Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There's a lengthy conversation going on here concerning RFA's and the number of additional bureaucrats we may or may not need. I think it might be useful if some more bureaucrats joined the discussion. I know some have, but more voices can't hurt. Especially as it concerns how active the group and it's members are. Rx StrangeLove 22:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 oppose votes that are likely bad faith/sockpuppet on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fang Aili. I was tempted to remove them, but I didn't want to step on any toes. These are the only votes by these users. Would I have been overstepping my authority to remove them? --rogerd 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, please do not remove or strike them out. Just put a comment below the vote that the user is a possible sockpuppet. The closing b'crat will investigate the claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this strongly; removing or striking votes is a) a bureaucrat task, and b) potentially inflammatory. It is, however, extremely helpful to put a note below the vote pointing out any legit issues with votes, as the bureaucrats can't possibly hope to know all the various inter-user situations. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have prematurely delisted user:General Eisenhower's nomination (2/22) (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/General Eisenhower). I may not have the time this week to respond to any queries. Please ensure that it is not relisted. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonathan235 due to low experience levels, among other criteria (incorrect placement of RFA, etc.). — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can now grant or revoke the bot status of other user accounts using the MakeBot extension which was taken live this morning. See the meta page for a little more information on using it. This was done after a long wait and requests from both bureaucrats and stewards. I am informed that somewhere along the line, this was endorsed by Jimbo Wales, too.

The technical announcement was made on the technical village pump. I'm replicating it here because it affects bureaucrats. Rob Church (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for 'crat's opinion on the matter of HolyRomanEmperor's RfA. Please see related discussion on the RfA talk page. The matter at hand is about BCrats recusing themselves from RfAs and the 'crats' rights to alter RfAs. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I support the removal of the RFA nom. It's far to controversial and is generating a lot of bad blood. A relist after 45-60 days would be more suited to gain a better consensus. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that works though someone should ask his opinion first, if he specifically wants to go with it through to the end then then he should be allowed to. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well not necessarily. We can't just allow candidates to choose how they want to run their request by restricting whom can "vote" and how. Linuxbeak probably should have just let the whole thing run, then at the end discounted the socks, etc. And explained his actions! (A little communication goes a long way) Restarting the RfA with these restrictions seems very odd. But HRE has been very quiet on the whole thing (from what I can tell). --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue with allowing sock puppets to overwhelm an RfA that can't be remedied by just discounting the sock puppets at closing time—the effect that the sock puppets have on other voters. With a few sock puppets, this is hopefully negligible. When it gets to 10 to 15 sock puppets supporting/opposing for similar reasons, I think legitimate voters, especially those on the fence, may be swayed. Also, I know that I will sometimes not bother to investigate an RfA for an editor I'm not familiar with if the outcome of the vote already seems to be a foregone conclusion. So I think something needed to be done, although I'm not too comfortable with how it was handled. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to the bot approvals group (see Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging) that they provide a convenient and centralized place to note that an account needs to be flagged/deflagged (since that is now our responsibility). I've proposed the use of Wikipedia:Requested bot flags, which I've drafted for the purpose. Comments from others (as I've been presumptious to speak for all of us) are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging, since I started the discussion there. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Could a bureaucrat please do something about this user's unlisted RFA? I am not sure what should be done, perhaps just blank the page? Thanks for the help, Prodego ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly recent, so why not list it? It looks fishy, but RfA voters should catch that fine, and treat it accordingly... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But the votes already on the RFA have to be removed, and that only a bcrat should do, right? Prodego ^talk 23:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But the weird thing is, he has not officially accepted the nomination, yet he has edited it... should it be considered accepted? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd let it sit based on procedural grounds. It's not been accepted. There are nominations that have sat for a while before being accepted. Perhaps the user does not want it posted yet for some reason. Let it be, and contact the nominee for clarification on their intent. --Durin 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Until he accepts it, this is basically a user subpage. Once accepted, the old votes need to be cleared. My concern is with long-time users who keep adding these types of RfAs to WP:RFA. Leave it to the nominee or nominator to add their RfA, we don't need to be doing it for them (unless they ask). My RfA sat for 3 weeks before I accepted, I would not have appreciated it if someone found it and decided to add it to WP:RFA without asking first. NoSeptember ^talk 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the pre-cast votes, and left a note about voting before the acceptance. Since he's indicated he won't accept until June 16 (well over a month away), it's likely to become another CSCWEM2, and we don't need that. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

{{rfaf}} and {{rfap}} (at least for now)? Or maybe make new templates for non-accepted noms? — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or recommend making a new page and moving it over this one. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that one needs to be closed now, as it's been past due over 6 hours now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, rather unusual situation here. Amgine clearly has the support, respect and trust of some very respected Wikipedians and Wikimedian's. From the perspective of a person very displeased with Amgine's two blocks in the Wikinews issue, I must say that overall (not in every case) the support in this RfA is much stronger and generally more well reasoned than the opposition. If I could ignore the numbers, I'd call this one as a consensus to promote. But bureaucrates are generally held to a 75-80% discretionary zone. Unless there is a bureacrat consensus to promote despite the strict numerical standards not being met (or a Wikimedia board member giving the nod), I'd say we have to close as no consensus and wait for the next time to promote. So I'd ask for some additional time to discuss this one and see if bcrats can come to a consensus or for a board member to weigh in. - Taxman ^Talk 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If one of you surviving 'crats promotes with these numbers, you better be prepared for two things:

1. Justification on what makes this nomination so special (with detailed reasoning); and
2. Prepare to explain to the community why their favorite candidate is not getting promoted with, say, 71%, or 73%, or 77%.

-- Cecropia 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I voted, and expressed a rather strong support, so I obviously can't weigh in on whether to promote or not, but as to the procedure for making the decision, I think it must be treated as any other RfA. A single, uninvolved, and unbiased bureaucrat should review the nomination and make a decision on promotion; there is no need to define a special procedure. With that said, I would encourage the decision to be made by one of the bureaucrats who has both been a bureaucrat for an extended period of time and has been consistently active on RFA; this decision will most certainly require both a great deal of experience in making these decisions, and a good feel for the pulse of the community.

As to Taxman's suggestion that a board member weigh in, I doubt that will happen, certainly not in the capacity of binding the Board. However, as we all know, Jimbo retains the ability to make such decisions, and as the reasons for Amgine becoming a sysop have included his duties on behalf of the Foundation (both OTRS and official committee business), I don't think it would be out of line at all for Jimbo to sanction promotion on his own authority, much like the promotion of User:BradPatrick, the Foundation attorney. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, Jim, I think the first point you make would be much easier than the second, as far as taking the flak. :) I am glad you've weighed in as a respected voice. And Essjay, I'm not so sure it requires a single bcrat. A consensus among us would be the only way I see we could justify a promotion without board intervention. Lets see how it goes.- Taxman ^Talk 04:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a compromise. If Amgine needs admin access for his work on OTRS, but there's no consensus on RfA, then we should consider an alternative level of adminship (this can be implemented through trust, not technical measures). He could have adminship where he can read deleted articles etc, but he would be asked not to block users or get involved in normal admin stuff. This was what was done for the Board vote. People like Aphaia needed adminship to use the board voting software, but those people wouldn't have made it through a normal RfA, so they had adminship for that task only. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aphaia. Angela. 05:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support that, as I believe he's already stated something to that effect on the RfA. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After going through the RFA, I don't support its promotion. However if he needs the adminship for OTRS, it would be better to get it through 'trust' by a board member as Angela puts it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While I personally trust Amgine, people's concerns seem to be valid ones: not enough contributions (although I admit I haven't checked how many he has), and wheel-warring concerns. I don't think we want to get caught up in what Cecropia mentioned (having to explain to everyone else why their candidate wasn't promoted at 71%). If he needs it for OTRS, I would rather he get it through 'trust' by a board member as well. — Ilyanep (Talk) 11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... you meant "...candidate was promoted at 71%"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant what he said, i.e. "Why was Amgine promoted at 71%, while the candidate I voted for/nommed wasn't promoted at the same percentage?" Snoutwood (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since many of the compromise proposals (that were made with the hopes of garnering enough support to get this RfA passed) were made after much of the early voting was already done, the solution would seem to be that Amgine's boosters should work out a plan that would pass muster next time, and propose it up front (in detail) when the RfA is submitted next time. To promote based on the current RfA would not be well received and I think would be a big mistake. Do you want to hurt the basic trust out there of bureaucrats as fair umpires of the RfA process? (and I say that as support voter #3 on this RfA). NoSeptember ^talk 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the foundation wants to give temporary or limited admin access, then let them do so. I'd support it. No one has objected to Brad Patrick being an admin that I am aware of. Legitimate special case situations are ok. Just don't make the local bureaucrats do it for them by fudging an RfA result. NoSeptember ^talk 11:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to bell the cat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good move. You guys have "dodged the bullet" and avoided "the Curse of Cecropia" 14:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After my compromise suggestion and the other one that followed, the support percentage needed to be higher than normal not lower to show solid support for this alternative type of admin. It needed to be in the 80% range supporting a specific alternative. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. : ( FloNight ^talk 14:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't normally strike or remove "votes" or comments from RFAs, but please at least have a look at this one. Nihonjoe was receiving unaninimous support until someone came only along with a spurious requirement that he would oppose unless the user did something about a particular issue for him! The user in question has changed to neutral, but it's now spilled over into a second opposer whose objection is that Nihonjoe said he would take a look at the issue. This my friends is not the "seeking consensus" RFA process, it is politics. If these kind of comments are allowed to stand it could be a slippery slope... I'd urge removal of the thread, perhaps to the talk page. --kingboyk 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate situation, and two unhelpful votes, but that doesn't mean we get to strike them out or move them just because of that. Leave a message on those user's talk pages explaining their interaction in the RfA is not helpful and why, then they can adjust their position now and/or in the future without being battered. Nihonjoe handled it very well and I think people will see that. It also will not likely have a negative effect on the outcome so I don't think it requires drastic action. - Taxman ^Talk 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hate spamming this, but WP:DFA would definately help avoid this. If such discussion was unrelated to votes, we'd have time to yell a user down for such a comment. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

About WP:DFA... it seems as though discussion surrounding it has stopped, but I believe it's a great idea. joturner 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a real shame. We need a lot more discussion so that we can beat out a reasonable proposal to present to the community. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Ardenn appears to be angry because s/he had to remove a fair use image from his/her sig. --Rory096 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What is happening there? Apparently the nominator withdrew, not the candidate. Per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096, that's not a reason to close it. Can a actual crat look at it and close it/relist it? --Rory096 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the discussions on User talk:Megaman Zero and at WT:RFA? As long as Zero is ok with the close, what is the problem? NoSeptember ^talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. (Still, a bcrat should close it rather than a regular user, no?) --Rory096 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually the nominator is more than just a "regular user" and would be acting in the best interests of their nominee, and timeliness of withdrawal can be an issue (to avoid a pile-on of oppose votes). The RfA could have been added back if Zero objected. NoSeptember ^talk 15:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tradition says that bureaucrats should close nominations, but where a nomination is withdrawn, any user smart enough to stick {{subst:rfaf}} {{subst:rfab}} around it and change "Vote here...ending" to "Final...ended" can close it out and save the bureaucrats the time and trouble (additionally, with it delisted from RfA, we may not see it. Sticking tags on things is not a big deal; the reason full-term nominations need a bureaucrat is to make the decision about consensus and set the rights if necessary. If there is no decision to be made, no consensus to determine, as is the case with a withdrawn nomination, it falls to anyone in the community to handle a matter of simple maintence. (Just as non-administrators can close out obvious keeps on AFD). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In March, Cecropia told me on my talk page that he was "bound to express no personal opinon on [my] overall RfA until a decision must be made, in the event [he were to be] the closing bureaucrat." I'm wondering if that is true and if Taxman is able to make comments in my RfA. Please don't interpret this as an attempt to get something stricken from the record, especially since the comments he has brought up have been brought up by others and because he has given both positive and negative feedback. I just want to find out what is correct. joturner 19:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia adopted a policy of refusing to discuss active RfAs himself although he did make exceptions. There isn't any broader policy, and I believe that appropriate communication is helpful for a number of reasons so I am not so conservative. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright; thanks. joturner 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe many bureaucrats discuss RfAs, but they may not close one in which they have commented on, which seems perfectly legitimate to me. I wouldn't hold a bureaucrat accountable for closing an RfA in which he commented if the outcome is clearly obvious either, but I would hope bureaucrats err on the side of caution and not close an RfA in which they have a conflict of interest, so to speak. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks to whoever fixed the gender usage. For some reason I got the impression Cecropia was a woman. I never seem to remember / guess correctly. joturner 03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• It'd be nice if there was a gender neutral pronoun for use in situations like this, but there really isn't. Such a pronoun would be especially useful on the net, where gender matters about as much as the price of eggs on Pluto. --Durin 15:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sie and hir? Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Singular they is the one that is most commonly used. It annoys the grammer police but it does have the advantage that people will understand you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) .

It's grammatically correct in Commonwealth English, actually. The problem is that it's kind of funny referring to a specific and identified person as they. ("Johnleemk is gay, so they should be banned from Wikipedia" just doesn't sound right; "Let's say a person is gay; they should be banned from Wikipedia" is better.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Both sound fine to me but them I'm a very heavy internet user.Geni 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally hate the singular they, but then again, I'm a tech writer, so I should be expected to be this anal about it. If I'm really into using gender neutral language, I try to use all plural, like "Let's say people are gay; they should be banned from Wikipedia". If I were to refer to one person, that would be tough. Maybe "Deathphoenix is gay, so he or she should be banned from Wikipedia." I'm not terribly fond of "he or she", but I like it better than "they". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Something odd has happened, my bot User:Pegasusbot no longer has the bot flag for some reason (I'm assuming some sort of glitch) and there's no mention on my talk page and nothing in the logs about it having the bot flag removed which is odd. Could this be something having to do with the changeover from steward to bureaucrat doing bot status and if this is a mistake can a bureaucrat please re-add the bot flag. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no such problem. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It actually ended up being a glitch in one of hte bot routines I was running. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA is ready to be closed whenever someone gets around to it. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Promoted. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if i should ask this here or at the Admin's area; so i thought i'll ask here first. I was wondering if a group could be made (hopefully with me in it), and a very low, restricted block privlidge's be given. Perhaps no more than say an hour, so it at least immobilises the Vandal, and gives Admin enough time to look into the case, and give a longer block if necessary. I understand that it's a big priv, and should be used very carefully, and perhaps have a system like WP:RFR did, where you could report abuses of power etc.

Thanks In Advance. --Deon555 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• That actually requires many changes to the MediaWiki software, unlike RFR, which only requires the creation of a separate "rollback" permissions group. I'm afraid that should be proposed at the Village pump. However, we do have WP:AIV, and it usually has a quick response. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So there's no hack or script :P --Deon555 02:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It would need to be developed, like a special version of Special:Blockip and another permisions group. It is not beyond possibility, but would likely be squashed as scope creep, but WP:VP is a good start. As Tito said WP:AIV is usually VERY FAST and many of us admins watch it. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering a bit what is required on the back end:

• A new privileges group (e.g. "junior sysop"), and limited permissions behing it (such as "limitedblock")
• Determining whether the user is a junior sysop (e.g. a user::isAllowed('limitedblock') function)
• A new interface for small blocks, or a hack of Special:Blockip to allow limited-scope blocks.
• A new interface for granting the privilege (similar to Special:Makesysop or a hacked version of Special:Userrights)

On the front end, there needs to be a policy to grant that privilege, and if there was no agreement on WP:RFR, I'm not sure there can be one for this proposal for the same reasons. There also needs to be a process to grant the permission, another point of contention. While the software changes are not incredibly difficult, getting people to agree that having split permissions is a good idea might be considerably more difficult. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you mean. It sounded like a good idea at the time :P, but still don't dismiss it - i'll take it all the way to the top :P. --Deon555 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

206.191.56.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has attempted to name me in these three posts: [1] and [2] and [3]. As it happens the name is not mine. But I don't think that anyone else should be getting crank emails and phone calls, either. As I recall, it is b'crats who can delete such messages. Can someone delete these two (and this one, too, please) and deal with the offender appropriately? (I've blocked him for 24h.) Bucketsofg✐ 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use your own shiny buttons, as any sysop can do by doing a delete and selective restore. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd is correct, it's not a matter for 'crats alone. Nonetheless, I have taken care of it for you. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think a BCrat should step in an end the suffering. Thanks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think a BCrat should step in an end the suffering. Running at 4-37 and pointless debate. Thanks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this. It is extremely unlikely that this vote will reach a consensus in favour of the candidate. DarthVader 12:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In case no bureaucrat noticed, my RfA seven-day period has ended, and thus is available for closing. joturner 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware of that. But being in the middle zone means it can take more time. Leaving comments on bcrat's talk pages to ask them to close it is certainly not needed either, we know our job. I note that there are 11 supports and 14 opposes that have come in since 0:00 UTC on the 23rd, which may indicate the direction the consensus is going or it may not. Personally I would leave it up longer to solidify the consensus, as I'm not comfortable promoting or closing as no consensus because of the comments I made in the RfA. If the consensus was clear that wouldn't be an issue. - Taxman ^Talk 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, we have an issue here. There is certainly a lot of supporting people, but there is also a large amount of opposers. Taxman, I personally suggest we extend this RFA by at least a day. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right two might not be a bad idea, either go ahead and extend or wait for one more voice to be added. I'd also say add a note asking for additional reasoning in order to guage the consensus. - Taxman ^Talk 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I request that the vote be extended by 2 full days. There is a developing controversy on the talk page for this RfA with regards to the apparent speed in which the nominee wishes to close the vote, despite the fact that more oppose AND support votes keep coming in. Given the (unfortunate) controversial nature of this RfA and the passions it has enflamed on both the support and oppose camps, extension of the voting by 2 days would settle the question of ths RfA once and for all. TruthCrusader 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If the nominee has stood for the required seven days, he has every right to ask that action be taken and expectation that it will be done without snide comments. Such a request should not be held against him, or anyone. -- Cecropia 05:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone if my comment seemed snide. It was meant to be direct and explain the situation, but certainly not snide. Can't always tell how our comments will come accross in writing. - Taxman ^Talk 11:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what comments Cecropia was referring to; there were several on the RfA itself about joturner's request for closing, and I agree some of those were uncalled for. In general, if someone wants to point out an overdue RfA, I would hope they would limit themselves to requesting it here on the BN, not on bcrats' talk pages (which could be seen as shopping for a sympathetic bcrat to close your RfA). NoSeptember ^talk 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or for a currently active bureaucrat that is distracted with something else...Let's assume enough good faith of our admin candidates that they aren't profiling bureaucrats to determine sympathies, and then engineering their RfAs to close while that bureaucrat will be online. If an RfA isn't closed within an hour or two, it's no big deal, but if there is a bureaucrat online who is generally active on RfA, then dropping a note saying "There is a past-due RFA" is perfectly fine. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I used the phrase "In general" because I wasn't assuming anything less than good faith about those making such requests. But there is the issue of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest or any sort of deliberate bias. Past discussions on WT:RFA make it clear that some will not assume good faith if they can find a series of events that appears to be a gaming of the system (and contacting selective bcrats could be part of such a series of events). Using the BN is a great way to avoid any such appearances, since you don't know who will see a message here first, and we should encourage people to use this page. I would encourage candidates to say nothing at all about an RfA past the deadline, just wait until someone closes it, even if it is a day old. NoSeptember ^talk 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

joturner withdrew so I guess its settled now -- Tawker 23:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good example of where DFA would have made sense. Controversial candidates should be permitted to have their candidacies discussed, instead of having attempts to resolve issues labeled as "campaigning" and thereby garnering themselves unwarranted opposition. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For an explanation as to why I was hoping that my RfA would be closed quickly, see my final statement. In addition, I was contacting bureaucrats based on the fact that they had edited recently. I contacted Nichalp at 12:26 UTC and he had made an edit at 12:25 UTC (see history). I contacted Linuxbeak at 13:44 UTC and he had made an edit at 13:38 UTC (see history). I apologize if it was out-of-line, but my reasons for doing so are mentioned in the the final statement and I didn't think it would be such a big deal. joturner 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my last edit before I logged off. A notice is also on my talk and user pages about my inactivity status. The correct place to log in a request would be on this page as it is watched by all 'crats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What I have trouble understang is the fact that at the time the RFA was supposed to end, there was clear consensus, but no one promoted Jo. Why wasn't it closed then? From my understanding, RFAs are only supposed to be kept open if there was no clear decision at the time of closing. Clearly that wasn't the case here. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The real purpose of the RfA process is to determine what the community consensus is. While 95% of RfAs are pretty much dead by the time day 7 rolls around, those few that are both close and still actively having comments added are still very much in play. Why shouldn't we give the community time to decide in those rare cases? I have seen close RfAs go both directions after the scheduled close time, and sometimes remain stuck in that close call range. NoSeptember ^talk 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometime in the hopefully not to distance future, I intend to make some updates to the bot that maintains the RFA summary. One thing I could do is add a capacity to post a notice (here presumably) when an RFA had passed some threshold of hopeless failure so that it might draw a bureaucrat's attention and get to closed more quickly without piling on too much. So the question becomes, would such functionality be welcome and if so, how should hopeless failure be defined for the purposes of calling it to bureaucrat attention? Dragons flight 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's going to be contentious. Maybe not here, at this page, but if you posted such at WT:RFA I'd bet there'd be plenty of contention on this. --Durin 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• No need to highlight it further. I look at your bot's output and it already tells me all I need to know before reading the nomination itself. Great bot by the way, it's very useful, just doesn't need anything additional for this. - Taxman ^Talk 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. I check several times a day; there's no need for it to be drawn out, but it can wait an hour or two for one of us to get back and see it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, no point coding a feature no one wants. Personally, I guess I just get frustrated watching some candidates accumulate a greater quantity of excess oppose votes than there were total votes in my RFA, of course to be fair, my RFA was a rather long time ago given the rate at which Wikipedia evolves. Dragons flight 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, deciding when to pull an RfA isn't a matter of strict percentage, it's an issue of judgment, which unfortunately, a bot can't provide. There are cases where a nomination takes a nosedive while we're busy with something else, but in most cases, we've noticed, and we're waiting for the right time to pull it. I think we're all doing a good job of getting to them in due time. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Essjay, I feel that either a) bureaucrats aren't noticing the pile-on failures as early as I'd like, or b) you are choosing to let the pile-ons run longer than I'd like. If it was the former, then posting notices here could be helpful. I'd note that you already have more than a couple such notices posted by various users above. However, you seem to be saying that it is the latter. In other words that you are attentive to the issue but choosing not to act. That is your decision to make, but I fail to see what benefit is served by drawing many of these things out. To use a recent example, WillC's RFA in the 24 hours before it was closed went from 4-21-7 to 4-39-3, with very little being accomplished except that WillC had more opportunities to atagonize the community. To use another recent example, a newbie with fewer than 100 edits ran a nom for 24 hours and drew 24 opposes before being closed. There once was a time when I personally would have removed such a nom as soon as I saw it and left a gentle note explaining to the newbie that adminship is a privledge earned by establishing a track record of valuable contributions. It is your job to decide these issues, not mine, but if you really are making a conscious choice to let these things run on, then I must say I don't agree with that. Dragons flight 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to stop. I can't do anything anymore without someone telling me I've totally borked it; I'm apparently both too old, slow, and stupid to close them early enough, and a rogue, abusive bureaucrat for closing them at all. Let someone else do it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, don't do that. In my estimation, you are doing a good job over all. Not everyone is going to agree with you, but in the grand scheme of things, the handling of failing noms is nowhere near as important as deciding when to promote/not promote. I'd hate to think that my comments above about this tangential matter would contribute to you resigning. Dragons flight 07:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it has to be said that there are other people around complaining because Essjay and the other bureaucrat's are closing these pile-ons too quickly. It's a difficult balancing act trying to please all the people all the time, and it would help if everyone could see that and give them a break. They are doing the best they can, and if both sides of the argument are hassling them about equally, then they are probably getting it right. -- sannse (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, you haven't forgotten that bureaucrats are like umpires, have you? As long as you do a good job, we completely ignore you, but if you do something we don't like, we throw a cup of beer at you. And we never apologize for doing it either ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I never said I was going to resign; I said that someone else could deal with closing requests early, and the harassment from both sides that goes with it.
2. That's fine, you can treat us that way, but you shouldn't be suprised when at a point, we stop doing it. I didn't come here to be abused, and unlike an umpire, I don't get paid. Perhaps that might explain why we have 23 bureaucrats and about 5 who are active. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was just making the point that the RfA part of the job will always lead to someone criticizing the bureaucrat, often unfairly. That's just part of the job. I think all of our bureaucrats having been doing a good job, when they choose to do it, and I appreciate those who do it more often. NoSeptember ^talk 12:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the early withdrawal issue is one issue I don't really care much about one way or the other. If a user can deal with 10 oppose votes from strangers, getting 40 oppose votes shouldn't make them any more disappointed and ready to leave. On the other hand, the user has no right to have their RfA remain listed if they have no chance, and do not have a legitimate reason to be upset when it is removed early. So whether it gets removed sooner or later doesn't seem to be all that critical here. NoSeptember ^talk 12:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speaking (maybe) for those people who often oppose ealier withdrawals; I don't think there's much objection to early withdrawal of a nomination of a user who just begin editing today. Equally, there'd be massive objection to early withdrawal of a nomination of a user with 5,000 edits and the vote standing at 12-11-1. Both are about equally incapable of achieving consensus to promote. Where the problem lies is in defining the gray area. Different bureaucrats use different rules of thumb, and there's no consistency on the matter. This has and will lead to ill-will. It's almost akin to a deletionist/inclusionist debate. --Durin 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But perhaps with a little bit of understanding, and an acknowledgement that bureaucrats are doing their best to navigate that tricky grey area, there need not be ill-will. The ill-will seems to come from an idea that they are careless or unthinking or lazy in making these decisions - which is simply unfair and untrue. And of course an acknowledgement that "you disagree with me" does not always mean "you are wrong". -- sannse (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• There's no static bar at which ill-will is generated or not generated. Where I sit on this is really irrelevant. What matters is the nominees that are caught in the grey area. They (rightfully) have and will have concerns over what metrics are being applied and why, when other bureaucrats use different metrics. --Durin 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example of the scenario cited above (5000 edits, 12-11-1), because I've not closed anything early that had less than 75% oppose. 12-11-1 is not 75% oppose. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Essjay, I'm speaking in the abstract noting extremities of the scenario for illustrative purposes. I think it's readily apparent there's a grey area that is individually defined by each bureaucrat. That's my point. --Durin 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So what is your solution to this? Because getting at the bureaucrats for doing the best job they can, or anyone could, is not going to help. -- sannse (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask the nominee if he/she wants it withdrawn? (But then, IANAB.) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss creating some guidelines on these removals. I don't want to tie any bureaucrat's hands, but having guidelines would deflect criticism from the individual bureaucrat and bring greater uniformity to how this is applied. Dragons flight 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Two things; one, I'm not attacking any bureaucrat. If I somehow gave that impression, I apologize. Two, what Dragons flight said. --Durin 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If the situation warrants, I sometimes close an RFA if the oppose votes exceeds the support by 10 or more, after checking who has voted. RFA is not a ridgid voting exercise that needs to end at a fixed time. Consensus determines the outcome, and if it's clearly going the downhill way, it needs to be removed to prevent pileons, and from continuing to be a waste of everybody's time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have drafted a proposed guideline to enable bureacrats to close RfAs without being subject to a backlash from the community. Comments are welcome on the talk page. DarthVader 08:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a numerically based guideline I'd like something reminding everyone that bureaucrats have been chosen as those whose judgement is trusted. If we make a decision to close one early, there shouldn't be any fallout as long as a few editors remind people that that is our job. - Taxman ^Talk 13:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be best if Axiomm's RfA is withdrawn by a bureaucrat to avoid a further pile-on. The current tally is at (3/21/3). DarthVader 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. Flak jacket and medical insurance required for such a move. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Luckily I have both. Literally too. I've closed it, and see my note above for why I think you've been creating controversy where there doesn't need to be one, Durin. - Taxman ^Talk 13:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Essjay, you're taking this a little too seriously. I could just as well direct you to read above. All I'm asking for is some discussion on defining the grey area. Axiomm CLEARLY isn't in the grey area. --Durin 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking it too seriously. I haven't ever closed anything in "the gray area," but I have gotten messages complaining about early closure. In fact, I've gotten messages from you complaining about early closure: 3/16 (84.21% oppose), 5/19 (79.16% oppose), and 11/31 (73.80%) where it would have required 81, 76, and 114 supports, respectively, without a single additional oppose, to make a turnaround. That's just the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't even begin to touch on the people who want me to close more of them early.

If you want to have a policy on it, then start a policy drive and write a set of guidelines for early withdrawal. I'm all for having some guidelines, if for no other reason than I can point at them when someone is unhappy about the speed at which nominations are closed. However, have the discussion in a manner that acknowledges that there is not a rule, and that all the bureaucrats have to go on is thier best judgment. Right now, we're being treated as though we're acting outside policy, when the truth is, there isn't any policy, just a lot of very different opinions on what to do.

As Sannse said above, we're doing the best we can with what we have, and what we have right now is people pushing us both ways without a second thought to the fact that there are people on the other side pushing just as hard and screaming just as loud. That is not "just part of the job"; we're people too, and volunteers to boot, and we deserve to be treated like people. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm capitulating from this discussion. Essjay, I am NOT attacking you. I've tried several times now to make that clear, and apparently I have failed. Since I can't convince you that I am not attacking you, I'm just going to stop speaking on the subject since that is apparently the only means, from your perspective, that I can stop attacking you. --Durin 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're attacking me in the least. Let me say that again: I don't think you're attacking me at all, far from it, I think you're trying to achieve a standard for all cases. What I want you, and everyone else involved, to realize is that there is no standard and that as much as you may disagree with early closure, or as much as you may support it, it is a matter of bureaucrat's descretion. Until a standard gains community consensus, questioning every early closure, or calling for more of them, does nothing to resolve the issue; it does, however, make the bureaucrat who made that already difficult decision feel like they're completely screwed, because no matter what they do, someone (and quite likely someone well respected in the community, whom they don't want to ignore) will come and tell them the did the wrong thing. I don't think you or anyone else involved in the discussion wants to make bureaucrats feel unappreciated and stressed; you have an opinion, a valid opinion, and you want to see the matter resolved. However, the simple truth is that the way that the matter is being addressed (addressing individual cases, rather than a global standard) *does* make the responsible bureaucrat feel unappreciated and stressed, and *doesn't* do anything to establish an accepted standard that can be used the next time, because it focuses on the decision that was made, rather than how to achieve a standard for making decisions.

Everybody is aware that there are some people who support early closure, and others who oppose it. What people don't seem to realize is that without a standard, there is no basis for either position to be enforced across the board, and that the only thing that can be done is for individual bureaucrats to make individual decisions, just as they were elected to do. What I'm asking is that everyone, not just one side, stop addressing individual situations, and instead work on establishing an accepted standard that can be used in all cases. Once that happens, there will be no need for any bureaucrat to feel unappreciated and stressed (due to this issue) because we will just be enforcing the standard the community has given us.

Now, someone has started a proposal at Wikipedia:Early Close of Requests for Adminship; I encourage everyone interested in this matter to go over there and add your input. And I implore everyone to stop commenting on individual cases (unless there is reason to think that the bureaucrat has abused their position) because doing so *does not help establish a standard* but *does put the bureaucrat in the hotseat* for doing what they were elected to do. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't been challenging you on individual cases for quite some time Essjay. I did challenge you early on when you first became a bureaucrat and you stated your position. Since then, I have had opposition to your stance, but not opposition to individual cases with the exception of the JoW case where the RfA was deleted, and that had nothing to do with early closure, but rather the identification (imho without basis) of this user as a troll. --Durin 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What follows is my unsoliticed two cents, written with rather a lot of Bushmills inside me; therefore I ask that readers ascribe the bits with which they disagree to the aforementioned, and accept the bits they like as having derived from the still-lucid section of my fevered brain.

I read the granting of bureaucratship as the community's vote of confidence in a user's judgment; hence I consider that you have the prerogative to decide outcomes when they are not already obvious. As long as you are self-consistent and can justify your decisions, and unless another bureaucrat or a community uproar (which the above discussion is not) suggests you were wrong, the decisions you make should be considered final. As a corollary, don't be afraid to make potentially controversial decisions; that's the point of this job. Ignore the naysayers -- you're doing fine. (Disclaimer, since someone is bound to take me to task for this: "ignore the naysayers" is not a universalizable maxim, and should be used sparingly.) — Dan | talk 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Brendenhull has withdrawn his RfA. Could a bureaucrat please close it out properly. DarthVader 11:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done also, but in the case of a withdrawn nomination, anyone can add the closing tags if they look up how to do it right. - Taxman ^Talk 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An anon (User:-25.677.2.66-) has added a removed vote to Axiomm's archived RFA giving the following edit summary "restore missing vote since this is over". I have reported this here & not reverted as I'm not sure if I have the authority. Thanks. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I reopened this; I'd like a 'crat to close it. I'm not sure what the usual things are any more, but it's an obvious conflict of interest for an oppose "voter" to close it as failed, so I'd like some input from someone who knows what they're about when doing this. robchurch | talk 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote from WP:RFA...

The bureaucrats who handle admin promotions review the discussion to see if a general consensus is present (the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support). Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.

Whoever closed it, as well as the bureaucrat who gave a go-ahead, if indeed anyone did, should be at the very least warned not to do so again. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:27 UTC (2006-05-28)

I've now closed it; it was close, but did not reach consensus. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correclty, users were encourged to close RfAs that are clearly not going to pass, ones with significantly large amounts of opposes such that it is nearly totally impossible for it to turn around... I don't really remember anyone saying that non-bcrats can close them if it's simply a fail. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been comments lately to suggest that non-bureaucrats are welcome to close any failed request, even those that would traditionally be considered "no consensus" (that is, above 50% support, but less than 75% support). This position is not universal, however, and does not have universal support even amongst bureaucrats, so acting on it will necessarily be controversial. There does not appear to be an explicit policy either way, but tradition has long held that only bureaucrats should close RfAs that have a resonable amount of support (at an extreme minimum, more thant 50% support), and barring the adoption of a policy stating otherwise, I personally, and not in any position of authority, discourage non-bureaucrats from closing such nominations, as it will create controversey without fail.

As I have said all along, each bureaucrat was promoted based on a public expression of trust in the individual's judgement, and the community should trust these individuals to do the job they were promoted to do. The task of closing non-catastrophic RfAs is best left to those who have been specifically entrusted with it; there are enough hurt feelings when an RfA fails, it does not need to be compounded by controversy surrounding the individual who closed it. There is not such a backlog on nominations, especially failed nominations, that requires non-bureaucrats to begin closing them; the community should express some patience and wait the two or three hours that may be required for a bureaucrat to close the nomination. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to chip in, I don't mind non-Bcrats closing misformed RfAs with 0/15/0 or users with 20 edits and 0/15/0, but "no consensus" and "grey area" RfAs should clearly be left to BCrats, since, after all, it is their job.Voice-of-All^Talk 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For any bureaucrat using the default monobook skin, you may want to look at this script, which adds (failure), (success), and "notify" tabs to RfAs. It also reformats the WP:RfA page into show/hide titles for each RfA unless RfAshowlinks = 'false' is added after the script.Voice-of-All^Talk 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting script, but I couldn't find the "notify" tab. I also noticed that all the transcluded [edit] buttons have vanished from the RFA page? Is this a bug? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"inform" is now called "mess". The [edit] buttons are removed because they a)cause minor bugs and b)are not really useful b/c of "discuss here" links. In the future, I will re-add the two [edit] links to the top and bottom of the page, which almost no one ever edits anyway (the content is just two templates). If its a problem, then you can always add RfAshowlinks = 'false'. If you want me to add additional edit links (aside from "discuss here") or links to the subpage(not in edit mode), I can do that.Voice-of-All^Talk 16:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the noticeboard is getting more use lately, I've updated it, moving the header text to a subpage and transcluding it in (as is done with most other similar pages), and archived off old posts. I've also added a feature to the header that we can discuss and decide if we like. Tangotango has a bot that produces not just an update of the tallies for RFAs that are open, but also a report of duplicate votes on RfAs; we've tweaked the report a bit to fit on the page, and placed it at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. I've transcluded this through into the header, aligned with the Table of Contents (which is a bit short at the moment, since I just archived, but will grow again shortly). Hopefully, since we all seem to be checking here regularly, this will help keep us informed. (It updates every hour, on the hour; the other page (User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report) updates every hour on the half hour.) Of course, discussion of it's included is welcome and encouraged. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better without the transclusion of the report, but with a prominent link to the page at the top of this noticeboard. A noticeboard isn't designed for the routine checking of current RfAs, the focus should simply remain on bureaucrat related discussions. A link is fine as a help to navigation for those who want to look at it, but transclusion clutters the page significantly IMO. NoSeptember 13:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I created User:NoSeptember/ANI and User:NoSeptember/AN so I could look at the noticeboards' contents list with having to scroll past the huge transcluded header crap on those pages. Big headers are not useful to anyone but newcomers. NoSeptember 13:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now with 3 bot updates each hour, I have to go here to see which update is the most recent :p. NoSeptember 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has an extensive history of blocks including an indefblock for vandalism. Just got unblocked about 25 min ago. Request to pull this one ASAP. Thanks --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suspend RfA for a month or so while we have a community discussion on how to resolve the problems with RfA. I am especially dismayed to see this cute little color-coded vote-counter box that someone has plopped on this page; it clearly indicates that we've lost all concept of discussing candidates and are now merely counting votes. It is my belief that RfA elects popular candidates without regard to reliability, and that some other system is needed, but I also believe that nothing will happen until the issue is forced.

What I'm asking for, therefore, is consensus amongst bureaucrats to suspend consideration of all candidates pending a discussion on the merits of RfA as a method for selecting candidate administrators. Thoughts? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively support such a move, in the absence of anything better. I think bureaucrats' hands are tied to votes at this point, and would support nearly any new system over the current one. Ral315 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• There's long-standing disagreement over this. I would expect any temporary shutdown of RfA to cause a great amount of dispute. An attempt was made by some bureaucrats to suspend RfA while they implemented WP:DFA [4] with rather hot responses to that move. Any attempt to suspend RfA in a similar manner without community input/support is very likely to cause similar problems, even if every bureaucrat is in support of such a move. Further, there have been a huge number of discussions regarding what may or may not be wrong with RfA across quite a number of forums. No consensus has developed as a result of any of these discussions. --Durin 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Some people think RFA is broken, most people don't. I think there are problems with it, editcountitis being among the worst, but by and large there is substantial agreement that it does not have a very large number of false positives or false negatives. In no conversations about this issue has there been a consensus that RFA is not working. And to speak specifically to the little colored boxes, that it a tool just like any other. It can be used to break things or help things. I happen to use it to note where more work is needed and where it isn't, and for that it is very nice. So have any and all discussions about how to create a better process, but the answer isn't suspending a working process where no clear and present danger has been shown. - Taxman ^Talk 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Discuss it and improve it, but don't stop the process while you do so. Prodego ^talk 22:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • While no fan of editcountitis, I don't see it as a big problem for the simple reason that it is an objection that is easy for the candidate to overcome... just keep editing a few more months and come back for another RfA. A short wait is not going to be a terrible impediment to qualified candidates. If editcountitis is among the worst problems with RfA, as Taxman suggests, then RfA must be in pretty good shape overall. I think it is. NoSeptember 15:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with editcountitis is it represents a failure to consider the intangibles of a candidate and whether they can be trusted with the admin tools which is really what RfA should be about. So it is a symptom/contributory cause of the bigger problem. But, I should post this instead on the RfA talk page so more people will see it. - Taxman ^Talk 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I see people with relatively low edit counts get approved when they are clearly good candidates. I think some mention edits as a shorthand for inexperienced, but are not really voting on the actual counts. And there are plenty of others who decide without reference to edit counts. I don't see people actually failing for too few edits. They are failing for other reasons. NoSeptember 17:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the bot-updated box to the page, and if you look up two posts, discussed doing so and invited comment, which to-date, nobody has done. The main point of it is not to provide an easy "Oh, they got the required votes, lets close now" box (if I wanted that, I would have added the one that does only that), but rather, the duplicate-vote tool, which is very useful, and needs a wider audience. I personally pay little attention to the vote summaries, with the exeption of looking for those that have less than 25% support, as those generally need to be checked on and potentially closed early.

I don't think I could, in good conscience, take part in what would amount to a bureaucrat hijak of RfA; my job is to carry out community consensus, and without a community consensus to stop using RfA, I would be imposing my desires on the community. Bureaucrats aren't the rulers of RfA, we are merely custodians of the community-owned RfA, and we have a duty to carry out the community's directives. I would expect, and quite frankly, encourage the stewards to step in and take over promotions if bureaucrats refused to do so; it is not our place to decide who should or shouldn't be an administrator, it is our place to promote those who the community has decided should be one.

If the community believes that RfA is not working, then an overhaul is in order; the community decided that VfD was not working, and it was overhauled. At the same time, a single individual decided to take matters into his own hands (which is what bureaucrats are being asked to do here), caused a project-wide shutdown in the process, and ended up losing the community's trust and (in a strange parallel to this situation) his bureaucrat rights.

If users believe that RfA is not working, then it is their responsibility to propose a better solution, and convince the community to adopt it. It is not the place of the custodians to lock up the building and refuse to let anyone inside; it is for those who work in the building to discuss and come to a solution. Various solutions to the problem have been raised, and as of yet, none have achieved community approval (as evidenced by the fact that RfA is still running strong). Until an alternate solution has been proposed and approved, RfA needs to continue to function.

I refuse to be responsible for burning down the building without anyplace else to go. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy." Well, that was a fine, Utopian dream; it's a shame it's come to an end. Now we must rejoin the general mainstream of Enlightenment thinking.

You're objecting to democracy, basically; to the counting of votes. The majority ought not to rule; isn't that right? You know, I agree with you. Democracies are small-minded; they pander to the mass of men, an ignorant beast rooting and rutting. They follow the peacock with the brightest feather and shun the wise owl. Democratic elections devolve quickly into name-calling and mud-slinging -- at best they tend to be mere personality contests. Villains ride to office on the shoulders of fools. Officials corrupt their duties and spend their time in office scheming to stay there. At its very best, democracy is miserably inefficient.

A meritocracy is much better but you will understand, of course, that I am to be allowed the prerogative of determining the criteria of merit. This condition is self-evident since I am he who has the greatest merit. I'm sure we'll all appreciate the greater quality and efficiency of government approved by me.

On the whole I prefer dictatorship. One Leader to bind and guide us all; that is the plan for maximum efficiency and guaranteed devotion to our most cherished ideals. I shall assume the awful burden, since I know best. Please do not disagree; we cannot tolerate that kind of disloyalty.

You insist on democracy after all? It surely is the worst possible form of government. I can think of many that are much better -- but somehow I think you will never agree with me exactly. I suppose we'll just have to settle for the worst. John Reid 07:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA works. It is a misperception to interpret it as an election, just a counting of votes. It is clearly a discussion and a consensus decision at work here. I say this because when you watch an RfA develop hour to hour, you see how a relevant comment placed in the discussion will inexorably send the count of votes in a direction that is reflective of the community's view of the candidate. People do read the comments made, and decisions are made on those comments. That is exactly what a consensus discussion should produce. There are surprisingly few truly close RfAs, if it were just a vote, this would not be the case. People are listening to each other here. The process works. NoSeptember 13:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NoSeptember. RFA is far more than an election. There is good interaction between the nom and other users on almost every RFA. The nom gets good feedback from the process. I have not seen any evidence that RFA is broken or that any other system suggested would be better. The unsuccessful candidates are almost always given specific suggestions and are encouraged to reapply in 3 to 6 months. They almost always receive broad supportive and encouraging comments as well.

Warning: Controversial statement meant to provoke thought not attack any specific editor/admin/’crat. *I think that some of the complaints about RFA are because some of the more established Wikipedians are not spending enough time on the site to fully understand the way that Wikipedians and Wikipedia are changing. Continuous intense interaction is needed to fully understand the reason that the community does not endorse some candidates and does endorse others. I trust the regular members of the community to make correct decisions more than a single or a small group of very experienced Wikipedians. It is the wiki way to think that the large group knows better than a small group of experts.* Any one reading this comment cares about Wikipedia and because of that you have my deepest respect. Regards, FloNight ^talk 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We could always use more experts, so we can have a large group of experts and regular members of the community. And I think we continually gain more experts than we shed. Grandmasterka 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Five major problems

RfA is vulnernable to easy manipulation and editcountitis. However, most tof these risks are non-issues for most RfAs. RfA only "works in practice" at all, because it really shouldn't work that great at all but its seems to be OK, though getting worse. I see 5 major problems:

1. Editcountitis - "5000=good no matter what...YAY! first SUpport" (note that the typos where deliberate).

   I run edit counts for new (almost no votes) RfAs that I catch, close ones (70% Support), and especially ones where user's edit count total is a bit short. Sometimes the "notable article edits" will be very high, yet the total article edit count will be low...that is why I made this tool; if people are going on edit counts, at least have some I idea what the hell that means, or what the quality is. Some people, myself in included, will oppose on "low WP: edits", which I do because I know that the amount happens to statistically be very important in that specific area.

2. "No reason to oppose" - Even though you looked at the RfA for 1 minute, you didn't see any evidence of bad behavior and means that you support? Does society work by "confident until they mess up", no test, no entrace exams, no licenses, just throw them out there...
3. "Failed per 1FA?" - What the heck is this, an encouragement quota? What if person A had 10% of his/her edits as article creation/expansion and more as minor (but not just spelling stuff) but didn't work on FACs, but perhaps rather more obsure articles...Oh well, guess that just another Oppose. What if person B almost always makes formating edits/spelling and vandal patrol, but out of his of large articles (say 1%) edits included 3 to a FAC that was promoted...taht makes a lot of sense...right...
4. "User replies too much to oppose votes" - I understand that vindicitive/rude/passively rude responses show poor form, but come on! Is this a witch hunt; nobody can reply to votes even if they are based on wrong information, misleading diffs, or bad logic?
5. "Oppose due to POV edits at X" (when its not even clearly POV at all) or any other oppose due to reasons that boil down to "I disagree with people like you"/"I don't trust people of your nationality" or "I revert warred of an article and got blocked and want to get back at you". What makes this really dangerous is the vote stacking that always seems to go with it. The candidate, NOR voters should be able to rally for/against people.

I could go on, but there are the basics for starters.Voice-of-All 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• The thing is though, there will never be some magic system that will deal with all the minor grievances people come up with. Of course there are some things about RfA that are a bit annoying, but no system is going to be flawless in practice. The things people criticise are more problems with indivudual or groups of voters than with RfA itself... any system we impliment is still going to have those people involved. --W.marsh 17:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it "only works in practice", as I said. If it keeps getting worse, it may be best to find another way though. As it is now, it is tolerable, there is not enough reason to make any major changes just yet.Voice-of-All 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• On point 3, I'm considering a new 0FA standard. I mean, do we want editors who polish one or two articles to perfection while neglecting the other 1,000,000 articles to become admins? No way. Any FA involvement should be the kiss of death to admin candidates. (No, I'm not serious about this, but it is just as good a standard as 1FA is.) NoSeptember 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I much prefer my new standard *FA (wildcard FA) - it doesn't matter if you have 0-100, getting articles to FA status has nothing to do w/ adminship -- Tawker 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's the one I use too ;-). NoSeptember 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I most definitely agree with Tawker there. When one is an administrator, there is often a significant shift from focusing on improving articles (more of an editor job, doesn't take an administrator to do) to more janitorial work. If anything, mainspace edits are being focused on way too much and what counts most is community involvement and the ability to work with others. Sure, a good number of mainspace edits can show that someone is familiar with policy and is here to build an encyclopedia, but why should a less than average namespace edit count affect a user's chances at adminship? I believe that some of the flaws of the RfA process could be fixed by the introduction of new policy, specifically mentioning what is and what isn't grounds for opposing a candidate. The idea of community consensus throughout history has showed its flaws without proper checks, such as policy, (a bit of a stretch, though comparing a strong legislative branch in the United States post-revolution requiring a strong executive + judicial). It is my opinion that with bureaucrats taking a step towards more involvement in the RfA process or simply the introduction of new policy that many of these problems can be addressed. Cowman109^Talk 18:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just starting thinking the same thing a few days back per this[5].Voice-of-All 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put this into an essay, feel free to expand and improve it.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 19:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It ain't broke, therefore there is nothing to fix. This sounds like a cure in search of a disease. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that discussing greviences is not "a cure in search of a disease". For the third time, I don't think the RfA is broken, it is simply vunerable and getting worse. Its the "getting worse" part that bothers me. I'd rather to discuss some possiblities before the "disease" spreads, especially since I see it slowly coming.Voice-of-All 21:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if we want to criticise the RFA process then we should be willing to put our own ideas on the table for criticism. Instead of shutting down RFA, let's see Kelly's suggestion for its replacement. --Duk 04:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Those are problems only if RFA isn't making the right decisions right? I mean, we could be flipping coins and if the right editors were approved and the wrong ones turned down we'd be fine. So isn't the first question to ask are we making the right promotions? Are there admins passing that shouldn't be? This probably isn't the right page to continue this but I think there has to be some consensus answer to that question before we go too far down this road. Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I think that some admins shouldn't have made it through RfA, and the poorer among the admins, including some of those since de-sysopped, have been promoted on less than the gold-standard of 80%. There's been a bit of a slide at times towards supposing that anything between 75 and 80 is an excuse to promote without properly considering the weight of the opposition, but that seems partially to have been reversed lately. So basically, I think as long as the bureaucrats are absolutely fully sensitive to the standards the community expects then, yes, RfA gets the decisions rights. -Splash - tk 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, the vast bulk of admins do productive, useful, uncontroversial work—whether they drew 75%, 80%, or unanimous support. I'm also actually having difficulty finding a desysopped admin who received less than 80% on his or her RfA. Several of our desysopped admins actually had near-unanimous support on their original RfAs. (I'm looking for counterexamples from the lists here and here.) Frankly, I suspect that drawing a bright line at 80%, or 75%, or 85%, or wherever...just wouldn't make an appreciable difference. We effectively screen out candidates who are obviously unstable, ineffective, or out-and-out looney—but we'd be able to do that with a 50% threshold. We can get a rough measure of how controversial an editor is; the level of controversy we'll accept is tied to the threshold percentage that we set. What we're almost completely incapable of doing – as editors, or as bureaucrats – is predicting which individuals will, under unusually stressful or weird conditions, misuse their admin powers. That's where the desysoppings usually come from: admins who wheel war over deletion or page protection. There's seldom malice involved; it's just admins who think they're doing 'the right thing' for 'the protection of the wiki'. I don't think we can 'fix' that no matter where we put the threshold for promotion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The NSLE case may be one where an admin expected to receive a personal benefit for an admin action, which is slightly different from an admin warring while thinking they are doing the "right thing" for Wikipedia. But you can't protect against that in the RfA process either. NoSeptember 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe (2nd) was the particular example I had in mind. -Splash - tk 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay. I couldn't find that one because the page name used a different-from-normal format. Argh. Still, have you any other examples? Many of the other forcibly-desysopped admins were created before RfA existed, or received high levels of support. The most recent case received 98.6% support, and was only opposed by one individual—who didn't like the way that the candidate started to thank people for voting on his RfA a few hours before it closed [6]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions on WT:RFA about simple changes to the template that would help curb some of these problems. --Rory096 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to b'crats, there's an RFB to close in an hour or so, and by the look of things, a few buttons to press... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the rush, but I added him here early anyway ;-). NoSeptember 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he can promote himself then ;). DarthVader 11:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems no one was awake at the time. I've done the promotion. - Taxman ^Talk 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the most recent bureaucrat is always the most active. Already Redux (talk · contribs · rights · renames) is batting 100% of all promotions since becoming bureaucrat, and I seem to remember a quick start for all the other bureaucrats selected in 2006 ;-). NoSeptember 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed :). Although 100%, at this point, amounts to just 2 promotions (plus 2 delistings). Especially, I've been able to cover what I'm calling a "window of inactivity" in the Bureaucracy: it extends roughly from 2 a.m. to 11 a.m. UTC daily. During this time, it is not uncommon that all the Bureaucrats are offline, so any RfAs ending during this time could be closed with a delay of up to 9 or 10 hours. I've been looking to minimize this as much as possible. Redux 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

23:00 UTC to 14:00 UTC is the window where I am generally online; I've been away since Saturday, so it may have appeared unattended to, but when online, I generally catch these within about 15 minutes. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat tools seem to not be working. A standard Wikimedia message for "temporary problem to be solved momentarily" is being returned. Can anyone else confirm this? It's a bit odd, since everything else seems to be working fine, so I was wondering if another Bureaucrat has had problems. Redux 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All if well. Taxman has helped me to confirm that Special:Renameuser is inoperative at the moment, but that's due to server load at peak hours. Redux 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, it was just my first assumption. In any case it is better to do those in off peak hours because they are brutal on the servers if there are a decent amount of edits. - Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I shall attempt to carry out one of the open requests during a low-traffic hour. If it still doesn't works, then we can take it from there. Redux 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I get a timeout when trying to run bureaucrat tasks. I usually check the job queue, and if it is fairly high, I wait until it drops before trying again. The job queue doesn't have anything to do with renameuser, as best I know, but I find it to be a convenient measure of how busy things are. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I tried a few times between 1:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. UTC and got an error message every time. Seems that the tool is really not working. Maybe we should contact a dev? Redux 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As I can't check, for obvious reasons, I'll just give the link to BugZilla... ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just spoke to Brion, who said:

[01:16] <brion_> then don't try renameuser until someone has a chance to look at it, hmm? 

I for one am scared of Brion and plan to do what he says. I encourage others to do so too. ;) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe we should place a note at the top of WP:CHU to let users know that requests are not going to be fulfilled immediately. Redux 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh puh-leeze. Brion? I'm not afraid of him. What can he do to me? Absolutely nothing. ig_d$&^ďǎ.*_NO CARRIER 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In case Brion drops by, the Bureaucrats would like to say that they never heard of mr. "No Carrier" here. We've seen nothing! Nothing! </joke> :) Redux 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You see, now, the trouble with lazy HTML tags like that is that you've turned the whole of the preceding stuff on this page into a joke. -Splash - tk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good news. Special:Renameuser is working again. Redux 04:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most embarassedly (is that a word?) I must bring up an error Redux pointed out to me. It seems I've been the victim of a practical joke and the clocks that I use most to refer to the date (my office phone and computer) have been changed on me. For whatever reason I never questioned that and checked against wiki (and the rest of the world's) time, and I promoted two admins early. I suppose now the best option is to re-open them even though lacking a last minute bomshell, neither was questionable. My only concern is I don't want the mistake to be held against the candidates. And a steward must be contacted to make a demotion. Barring any differing thoughts from others, I'll go do that shortly. - Taxman ^Talk 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your honesty and candor about this, I don't really think bureaucrats generally ought to be slaves to the clock. If in your judgment the extra time is unlikely to make a difference then I would suggest that you just leave it be. I haven't checked, but I assume we are talking about several hours, rather than several days, right? In the past, some bureaucrats would often dispense of the obvious candidates a few hours early. Dragons flight 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No it's exactly a day. I made the mistake, so I'll leave it up to the other BC's to decide on the execution. - Taxman ^Talk 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

<removed> Blnguyen | rant-line 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

This RfA is still active. It would be highly inappropriate for us to discuss this here and now. At this point, whichever issues you perceive in the RfA would be best posted in the RfA itself ("Comments" section or the RfA talk page), so that the community will debate the points you wish to bring up. Regards, Redux 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, then, it was already noted there.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)