Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship/Archive 1

Untitled

• It is generally better to run for Bureaucrat if one is particularly needed, since the jobload for Bureaucrats is very low. Majorly (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, what do you suggest? I don't think it would be a good idea to add a line to a guideline saying "we don't need bureaucrats now". May be adding a line saying that "people may oppose when they feel there is no need for a new bureaucrat" would work, though I feel I wrote it bad. - Huji ^reply 13:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it'd be best to leave that entirely unsaid. There's no need to comment on that general perception at a guideline; let the community discuss that at the RfA Talk page instead. Phaedriel - 14:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And I think, it is enough to be notified on the giudelines' talk page. - Huji ^reply 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have two proposed changes to the Criteria.

1. Eliminate the line about neutral votes. Get rid of them entirely. If they don't mean anything and serve no purpose but to allow people who can't take a position a place to tell everyone why they can't take a position, don't have them. The Comments section can serve that purpose. If you have them, they are not support votes, and can't be ignored.
2. Change the 65% to pass to either 60% or 66.7% (2/3). I don't know why 65% doesn't sit well with me, but it doesn't.

Those are my suggestions. I, as you all know, feel very strongly about neutral votes, but I will stay level-headed about it. A vote that doesn't count for anything just does not compute to my Political Science and Government filled mind. On every ballot I've ever seen there's a "Yes" and a "No". If you don't care ("Neutral"), you don't vote. If this is more like a poll, the percentage is still listed for those who vote "Don't know", "Don't care," or "Neutral" and thus, counted. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. As has been pointed out before (I don't remember who said it), there are 3 ways to lay out votes (and comments):

1. Oppose, support, and comment (oppose + support = 100%). This option does not count neutral votes nor does it have a section for them. Anyone without a strong opinion either way is welcome to express their feelings in the comment section.
2. Oppose, support, neutral, and comment (oppose + support + neutral = 100%). This would be a so-called "poll format" as expressed by Browne34. Each vote would carry some weight. The would-be admin would have to have a certain percentage of support votes.
3. Oppose, support, neutral and comment (oppose + support = 100%). This option does not count neutral votes, however, it does have a section for them.

To me, option 3 makes no sense. If we are not going to count neutral votes, why even have a section for them? If we are not going to count neutral votes, option 1 would be much clearer. We could make it clear in a prominent place on the page that Neutral votes will not be considered as a percentage of the votes. If you feel neutral, please express this under the comments section.

If we choose to allow neutral votes and to count them (as in option 2), we could also make it clear somewhere on the page that each vote would be counted. I would suggest that if we choose this route, that the percentage for successfully being promoted to adminship be lower than if we choose option 1 because the votes would be split among 3 choices instead of just 2. Perhaps 50%+1.

As for the percentage for option 1, I would be okay with either 65% or 66.7% (2/3). 60% feels too low. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(I think you might have meant this post) In my opinion, having three categories that count makes counting a lot more difficult. I would therefore opt for a two category solution;The benefits of having both a comment and a neutral section is that a comment can be anywhere, about anything. A neutral vote will be in a well-defined place, giving whatever opinion the editor wants to express about the request. So in short, I do not believe in neutral votes that count, because it makes things a lot more complex. Another argument is perhaps that if (for whatever reason) I cannot be moved to vote in favour or against a certain proposal, then I also do not want my vote to be counted either in favour or against that proposal. Therefore my vote should not be counted either way. What I have to say might however influence other people so that they change their opinion about the proposal. And perhaps a last titbit of food for the brains: What do you do with a request that has 5 neutral votes, and no other votes, after the week, supposing we chose to count neutrals? --Eptalon 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First, let me be clear. I have not given support for any of these 3 options, I have simply laid them out. I think option 3 makes absolutely no sense and on top of that is confusing. I am not propsing we do either option 1 or 2, simply that they are the best 2 choices as I see them.

Secondly, I think what you and some other users are not getting is that (under option 2) neutral votes do not count toward support or oppose. Option 2 would present 3 choices: oppose, support, or neutral. Say 12 people voted, 7 for support, 3 for oppose and 2 for neutral. This would be calculated as follows: support = 7/12 = 58.3%, oppose = 3/12 = 25%, and neutral = 2/12 = 16.6%. With a lower percentage (such as 50%) because there are 3 options instead of 2, the would-be admin would be successful. How is that hard to calculate? How is that confusing?

If you are opposed to counting neutral votes, which it seems you are, what do you not like about option 1? Let's give users one section to express their opinions. Why confuse them? · Tygartl1^·talk· 21:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As to what we would do if at the end of the week there were only 5 neutral votes, it would be closed as unsuccessful because no one voted to support the user. The final count would be 0% support, 0% oppose, 100% neutral. · Tygartl1^·talk· 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us take the example above. 7 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral votes; with option 3 (neutral votes, as comments), this gives a 70% support, 30% oppose. You currently counted the 2 neutral votes towards the total number, but what reason is there to do that? - What difference is there in voting neutral, and not voting at all, supposing that there are no comments in the votes that make other editors change their mind? - Therefore why should a null vote be counted at all? - What I tried to say above is there are Comments, and there are Comments about the request. The latter are called neutral votes, which is confusing. - This is not me being in favour or against one option. I simply try to not introduce complexity where it is not needed. There is a proposal. You can either accept that proposal, or you can reject it. If you cannot make up your mind what to do, you can still tell others about it. You can also tell them why it is so hard to make up your mind. But telling them that you are unable to decide should not be counted as a null vote. Such a vote harms both camps in the end, by lowering their percentages. Plus there is the added dilemma, of what to do if a request only gets (a sufficient number) of such null votes. I therefore think that we can add a section for those people, but we should not count their comments as being equal to the vote of one editor who made a decision to either support or reject a proposal. - Please note this is not about what I think is best. This is about finding a model that is both easy to understand and to implement. We as a community need to be clear about how to handle neutral positions, so we can add it to this guideline-to-be. --Eptalon 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Option 3 is confusing. We agree on this, correct? Therefore options 1 and 2 are the only ones that even begin to make sense. I have not supported any of those three options - I'm really confused as to why you're acting like I've supported anything, especially option 2. I was simply trying to say that we could make either option 1 or 2 work in a non-confusing, realistic way. If you are confused by what I am saying, I suggest you re-read my comments slowly and thoroughly. You seem to be arguing against me for a position I have not taken. · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We then basically agree there. Option 3 is confusing; Can we find any kind of sound argument that neutral votes (or null votes as I have called them) should be counted? - I have tried twice to make an argument why they should not, see above. - Because if there is not, the we can go with the status quo, and the only problem remains how to best put that into words. --Eptalon 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the status quo right now is option 3. That's the problem :-). My opinion is that we can logically implement either option 1 or 2. If we do option 1, we would have to make it absolutely clear that neutral votes do not count. Please do not vote neutral. Option 1 would have a "success percentage" of 65 or 66.7 (2/3). Option 2 would be more like a poll: Do you support this user, oppose this user, or feel neutrally towards them becoming an administrator? Because there are 3 choices in option 2, the "success percentage" could be lower - maybe 50%+1.

As to your question: "Can we find any kind of sound argument that neutral votes should be counted?", I'm not saying we should or should not count them. I have simply been trying to say that it is possible to develop a system where counting them would work. I don't really see one option as being better than the other. I would be fine with implementing either option 1 or 2. I, of course, recognize that some others would prefer one option over another. Perhaps we should put it to a vote between the 2 options... · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I did some copyedits to the text, preserving the content generally (I changed it a little though). Part of it was to make all Adminis... and Bureauc... words start with a capital letter. I'd be glad to know if there are objections about it. Otherwise, we may also fix them on other relevant pages in Wikipedia namespace, too. - Huji ^reply 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship or Administratorship?

The page has been recently from Criteria for Adminiship to Criteria for Administratorship. Searching Google for Adminship shows this word is widely used on Wikimedia wikis, and sort of is a fingerprint. I still suggest us to shift back to it. - Huji ^reply 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that. Archer7 - talk 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So I did that. - Huji ^reply 20:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you did, but it does not seem to have worked. I can try to fix it. If 'adminship' is "in-house slang" on wikipedia, I guess there's no problem if it ends up there. But first, is there a simpler way to express a word like "criteria"? Maybe "How to get adminship"? Because of all the redirects, I guess I should have sounded you out before making any change, sorry for that... Blockinblox - talk 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of things needed for Adminship?- the more it is edited, the more it looks like a shopping list. --Eptalon 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not a list indeed; so I think we should rename it to: Things needed for Adminship. - Huji ^reply 09:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Note the final location for the name of this page is still unsettled too, but I am beginning to like last Huji's suggestion Things needed for Adminship. Blockinblox - talk 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral votes

The section above (Suggestions) is getting rather large. I therefore started a new section here. This section is for the community to discuss what neutral votes are. Currently, when someone applies for adminship, people can support or oppose the person. They also have a the option to a neutral vote. In this case, they basically say that they cannot decide, and they (often) given a reason why they cannot decide. Up to now, these votes were treated as comments, and not counted either as supporting or opposing the candidate. Before continuing it would be good to at least look at en:Voting system, and en:Vote. I see different options:

1. No neutral vote, one vote per editor. Voting is either supporting or opposing the candidacy (Option 1 above); success means being within a certain percentage of acceptance.
2. Neutral vote, one vote per editor. Voting is supporting or opposing candidate, or the neutral vote.. Success can mean either a certain percentage of acceptance; or having less than a certain percentage of opposition. To illustrate: 2/3 support is not equivalent to saying 1/3 oppose or less; there are also the undecided who count.
3. Neutral vote, editors can spread a number of points (say 6) over the options. Gives a lot more flexibility, makes counting harder (2/3 support then becomes: (number of people who voted) x (2/3 of the points to assign); with 5 people voting, a candidate would then need 20 of the 30 points supporting them.
4. Certain number of points to distribute, but without the neutral vote

Percentages needed (as an interval) would still need discussion. My question is therefore which of the systems do you like most, and why? --Eptalon 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents go for door number 1. Keeping things simple here is every serious editors number 1 goal and just a box with a YES, NO and SUGGESTIONS is as simple as voting can get. No one can misunderstand it, or plead another trial on the grounds that s/he didn't understand the rules of voting. Percentages may be a more inctricate manner to get things done, but in my opinion, KISS (keep things simple stupid!)

Gwib^-(talk)- 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I like option 1, as well. --Isis§^(talk) 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (PS. Gwib, it's "Keep it simple, stupid") :)

I would prefer either of Tygartl1's options 1 or 2 above, which are close, if not the same, to your first two options. Of those two options, I could go either way. I think points are too complicated, though I could envision some time of system where each person could give a ranking on a 1 - 10 scale for a candidate and said candidate would need an average rank of some level to pass. However, I don't think we need a major overhaul like that, I think we just need to eliminate the confusing aspect of our current system. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Make it simple then, take option 1; and rename neutral votes to Comments? We could then focus on putting that into the sign language required so that everyone understands it --Eptalon 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Tygartl1 proposed in option 1 above and what I first set out on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship as option 2 back in June. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording you chose is perhaps somewhat confusing, Eptalon. I think we should spell out (as I did above) exactly what + what = 100%. Plus, I don't understand this "point system" you are talking about. Where did this come from? I think it's too complicated, and (because it has never been brought up before) should not be considered as an option. · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-stated the options below in a clearer, more precise manner. · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe if there are more neutral votes than support or oppose, then that should mean the adminship is closed, the user who was nominated remains a non-admin, and lateer they should run again, when the user has had more time for other editors to decide if she/he would be good as an admin. That';s what neutral votes mean. I say, they do count. For those of you who do not think they count, then explain what you would have done if there are more neutral votes than anything else. ionas ^talk _contribs 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear. My suggestions 3 and 4 above (each voter can spend a number of points on several choices) are in fact en:Cumulative voting. Switzerland uses that system for some elections, for example. They do not have a system where there is one (or more parties) currently governing, and a few parties opposing. To elect the politicians they use (a more complex version) of that system. --Eptalon 21:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote

I am re-stating the options for how to count votes in a simple, concise way. Please discuss which option you would support us having. The current way is option 3, which has come under criticism for being confusing.

1. Oppose, support, and comment (oppose + support = 100%). This option does not count neutral votes nor does it have a section for them. Anyone without a strong opinion either way is welcome to express their feelings in the comment section.
2. Oppose, support, neutral, and comment (oppose + support + neutral = 100%). This would be a so-called "poll format" as expressed by Browne34. Each vote would carry some weight. The would-be admin would have to have a certain percentage of support votes.
3. Oppose, support, neutral and comment (oppose + support = 100%). This option does not count neutral votes, however, it does have a section for them.

As mentioned in the previous section by Eptalon, we can have a separate discussion for what the "support percentage" should be. · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in the above post, I am for option 1 (one). I am strongly in favour of there being an OPPOSE, SUPPORT and COMMENT section with oppose + support = 100%. As I also mentioned above. KISS! (keep it simple, stupid! thanks for the corrections, Isis!)
  

Gwib^-(talk)- 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who you callin' stupid? --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Either option 1 or 2 as previously stated. I go back and forth on which I prefer. Both eliminate the confusion behind neutral votes, which is my pet peeve. I can live and be content with either. Percentage needed to pass can be discussed after we establish the method. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Option 1, as stated above. :) --Isis§^(talk) 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Gwib. I mean Gwib took the words out of me mouth :) --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC) -sockpuppet vote -- Creol(talk) 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Option #1. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm also in favor of option 1. Basically, I'm in favor of any "Support+oppose=100%" alternative, but the confusion that has existed in the past regarding Neutral votes lead me to believe it's best to leave them aside altogether. This is also close to the criteria that has been used in the past, so there won't be any problems through the transition to this system. I also strongly agree with Borwne's comment above: immediately after we clarify this, we need to also establish the exact percentages that we consider as consensus for promotion. Phaedriel - 02:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I see choice 3 isn't too popular, but nonetheless, it is exactly what I would want if I were the one voting neutral. If I were voting neutral, I wouldn't want it to be counted for either side. But I sure would want the chance to express my view anyway, even knowing it's not counted - you know, just to let others know where I stand. Blockinblox - talk 03:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 As I stated above, neutral votes do count IMO. Neutral means run again later when more editors can decide if the user is worthy of admin tools or not.ionas ^talk _contribs 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• In my opinion, neutral votes should not count, see above for a rationale why not. For this reason, I think we should go with option 1 or opion 3 above. For the reason of simplicity, I prefer option 1 though, as it would not even give the impression there is such a thing as a neutral vote; It also does not put us before the problem to explain how a neutral vote is different from someone not voting at all. --Eptalon 09:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't have said it better, Eptalon :) Phaedriel - 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I support option 1 too. Although neutral votes are not useless, they could be reworded as "suggestions" and remain as effective, while not clattering the vote counting ideas. - Huji ^reply 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

5x Option 1, 2x Option 2, 2x Option 3. 56% for option 1, Options 2 and 3 get 22% each. Therefore 78% think that neutral votes should not count. --Eptalon 08:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the count is 6 for Option 1, 1 for Option 2, and 1 for Option 3 (and Browne34 supporting either Option 1 or 2). Since the clear majority is for Option 1, let's go ahead and put the changes in place. This involves putting a note on the Requests for Adminship page that clearly states that neutral votes do not exist and will not count, as well as describing the process on the Criteria page. · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have made these changes to Wikipedia:Criteria for Administratorship. Point 2 under the "A successful request" section ("Bureaucrats make their decisions based on the consensus of...") may need to be reworded since it will be mainly based on the percentage.

I have also made changes to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Would it be possible to change {{RfA}} so that it automatically adds the sections Support, Oppose and Comments? That would unify all requests and hopefully eliminate any straggling neutral votes. I still think we should maybe post a notice on the WP:RFA page that says something like "Do not vote neutral. If you are unsure, please express this under the Comments section." But perhaps it won't be necessary if we add the sections to the RfA template. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions after the vote

• Is 55% of the vote enough to be considered consensus?
• Is anyone uncomfortable with the percentages (of people needed to support admin, or cratship) for it to succeed?

--Eptalon 08:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that we had been discussing 65% for adminship and 75% for cratship. That's what it says on the criteria page. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That 55% (should actually be 56%) to the section above, sorry for not being clear. --Eptalon 08:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Tygartl1's figures in his comment above. - Huji ^reply 08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Put differently again. In the section above, 56% of all votes were for option 1. So what I asked in this section was simply if 56% of the vote was enough top consider option 1 (in the section above) as the choice of the community. --Eptalon 10:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It has already been implemented in the current Request. And again, if you look carefully, there are nine total voters. I counted the first choice of each of the eight voters who had a top choice. Browne34 had a tie for a first choice. Six users' first choice was Option 1. Therefore, 6 of the 9 votes were "Option 1 is my first choice". 6/9 is 66.7% or two-thirds. So to answer your question, yes this is high enough to be considered consensus. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualifying editors

Under "Vote by the community", it lists in several places in the section who can vote (qualifying editors, Editors with logged in accounts, no sockpuppets, no very new users). It might be a good idea to put all the qualifying/disqualifying criteria together in the section (or a subsection) just so it is easier to note instead of spread out thoughout the section. This would allow for the use of a single term ("Qualifying editor") throughout the section and then define what it takes to qualify to vote. -- Creol(talk) 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I implemented it. there is a new section, which regroups the criteria. --Eptalon 07:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Percentage needed

Now that we have successfully determined that we will be implementing Option 1 (no neutral votes; no section for neutral votes; only support votes oppose votes, and comments will be allowed; support votes + oppose votes = 100%), we now need to discuss what percentage is enough to consider a request as successful. For ease, let's break this into two discussion sections:

Percentage of support votes needed to become an administrator

• It has been suggested in the past that 65% support be needed. I agree with 65% as the support percentage for adminship. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a literalist here, but wouldn't 66.6% be more accurate (two thirds)?

Gwib^-(talk)- 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 65% too, as I stated above. - Huji ^reply 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, it's always been set at 65% and I don't believe that there is any reason to change it. Archer7 - talk 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Two thirds, as expressed in round numbers by a 65% is adequate, and according to our long standing practice. Phaedriel - 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Percentage of support votes needed to become a bureaucrat

• It has been suggested in the past that 75% support be needed. I agree with 75% as the support percentage for cratship. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest we use a higher numner, like 85%. - Huji ^reply 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with 75%. Archer7 - talk 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• 75% seems sufficient to me. Phaedriel - 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I would like to strongly insist that we should make it very clear, that the percentage is only a way to estimate consensus. I mean, I really want us to avoid a future discussion about "why didn't he become and admin and he had 69.7% supporting votes". Bureaucrats don't work based on numbers only. Consensus is not measured by a number, which is highly sensitive to many factors; a well-trained sockpuppet can really change this figure without being detected (and I want to quote this from one of CUs that "we all know how to get arround CUs"). People may vote in support on the first day, and don't come back to change it, while on day 2, a person may reveal a very good reason why not to trust the nominee; in such a case, although the percentage may be more than the threshold level, bureaucrats will wisely decide not to make that person an admin.

So in all, I would like to make sure all of us agree that becoming an admin is not a matter of having enough number of supporting votes, and that this is going to be clearly stated in the guideline too. - Huji ^reply 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's absolutely right - I don't want us getting too wrapped up in numbers here. Archer7 - talk 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I suppose I thought that went without saying but we can never be too clear when it comes to this sort of thing. :-) · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Important observation

Hello Community. As it is proposed now (and in fact in common use), one of out 3 bureaucreats makes the decision if an applicant should be promoted or not. He will look some kind of consensus in his decision. I therefore think that the number we write here should not be part of the guideline. Suppose, a very good candidate comes along, but only gets 60% support, but the guideline says 65% are needed. I want our 'crats to still promote this candidate. On the other hand, if there is a candidate who is clearly amiss here, but who gets 70%, I want it to be possible to refuse them. For this reason, I think we should find a way to express these ideas:

• A bureaucrat makes the decision
• Any number / percentage should be seen as a guide for the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats are not bound by that number.
• All such numbers should not be seen as part of the guideline.
• In general, Requests for bureaucrats should need a higher approval percentage than those for admins.

Feel free to comment. --Eptalon 21:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We need clear guidelines with clear percentages spelled out to prevent arguments and grudges being held if someone passed or not. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  22:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, didn't you folks run Netaholic out of here for failing to abide by the vote of the community? It seems to me that these guidelines and policies would prevent that from occuring. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can keep the numbers there, but insist that "approximately X% of supporting votes" is needed to become a sysop/bureaucrat. We should also clarify that, bureaucrats' decisions are not confined to consider the "number" of supporting and opposing votes, and they make their decisions with reasoning. - Huji ^reply 12:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting after the candidate's acceptance

I would like to suggest a section to be added, that people should vote after the candidate has accepted the nomination (no matter it has happened on the RfA page itself, or on the user's talk page and then linked on the Rfa, etc). I assume that, if there is agreement on this, we should apply this new rule as soon as the criteria are officialy named a "guideline".

When comment, please also argue if we are going to delete votes posted before the candidate's accpetance, or what. - Huji ^reply 12:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I voted before you had accepted the nomination, so I'll gladly withdraw my vote. But it would come back just the same anyway.

Gwib^-(talk)- 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are some votes for Phaedrial's nomination posted before her acceptance (including mine). I don't think we should draw them back. Even if we agree that people should vote after the acceptance by the nominee, this will be effective from the time it is agreed upon, not beforehand. - Huji ^reply 19:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is very important. I only see two cases:

1. A candidate (who is obviously not self-nominated) rejects the nomination. In that case there will be no vote at all.
2. Such a candidate accepts the nomination. By our rules, this starts the voting process. I do however not think that people will change their opinion based on the acceptance of the candidate. This means the issue is simply an aesthetic one. --Eptalon 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One reason I broght that to discussion is that we have this statement: "the one week period is calculated from when the nominated person accepts the nomination". Although not likely, it may result in a candidate accepting a day or two later, on purpose, to make his RfA extend more than regular in time, and possibly, have a higher chance of getting noticed by other people... dunno, I felt a little pessimistic writing those last words of mine, yet I couldn't help saying that. What do you think? - Huji ^reply 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A candidate still might delay for similar reason anyway; maybe the only solution would be to start the clock ticking from the actual nomination insted of from the acceptance, and state that the candidate must accept at any point before the vote is over. Blockinblox - talk 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That, also, makes sense to me. Let's see what others think. - Huji ^reply 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the following: The clock/voting starts with nomination. Accepting must be done within 3 days from nomination. On day 4 (after listing) the request is either removed as failed (no acceptance, refusal), or prolonged. Prolongation is done so that it expires 10 days (week+3days) from nomination. We could still discuss if we want to encourage nomination by others. To prevent nomination by socks, I would say no. That means we would need to extend the time for self-nomination from 7 to 10 days. The 3 days comes to account for weekends: What if I nominate someone Friday evening, and that person does not consult wikipedia over the weekend? - These are just thoughts, let's see what the others say. --Eptalon 18:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should start votes without the candidate's acceptance. That being said, if someone wants to nominate someone they should get their permission first before posting. If a nomination is posted, people are going to start voting anyway. The other alternative as I see it is to require all self-nominations, which I would support. Makes people be bold. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing opinions

Added/clarified that it is possible to change opinions while the vote is running. Old vote will be market with strikethrough. It will then be treated like an illegal vote. --Eptalon 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominating someone else

Hello, there was also some discussion above on this. The problem is as follows: If someone proposes someone else to become an admin, the nominated person has to accept the nomination at some point. Late acceptance could be used to prolong the voting process, if it started with acceptance. As soon as the request is up, people will probably start voting. Therefore I see the following options to solve this problem:

1. Voting starts right away. During the week the nomination is running, the candidate has to accept his/her nomination.
2. When the proposing editor puts up the request for the vote, he or she has the acceptance of the candidate already; The candidate must therefore signal his or her acceptance within 1 day of the request being put up.
3. Voting starts right away. Within a set time (3-4 days), the candidate has to accept the nomination. If there is no acceptance within that time the vote can be stopped (as failed) about half-way.
4. We ask our editors to be bold, and remove the option of being able to nominate someone else.
5. Voting starts after the candidate's acceptance, which must occur within the week. This is the solution we currently have, and which started the discussion (about being able to prolong the week).

I know this is lengthy, but please tell the others which of the 5 options you see would best fit. Please do not disagree with an option, because you simply disagree with the set time. Times can be discussed afterwards, if needed. I really think it is time we got this to a stage where we can actually vote for it, to become a guideline. --Eptalon 10:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a modification of the second option is available too, which is what BrownE34 said above: A user can only nominate a second person if he has his acceptance, for example on his talk page. - Huji ^reply 11:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it should be possible to provide a link to a (talk) page where the nominated person accepts... --Eptalon 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who can vote

I think one phrase should be added to "Who can vote" section: "Any named editor can vote, untill their account is created before the voting has started". What do you think? - Huji ^reply 18:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I assume this change is so obvious that no one objects, or that there are possible reasons to object, but no one had the time to comment on it yet? - Huji ^reply 14:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What's a named editor? Oysterguitarist 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A named editor means an editor who has logged in to create an account, as opposed to an anonymous (IP address) editor. The wording is a little awkward, "until" (usually not spelled "untill") is mainly used with reference to a future event, not in place of 'as long as'. Perhaps a clearer wording would be "Any logged-in editor can vote, if their account was created before the vote starts." Blockinblox - talk 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Oysterguitarist 15:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain about until there account is created before .... I think that should be if there account was created before... (I think time travel would be needed for the until one). I am not entirely sure it is realy needed in that location though. I think it would probably be better to include it under the line on users with a small number of edits. Something like Votes made by new users or users with very few edits may or may not be counted. -- Creol(talk) 15:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Echoing a little of what Blockinblox said, but two edit conflicts and way past my sane idea of a bed time so it will have to do.

Good idea Creol. And thanks for the corrections, to both of you! - Huji ^reply 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We can of course spell it out clearly, though I think it is already covered by Votes made by users with very few edits....Note laso that I added a Definiions sections so that we know what we are talking about. What about: Named editors cannot vote in requests that are running when they create their account? --Eptalon 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not about the number of edits. A user account created after a voting started, with 1000 edits in 5 days (like by using AWB, etc) is still not legitimat to vote, in my humble opnion. - Huji ^reply 15:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there account would have to be X days old before they can vote on something? Oysterguitarist 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have updated the who can vote section, please review and improve the changes. --Eptalon 15:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. - Huji ^reply 15:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Finalising

Hello, It would really be nice to get this to a status of guideline. Before this can be done, I still see the following items needing discussion:

1. Proposed candidates (that are not self-nominated) have a strategic interest in delaying their acceptance, if voting starts with the acceptance.Different solutions have been proposed, we need to settle for one of them, or re-discuss the issue.
2. There seems to be something left about percentages needed for success (while it is clear that the bureaucrat makes his decision based on felt consensus, not numbers). I feel that discussing that a little longer may calm down some spirits.

If there are no more changes/no discussion, I will move this to the vote on ST around Oct 18. Ideally, it should have its new status by the end of the month. --Eptalon 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance issue

Obviously, it only matters when the candidate is nominated by someone else. Having read all the above comments (including mine) I suggest a new solution: The voting starts from when the nomination happens. It stops when (1) The candidates rejects it or (2) The voting duration is due. This way, delaying in acceptance will not be a problem. As a side note, the person who nominates a candidate should inform the candidate on his/her talk page at the same time. - Huji ^reply 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this suggestion is fine. · Tygrrr^·talk· 13:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• That's how pervious nominations have been practiced, so I think we should keep it. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• This seems like a fine idea.--Werdan7^{T @} 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds great. Archer7 - talk 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Percentage issue

I think a not-that-robust consensus happened on 65% for adminship and 75% for bureaucratship. However, we still need more discussion about it, as Eptalon notified above. - Huji ^reply 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I still agree with those percentages. :-P · Tygrrr^·talk· 13:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Those percentages are fine for now until this wiki grows. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the numbers are different. If the point of voting is to find out if the community has consensus about an issue, then there should be one amount of agreement that makes a consensus. That level should be used for everything; RfAs, RfBs, RfCUs, RfDs, etc.--Werdan7^{T @} 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Werdan7, these percentages aren't gonna be officially big-time policies. They are just a guideline to help decide consensus, if any help is needed and is also used as a reference to the average percentage needed to pass. For example in the english wiki, some RfAs have passed below or failed above the actual minimal percentages. Also some people support or oppose with complex discussions/debates that can sometimes make it hard to decide wether an RfA has passed or not. So while in some exceptional cases it may happen in this wiki one day, these percentages are merely guidelines to help the 'crats decide wether the RfA has passed or failed. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, but why are the guidelines different? Requests for Deletion and Requests for Bureaucrat both try to find consensus, so why do they have different numbers?
      • May be because consensus is not a "zero-or-one" event. There can be little consensus, fair consensus, raw consensus, robust consensus and complete consensus about things. (This is not an official categorization, it is an unprecise one made by myself now!) For less sensitive roles (like adminship) a robust consensus is enough. For more sensitive roles (like a bureaucrat, who should have the ability to feel consensus in RfAs) a higher level of agreement is needed. These percentages are "one way" to measure (some aspects of) the level of agreement between users. Just my two cents... - Huji ^reply 07:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is still Adminship (as well as CheckUser, and Bureaucratship) are position that give big powers to those who have them. Therefore it is all about trust. As an example: Vector had no opposition votes, yet he did not get promoted to Checkuser. That was because only 13 people supported him, and the Foundation wants something like 25 votes. The "felt consensus" (percentage of support) needed to justify an article deletion is fundamentally different (lower) than the percentage of support someone needs to get bureaucrat status. Personally, I would not feel confident about making someone bureaucrat if he or she had 51% support. I have however no problem to justify deleting an article, if there is 51% support for that. --Eptalon 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the current percentages. Archer7 - talk 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: guidleine on voting?

Hello, looking at the sections Who can vote, Vote by the community, and Counting votes, they more or less accurately describe how voting is done here, not only for admins, but also for other things. Could/Should we extract them into another guideline about voting (which we can then simply reference here)? --Eptalon 13:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support the idea of having a new small guideline about votings. - Huji ^reply 13:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Extracted a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Voting. --Eptalon 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to criteria

Moved from Wikipedia:Simple talk/Criteria for Adminship per Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Wikipedia:Simple talk/Criteria for Adminship.

Proposal

User requesting adminship

1. Amount of activity (x edits) in the month
2. Participation in the community (ST/DYK/(V)GA processes. User requesting adminship needs:
   1. 5GA/VGA articles under his belt
   2. 10DYK noms
3. 10 QD requests
4. 5 VIP reports filed
5. Adding a question section where any RfA-related questions can be asked

Interwiki record

1. No user blocked on another Wiki may run

   vs.

2. No user actions on another Wiki may come into question here

These are two extremes of the spectrum, and are open to discussion, as is everything else on this page

User voting in RfA

1. Only allow users votes who have 100 - 500 edits
2. Only allow users with clean block records

Discussion

It seems that there are a few options that have already been discussed a bit:

• Require more votes (10, instead of 5) for administrators, 15 for bureaucrats; number of votes has never been a problem, though.
• Only admit named users' votes once the user has done a number of edits (100,200,500) in this Wikipedia. Currently, the number of edits that disqualifies an editor is around 20-25 (votes of editors with fewer than that number are struck). An alternative would be to require "activity" (50 edits) in the 30 days before the vote.
• Require participation in the community (ST/DYK/(V)GA processes). hard to quantify though (thanks to Eptalon)
• Require at least 70% support for admins and 80% support for bureaucrats.

All discussion from here on out should be about these options and any others that could be added to these. Razorflame 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A few other suggestions to ponder:

• I think that it would be a good idea to add in a questions section like they have over on the English Wikipedia as it gives the candidate a chance to prove to other users that they are ready for the flag.

What do you guys think about this? Razorflame 19:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the asking of flags over at any project for adminship, you might ask if they hold any restricted permissions anywhere. That is what I usually do, for example, when someone is asking for the metarisky importer flag. Some folks have had an easy, and a hard time of at enWP. I don't want to be unfair to some candidates. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NVS: I think Razorflame is saying we ask questions to the users about admin tools and stuff, like in EN RfAs, not ask them about what has happened at the EN WP. That should never be a criteria, ever, because, as I keep saying, we are not the english wikipedia!!!. And yes, I do think questions would be a good idea. I don't care much about the rest, but I think questions should be asked (im sure many will remember I asked for them in my failing RfA...) BG^7even 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was saying. I was NOT saying anything about en:WP being involved. Razorflame 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't english wikipedia you are correct. But you (in the general sense not in specific) are still the same user at simple that you are at en. So if you can't be trusted on en, why should you be trusted on simple? And if you are trusted on the largest of the wikis why wouldn't you be trusted on simple? Your actions no matter where they happen are still your actions, and are still fair game. The only reason so many people here seem to oppose such linkage is that they have been banned over there. -Djsasso (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I this thing is implemented, then I will never become an admin because I am indefblocked on en and commons :( This RfA procedure is plain horrible. TurboGolf 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two possible options for that particular step in the criteria... Try reading the other one. Also, keep in mind that these are being discussed. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the normal CfA is much better than this. TurboGolf 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I had bad experiences on enWP. I sure would have hate for those experiences to be imported here to this project. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, its gererally beneficial if people at your new wiki don't judge you on the fact that you had your admin tools stripped from you on en. Lord knows that if someone abused their tools at en, they would never think of doing so at simple just cause its a different wiki right? -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes issues are isolated events. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This has gotten off the topic of whether or not the new suggestions should be implemented or not....it would be nice to see this topic stay on topic rather than get off topic...cheers, Razorflame 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the propositions. I would still like to think about a re-confirmation for all admins. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is No Big Deal^TM, so I don't think a reconfirmation RfA is necessary for existing admins. Also, I'm somewhat opposed to making the CfA significantly more strict. Additionally, while many people disagree with me on this matter, I believe behavior on en.wp—and other wikis for that matter—is an excellent indicator of behavior here. Juliancolton (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually an rfa re-confirmation would make everything fairer as people will have to pass with the same standards as people in the future. We need to make it harder to get the flag because otherwise everyone could be an admin and then what's the point in having them? Juliancolton, en-behavior has nothing to do with simple. People here with problems at en, have turned the page, to try and redeem themselves. You think it better to take into account things from en as you are an en admin, and if you weren't, you wouldn't be with 15 supports in your rfa. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But that works the other way too, the only reason people don't want it to come into account is because they have problems there. Sure they may have turned the page, but proove that first and the problems at en won't matter. The only time problems at en come up in Rfa is when they haven't turned the page here. There is absolutely no reason why good actions there shouldn't be a plus here. Becoming an admin is about trust, if they have shown they can be trusted there, there is no reason they can't also be trusted here. -Djsasso (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Shapiros10 was opposed because of his past at en. But he has turned the page and so what you're saying isn't quite right. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see the opposes mentioning his past at en? I see him mostly being rejected due to his activity level. -Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

O I'm sorry, Djsasso, you're the only one who opposed coz of this. Other people told me they abstained for this reason (on IRC). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and my vote, and there abstentions were completely resonable. Someone who has abused peoples trust in the past should be held to a higher standard in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And those "activity related" opposes were also ridiculous as the same people are supporting JulianColton. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous to think anybody would support me. :) Juliancolton (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton doesn't have to overcome a troubled past. He has proven himself many times over so thus people are more willing to overlook low edit count. Trust is the key to Rfa. -Djsasso (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) This discussion has gotten off track again. Please keep it on track. Thanks, Razorflame 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, this discussion is about what should be the requirements to run for admin. We are debating two such aspects that people disagree on. I would rather it not be about specific people, but in the general sense its very valid. -Djsasso (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh...now that I re-read it, I would agree with you. Sorry about that! Razorflame 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

5 VIP reports?

Why five, I'm hardly ever online when an IP has vandalized the the point of that. Also, I don't want to participate in VGA, I don't know if I'll ever want to. I participate in DYK, but should that penalize me? I don't like this criteria, it does not take into account each individual editor has individual interest. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well we can't please everyone, we have to make sacrifices. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that how you value me, or any other edit on this project? Some have to be sacrificed? We are not automatons, we are volunteer people. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Five ViP reports is not that many. MC8 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're never online when an IP needs to be blocked, you don't need the block tool. Why would you apply for adminship if you won't use the tools? I tried to write the criteria to determine activity with the tools, since many users have failed RfA since they're not QD'ding or ViPing enough (and so don't need the tools). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. NVS: we are not sacrificing you, but you can't always do what you want to do in life. You have to do some things. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm: [1] According to this log, Yotcmdr, you've only performed six blocks in your two months. That's like six VIP reports. So why should we require five reports if our administrators are barely clearing that themselves? Either way (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Who really *needs* the tools? I'd asses the QD CAT more than blocking anyway, because that is where I do most admin related work. That is to say, I do tagging. But it is unfair to expect that all editors do VIP, and participate in the VG process. Other things are important also. Do you know how many new articles I brought to the project? That is my area of interest, I'm a volunteer after all. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with NVS here. We should not make 5 ViP reports a requirement for adminship here because it would be unfair to some people who do most of their work in other fields. That isn't to say that they still wouldn't block or wouldn't know how to block or that they would if one is needed; it just goes to show that some people would rather help in other administrator areas. Cheers, Razorflame 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Aitherway: If you didn't know, my activity level has decreased as I'd warned on my user/talk page. I also made 10 VIP reports before I was an admin. That's 16 in total. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That is good. I assure you that I won't log that many in a month. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Circular talk

Hello, before we even start going around in circles: The main perceived weakness of the CfA is that named editors vote in RfAs, and that these editors do little else in this Wikipedia. There are two basic ways how we can fix this:

1. We do not change the requirements for those voting, but raise the percentages needed (e.g to 70/80%, as outlined above)
2. We do not change the percentages, but instead require a certain activity level in this wikipedia (50 edits in the 30 days before the vote started) of those voting.

The second option has the drawback that we exclude certain people from voting. So far, the people who failed RfA did so clearly (i.e. more than 5% off the mark, or not enough votes). With narrow failures, the closing Bureaucrat made a decision based on the comments posted with the votes (me too. per above). Once we have reached this decision, we can then look how we best incorporate it into the current criteria.--Eptalon (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic!

I do not understand what is the whole point for this issue. We the community, have already set up and decided upon how the RfA functions and the requirements for adminship a long time ago. However every few months, there is a user (or a group of users), who think that the RfA system is flawed just because they themselves failed a RfA or had a person they nominated fail a RfA. The point here about gaining adminship is simple, if you want to become an administrator (after fulfilling the requirements, of course), you have to convince the community to grant you adminship, rather than bitch around how the RfA system is screwed up.

The (in)famous phrase, "Adminship is no big deal", seems to have been all, but forgotten. Every day, users who don't pass their RfA turns against the adminship system or the community as a whole. They take RfAs personally, when the point is RfAs are NOT meant to be taken personally. I, myself, have attempted two unsuccessful RfAs, and I do not think that the RfA approach is too hard or too ridiculous. One thing that I do find controversial is the biased opinions about a user's past history on enWP. I think that a person's past actions should not be taken into account, if there user has agreed to stop and not repeat it. Many blocked/banned/rejected users from enWP come here to simple wiki as a refugee, or for a "second chance".

Also, lifting the adminship requirements do not seem necessary here. We are still a relatively small wiki in comparison with other wikipedias (i.e., German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Japanese wikis, etc.). However we have relatively more admins than other wikis about our size. We even have local CUs and import users, something most small wikis do have. As I have mentioned before in simple talk, "Adminship is about trust. It is not a prize." Unfortunately some users here cannot understand a simple, and a nine-word phrase. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If adminship is no big deal, why are so many candidates failing due to low edit counts, too few edits in a specific namespace, too many edits in other namespaces, and other minor issues? Juliancolton (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Low edit counts matter, you need a speific amount of experience in order to gain adminship.
• Too much edits, usually in user page or user talk page prove little that you can handle sysop tools wisely and efficently.
• Too few edits in a namespace such as the Main and wiki/project namespace are important; you need to have experience in various parts of the wiki and actively participate in community decisions.

--§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit count should be irrelevant if the contributions are of high quality. However, as long as so many editors do, in fact, view edit count as an indicator of experience, adminship will continue to be a big deal. Juliancolton (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Signature is too colorful, there for... too Myspacey. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about my sig, there is no such thing as a "MySpacey sig". --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Only 912 edits, I require 1,000. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have more than 5500+ edits. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per above. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello? --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Have not heard of you, so you can't be active. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my wiki-break, I was active here for a long time. Ask Eptalon or Razorflame. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per my instinct. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I don't know you that well, so I have to oppose.

Of a course you don't know me. I just came out of wiki-retriement. :P --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per NonvocalScream Juliancolton (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what's with the eight or so "opposes". If you don't like my opinions, ignore it. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

“	Then: Adminship is no big deal.	”
—Jimbo Wales

Break in the discussion

The opposes were not aimed at you. The opposes were an example of what I've seen. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my idea, I Strongly oppose changing the RfA and the CfA. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would pretty much agree with that. Though I wouldn't be against boosting the percentages a bit. -Djsasso (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't agree, I think we need to change the criteria. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with both Djsasso and Yotcmdr on this. The system needs to be fixed in order to prevent users from other wikipedias to come over here and just vote in RfAs when they haven't even either edited on here or made very many edits on here. Therefore, I would like to say that I support the increase in percentages, as well as a 100 edit minimum for anyone voting in an RfA. Cheers, Razorflame 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You (the community) elected the crats, show them some trust to make the correct calls. They have judgement. I'm sure they know what votes to assign less weight. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that we as a community elected the bureaucrats, however, just because we elected them does not mean that their judgement is good in certain situations (not implying this about any of our current bureaucrats). I do trust them to have the judgement needed to close the RfAs correctly, however, I still think that we need to make it so that only the active editors on this project are the only ones who are able to vote in RfAs. That way, we get the best possible community consensus that we can have in that situation. Cheers, Razorflame 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, then why not just have users who edit here frequently be the ones able to vote, but leave the rest of the RfA/CfA system alone? --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 13:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pragmatism

Add the following to CfA (under Who can vote)

• Those who vote in a discussion for adminship are expected to be active members of this Wikipedia. A user who votes should therefore have made at least 50 edits in the 30 days before the start of the vote.

What do you think?--Eptalon (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support - I'm not sure inactive user's should really vote. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - 100 edits is too high in my opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Will deter some outside canvassing. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - I definitely support this implementation. Cheers, Razorflame 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification needed would this mean that a user needs to be registered for 30 days before they can vote? Or do they just need to reach the 50 edit plateau? Either way (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it just means they have to make 50 edits. We already require them to be registered prior to the Rfa starting. -Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw it as In the last 30 days (before the start of the vote), the user should have made 50 edits. Of course this does not mean that we strike a vote if the 50th edit is the vote, but we can clearly strike a vote if the user made 30 edits, and those are like 6 months old; In other words, it is not so much the 50 edits as the 30 days...--Eptalon (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I will clarify even more: To me it is more important to see recent activity in those who voted; I think it is less important if it is 25 edits, 50 edis, or 100 edits. We could even leave out the number of edits, and let the closing crat decide? (As I said: currently we are looking at about 25 edits min, but without time limit). |}

Who can vote

I propose we define the number of edits considered to be "very few". I would consider a fair number to be 10. If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know what you would consider to be a fair number. Once a number has been decided, I will update the project page, to avoid WP:BITEy stalking on Rfas. Snow funn at tall (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And then 10 edits on your own userpage or talk page and you can voting? Welcome sock puppets.

I would consider a fair number to be 150. Barras (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(E/C)Sorry, I disagree, the person voting has to have a certain experience, and has to know who he's voting for. Kind regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

150 is much too excessive, especially for a small wiki. Snow funn at tall (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we defined a minimum of 50. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

50 edits should be ok, if they are in the article name space. Barras (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC) and they have to be made before the RfA/B/C started. Barras (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

50 overall (all types of edits) sounds more reasonable, and even then, only as a guideline, not rule. Snow funn at tall (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But they shouldn't be mostly 'User:' mainspace edits, I reckon. Nifky? (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares enough to break down the percentages of edits for everyone who !votes in an RFA, they are very sad indeed. Snow funn at tall (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) For exactly these reasons, the exact number of edits have not been defined; In the last few votes however, I did not consider editors with less than 20-30 edits, preferably in the month before the vote. The edits are preferably in article space, though with so few edits, needing a certain percentage there is probably problematic. Note that the other bureaucrats will have similar requirements. Hence no need to specify an exact number. --Eptalon (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)