, you suggest that the jury won't review the evidence. Maybe. My belief is that given the small number of RFAs, no one of our tens of thousands of active members will be picked often enough for the jury to lose its interest. I would guess that given editor turnover, a large percentage of people will only ever be picked once. Put a big notice up saying DO NOT PARTICIPATE IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO SPEND AT LEAST AN HOUR DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING OVER THE COURSE OF A WEEK, and I think the large majority will put more effort into it than most RFA voters currently do. (How much time do you spend when deciding how to vote on an RFA? I doubt I've ever spent more than half an hour.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I still like the idea of the juror voting. Juror's can be randomly selected from the pool of people registered for the juror's duty, so to prevent from choosing people, who are not interested. People who edit wikipedia are usually fast learners and it is not that bad if the nominated admin and the people arguing his case will be a little more verbose explaining their arguments to the Jury. After all in the real courts of law the Jury is usually less educated than a typical wikipedian, the instructions are more complex and the results are much more important abakharev 03:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jury cases in courts of law are quite different that this proposal. Courts of law are a negative process. They would be more similar if all it took were a single wiki-juror to deny adminship, in which case we wouldn't get any admins. There are many other dissimilarities too; the analogy doesn't hold. —Centrx→talk • 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. The principle in both cases is this: a random selection of an individual's peers are the most neutral possible group to judge him. The exact requirements for conviction versus adminship aren't the point of this suggestion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's a terrible idea. One of the principles behind the ideal of consensus is "those who are there to make the decision are the right people to make the decision". By saying we need a juried system, we're demolishing a huge chunk of good faith in our editors, and for no proven gain. RFA needs help, probably, but this isn't it. -- nae'blis 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that that's a part of the ideal of consensus. Consensus is of the entire community, not just of people who happen to be there. The people who happen to be there may be better-suited to make the decision . . . or they may be just the opposite. And as for assuming good faith, that is completely unrelated to assuming beneficial action: I can assume someone is acting in good faith while still saying they should not be allowed to act that way. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Any substantial RfA reform is unlikely, I'd say, because there is a substantial group that views RfA as one of the smoothest-running, most effective processes on the English Wikipedia. This despite the vocal group that believes otherwise. A reform that is, like this one, purely experimental and not modelled on other process that have a history of success, is especially unlikely to find purchase. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with the spirit of RFA:

• Oppose Bad idea. FeloniousMonk 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I was the first to propose this, but I've certainly brought it up before. The current processes at RfA, CfD, AfD, etc. are all "consensus" based, but based on consensus of whoever shows up to participate. This makes all of these processes extremely subject to manipulation by any organized group. If we actually want these processes to reflect community-wide "consensus" I don't think there's any real alternative to some sort of random sampling technique. The "jury" analogy is not really accurate. It's more like statistical polling. With sampling techniques, and a small amount of statistics, it's possible to figure out what the +/- percentage is for a given (random) sample size. A self-selected sample (what we have now) has a +/- of 100% (might be completely wrong). If we want 80% approval, I think we could get within 2% of this by sampling something like 30 randomly selected users (I am not a statistician, so this number might be extremely inaccurate). If we allowed users to elect to be part of the population from which a random sample were selected, I think we avoid most of the infrequent participant problems. I'm not claiming this is necessary, but I think it's quite doable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)\

• The way I see it here's how a jury type system would ideally work:
  • A set group of trusted Wikipedians would be overseers or selectors if you will of the jury pool and are selected through some way that is acceptable.
  • Anyone with X edits or more may put their name on a page to be eligible for the jury pool
  • The overseers/selector group selects the jury group for each, to make sure the overseers don't rig it it would be simple to have multiple groups and even possibly have a 2nd group that decides which overseer or overseers choose the jury for which case to avoid jury rigging.
  • Once a jury is chosen there would be a period of time for comment and diff presentation from the public. Comments and diffs would have to be regarding the candidate's past behavior and any reasoning based on possible actions would have to be justified based on past actions (to avoid mudslinging).
  • Supporters could also present diffs and well based reasoning to why the person would be a good candidate for adminship
  • Responses to criticisms and supports alike would be allowed but not required of the candidate who would also be able to present diffs. Room could also potentially be given for outside supporters and opponents to counter given diffs.
  • Jury members could excuse themselves if they felt they could not make a fair decision and would not be allowed to comment or provide diffs on the nom either for or against unless they excuse themselves.
  • After a given amount of time (7 days or 14 days would probably be best) the chosen jury pool will discuss among themselves whether the person gets promoted, a consensus would be required to promote and jury votes would have to be reasoned in explanation.

• Please give your feedback on this idea, I'm more than willing and ready to write this into a proposal but would like some comments on it first lest I waste the effort to have it shot down immediately. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this concept of jury voting is one of the best suggested reforms of the RFA process that I have heard. It allows us to get away from voting and reach a consensus for every nomination. I would definitely volunteer to be on the jury. -- JamesTeterenko 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Volunteering for jury duty is one way we could do it, randomly selecting from registered users active within X days is another, picking edits off RC is still another; it's the concept that matters more than the implementation. However we do it, though, the jurors should not be selected by a human group, but rather at random, possibly with some kind of criterion for removing anyone who knows/has strong feelings toward/whatever the person. And jurors should most definitely be allowed to comment on the case, ask questions, and join the discussion; I know real jurors aren't allowed to, but AFAIK that's more of a relic than something with a real purpose. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This proposed jury system strikes me as taking a fairly simple and transparent process and making it pretty complicated. Do we want to risk breaking something that, by many accounts, isn't broken? Let's keep it simple. Sxeptomaniac 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New user vote (Archive 65)

Hi,

What's the policy regarding completely new user's voting? I.e. users that haven't contributed on any other Wikipedia page but except for a particular RFA? User:ManhattanNY has done so on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ambuj.Saxena. It seems a bit odd that an anonymous user cannot vote, but a brand new user account can (which essentially may be the same thing). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, they ain't votes. It's a consensus gathering excercise which means that Supports or Opposes from new or anon users are usually given much less weight by the 'crats during their decision making. Usually consensus is clear, but when it's tight, those new users who provide some explanation for their opinions will no doubt be considered. A big list of 'votes' should not make the decision, though, as WP is WP:NOT a democracy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew this was coming when I used the term vote, but the section on "Voting and expressing opinions" specifically talks about voting ;) But, my point is, why is an anonymous user specifically bared from voting when a user who has made *zero* other contributions is allowed to vote simply because of the fact they're logged in? It makes no sense to me. Either allow anons to vote or allow neither. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A brand new, zero edit user who has registered has made a tiny but significant step towards establishing a reputation in the WP community. Their opinion may not carry the same weight with the 'crat as someone more established, but it deserves more consideration than one of the faceless hoardes of the anonymous community. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to instigate a major policy change, because, well, can't be arsed :) But, I think my point still stands. Especially when it's a case of such blatant "just signing up to vote". Although no doubt the user will now make a contribution to make my point moot! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another consideration is that it is possible to look at the contributions of a named account and guage something about them -- at the very least, you can tell whether it is a new account. With an anon, there is often no telling for sure whether the anon's previous edits were from the same person or whether the same person may be a frequent editor but from a rolling IP. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the specific RfA, it was not appropriate to strike the user's Oppose. A better course of action for the future in this situation would be to make a note below the vote making a note to the effect of "Above is user's first edit". This helps the 'crat when he/she is making the decision and closing the conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be your main priority. It wouldn't eliminate the vote but give it less credibility. Michael 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, it seems a bit fishy to me if a brand new user's first edit is to an RfA. How many new users actually know about them for them to be their first edit? Michael 07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd think hardly any. Personally I just started adding stuff to articles without knowing policy and didn't participate until about my 500th, even though I had already met some admins at maybe the 100 edit stage. Probably not regularly until even the 1500 edits, I didn't care about these things - why I started to, I don't know.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the same for me. As time passed, I suppose I became more involved not only in the editing of articles but in other things such as RfA, AfD, and vandal fighting. When I first started, though, I just edited articles with little knowledge of the rest of Wikipedia. Michael 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comment - limits for participation in RFA (Archive 72)

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)

1000 edits to vote in RfA? (Archive 73)

I missed this coming out, I think. Seems a bit stringent.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be no restrictions on who can and cannot vote in an RfA, nor should there be any restrictions on how often it can be done. I am actually for allowing anons to vote in RfAs as well. Just look at User talk:68.39.174.238 for an example of a comitted anon. And there are many others out there, they just don't have fixed IPs. - Mike | Talk 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no "opinion" floor on RfA; but as with IP editors, there is a simple solution--register. Then it matters not if the IP is fixed or dynamic. -- Avi 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a measure to prevent carpet bagger voting. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see where this is? Where am I forgetting to look? -Splash - tk 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I've seen "1000 edits" cited in two RfAs now as if it is actual policy now ... Did that actually happen without discussion here? I didn't/don't think that can happen. Confused per Splash. Newyorkbrad 11:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought myself somehow to have missed the surrounding discussion, and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is perplexed; I rather assume that no such standard has been implemented. In any event, though, if RfA is not principally a vote, ought we really to be concerned about carpet bagging or sock puppeteering at RfA? Whilst a closing bureaucrat might find reviewing the edit count/history of every participant in a given RfA with whom he should be unfamiliar, there are surely many RfA participants who would serve (and already, where appropriate, do) identify those !votes about which uncertainty might exist (a less-than-substantive !vote is likely to be accorded little weight irrespective of the edit history of the !voter). I suppose we might suggest that, whilst anyone may partake of an RfA discussion (in, for example, the comments section), only those editors with at least xx edits may edit any of the support, oppose, or neutral sections, but such a suggestion seems unnecessarily complex. Joe 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1,000? Shouldn't it be 100 at most, like in the deletion processes? Not that you can't vote in an AfD with under 100 edits, but if you have that many we assume you aren't a sock/SPA. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody, at least, thinks there is/was a new rule [6]. See partic. the edit summary. I was just wondering where the editor had seen that. Someone else (maybe the same editor) also used it in another debate that is no longer on the project page. There are no rules like this that I'm aware of. -Splash - tk 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean can !vote? Anyway, I only had 330 edits or so when I first participated in RfA. This is foolish. Grandmasterka 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean "Not that you can't !vote". An individual with under 100 edits can vote in AfD, they just run a higher risk of being SPA flagged or otherwise discounted. See WP:SOCK#When questions arise. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed the "not that you" part. I'm aware of sockpuppet policy, thanks. Grandmasterka 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

L.O.L. I saw a comment about how a candidate lacked sufficient edits to vote, let alone run. I thought I'd missed something! I'm pleased to know this is not an official policy. It sounds like just too much to me!Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim

I think Esperanza membership regulations are good: 2 weeks of being a Wikipedian, and 150 edits. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit low maybe double? 300 edits, 4 weeks experience?

†he Bread 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A question (Archive 76)

Can anybody vote for or against the future administrators? What is the rules, is there a minimum of edits for a user to be able to vote? Thanks. Ajor 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no minimum, except having an account. However, things like the first edit being a vote on a RfA will probably cause the closing bureaucrat to ignore them, so it's not entirely unrestricted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah if you have about 100 or even less you should be fine, but if your edits are only in relation with the user and the particular RFA assume that your vote won't count. — Seadog_MS 06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Ajor 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't it say all this at the top of the page? >Radiant< 10:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It does, but it doesn't hurt for someone to ask if they are unsure. Essjay (Talk) 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nom !voting in RfA (Archive 77)

I've just made my first nomination on RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller). I was unclear from the instructions whether I can support the nomination myself and fear of "malforming" the RfA stopped me. Perhaps this could be clarified in the instructions, or (better) could the automation make the nominator the first support !vote? --Dweller 09:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you support you nominee in his/her RFA. Isn't it a bit obvious. :P I don't think we can make the nominator being the first support vote, since the user may decline the RFA. Terence Ong 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the "support" is support of the nomination or support of the nominee. Grammatically/logically, it makes more sense for it to be the former, which makes it a nonsense for the nominator to support himself. Yeah, I'm a pedant. I think it probably makes me a useful editor... if a bit of a pain from time to time. --Dweller 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The nominator is allowed to, and should, post a support !vote for the nominee. (Unless, of course, it's a self-nom.) Newyorkbrad 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for pedants! (or is that huzzah?) Anyway, if you can think of a better way to word that, I'd be in favor, because this isn't the first time I've seen that question... and the fact that it's different for self-noms and nominated RfAs doesn't help (logically, the initial nomination should count as your support !vote, but that screws up the ordered list count). -- nae'blis 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice (Archive 77)

In response to a request for advice on an application as an RFA, I suggested that being nominated by someone with less than 150 edits may create a "red flag" where the voters would most likely give the nomination additional scrutiny because the person nominating and vouching for the trustworthiness of the candidate, although assumed to be a good editor, is not yet what i called a trusted member of the community. The nominator wanted an example where someone didn't pass because the nominator was so new. Because I thought it useless to point out nominations that are quickly removed because of such defects (since the nominee usually also has very few edits - and in this case the nominee had over 4000), I pointed out my experience is that the nominators are usually trusted members, and that of the current RFA's no nominator has less than 4500 edits. This did not satisfy him/her. Therefore I am asking - do you think I am out of bounds suggesting that a nominee consider finding a different person to nominate them, or is my prediction that to go forward might subject the nomination to additional scrutiny (which is not necessarily a bad thing) completely unjustified. --Trödel 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean gorter interesting. If the nomination is worded well enough (and perhaps the nominator mentions they are quite new in the nomination) there may not be a problem. Emphasis on the "may". I can't take responsibility if there is a problem. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I had remembered that happening a couple times. I agree there may be no problem especially if the nominee is excellent - but it seems like you shouldn't introduce a possible objection in the nomination language. --Trödel 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good example. There is a big difference between being nominated by a fairly new user and being nominated by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. I would suggest the candidate in question just makes a self-nom, going around trying to get someone to nominate you seems to be gaming the system to me. --Tango 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the point of someone else nominating you is that they think really well of you and want you to be an admin. Going around and actively seeking out someone to nominate you defeats the point, and gives a slight implication that you're too lazy to write a nomination statement yourself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thx all --Trödel 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)