Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 1

Neutral votes

Since they don't count in determining whether a RfA succeeds or fails, would anyone support one of these proposals:

1. For future RfAs, count Neutral votes in the final vote and require a majority (50% +1) of Support votes out of all votes cast; or
2. Disallow Neutral votes, and allow people who don't want to vote a Comment Section.

Any thoughts anyone? -  BrownE34  talk  contribs 

Personally I am of the opinion a vote for most things requires an approval rate of a certain percentage. That is to say in this instance that to pass an RFA a person needs a set percentage of total votes in support of them to pass the RfA. As such, a neutral vote is not a support vote, but it is still a vote. This would make is pretty much the same as an oppose but with a less strong conviction (very weak oppose). If a user just wanted to make a comment or question, they certainly have that capability, but if they chose to vote "neutral" they are still voting, but not voting for support and as such it should be counted against the vote passing if the vote is strictly a "enough support to pass" vote instead of a consensus vote. -- Creol(talk) 08:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think for future votes we could do as follows:

1. We attach a numerical value (weight) to each vote. For example, support has value 3, neutral has value 2, oppose has value 1. :After the vote has closed, we calculate the Median. This is not the mean, and is the value that cuts the given :votes into an upper half, and a lower half. Against the mean it has the benefit to be more robust against extreme values.It also shows trends better. There are three possible outcomes:
   • Clear acceptance - in that case the median will be around 3, the value we fixed for an accept vote (2.5..-3)
   • Neutral vote - median around 2 (1.5-2.4..)
   • Clear oppose - median around 1 (1-1.4..)
2. We could then say, that to be successful, an RFA would need a value of at least 2.5. Nishkid64 currently has 7 support, 1 neutral, and 5 oppose votes; Group those values, into 5 1, one 2, and 7 3; Take the value at position 7 ((13*1/2)), and you get 2 groups of 6 values each. That value is a 3, so the Median is 3 . In contrast, the Mean is 2,15(..). This method is also resistent to the numerical value we assign to accept, neutral, and oppose. In the case of an even number of votes; the value is midway between the two center elements; In our case, one more vote, which is not an accept, changes this value to 2.5; no matter if it is neutral or oppose. The next vote will change the value back to 3, if it is a support vote, and to 2, if it is not.

I think we should change to that system, to determine success in more difficult cases. --Eptalon 10:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think defining a 50%+ can be a "necessary criterion" but not a "sufficient cirterion".

Regarding the idea of using a median: when we weight the votes as mentoned above, the median cannot be any value other than 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 or 3. This is because of the way the median is calculated. Having that, I still don't think the RfAs should be treated in a robot-like fashion, looking only at the votes. It is not that hard for an ill-tempered person to have sockpuppets/meatpuppets vote for him; now here, the problem with the median is, even a single vote can change a median of 2 to 2.5, in some circumstances; this means, even one more undetected sockpuppet will do the job!

I think bureaucrats are supposed to feel "consensus" when they close a case as accept or reject, and this consensus is not exactly in direct correlation with the median. A case may be closed as "reject" even if they are 5 supporting, 1 neutral and 2 opposing votes, when the opposing votes are pointing to evidence which really prohibits us from making a user a sysop. This is what a bureaucrat can understand, but numbers fail to understand :)

All in all, I repeat my starting statement: A 50% or 60% support can be a "requirement" but not a "sufficient cause" to close a case as accept. Bureaucrats should have good reasons for closing a case against what a median/mean/etc calculation depicts, apparently. - Huji ^reply 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Huji on this one. Consensus can't really be worked out with a median, and I think even if it was just used as a guide it would lead to 'robot-like' promotions. Archer7 - talk 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the median idea either. The sockpuppet issue here isn't an issue at all I think. We simply don't count votes from non-established editors. For example, the vote by Herbythyme will be ignored in the current vote. And it is a vote, for me consenus is just a synonym for majority (which is 50% +1 of votes cast). For me it seems inefficient to have neutral votes that are disregarded in the final tally. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one basic problem, that is how to count a "neutral vote". Up till now, it was very much the case that it counted the same as an oppose (that is: as a non-support). If we want to change that, we need to:

1. Somehow weigh the votes. This is usually done by attaching a numerical value.
2. Somehow sum up the votes, to get to a result that can be interpreted as either successful, or non-sucessful.

In that context, we might perhaps count a neutral vote both as a support vote, and an oppose vote. Or we might define some key, that 2 or 3 neutral votes (for example) are the same as one support vote. In any case, it will make the calculation more difficult than it is now. Technically, now, the neutral is the same as the oppose (like one vote of non-support). As to the percentages: I think, bureaucrat promotions should have a qualified majority (75% of the votes cast), to unanimity. And, yes, of course I agree that the reasons why someone votes one way or another are meaningful. --Eptalon 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Neutral votes do not count as of now. In JDi's vote, I voted as Neutral with thinking that it would count. See JDi's archived RfA. If Neutral votes were counted there, his Request fails with 50% Support. That's what caused me to bring this up, because, in part, because this new vote reminded me that mine wasn't counted last time and I felt the Neutral vote needs to count or be done away with. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As you've probably seen from J Di's RfA, neutral votes are confusing at times, but I don't really see the point of replacing "Neutral" with "Comment". Yes, it's probably slightly easier to understand, but I'm sure everyone from EN will carry on using "Neutral" anyway. For me, "neutral" votes are just a space to put a comment anyway. One other important question that you're raised there Eptalon: should the recommended percentage support for bureaucrat nominations be higher than the 65% for RfAs? Archer7 - talk 11:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think in general, the requests here are either clear one way, or the other. RfBs should definitely be pretty clear passes. Majorly (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus versus supermajority

We tend to follow the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia, don't we. In that case, I would like to cite en:WP:CON#Consensus_vs._supermajority here. As discussed there, on AFD pages, the numbers should never be the only consideration in making a final decision.

I totally disagree with thinking of majority or supermajority as a measure of consensus. As you may know, wikipedia tended to be more vote-based long ago, when we had Votes For Deletion, which is now changed to Articles For Deletion, to make this fact bold that we are not voting but commenting in support or objection of a request. Now, this request can be a request for deletion, or a request for adminship. This is some how in contrast with what Browne34 thinks. When we are commenting, every comment is important. We add an support or oppose to the first of our comment, just to clarify our overall point of view, but these are not robust measures. As you see, some people may summerize their votes as weak support; who sais it has just the same weight as a strong support vote, especially when we read the comment and see why the voter is weakly supporting the case.

There is correlation and there is causality. Having a high percentage of support votes (say 90%) has a robust correlation with the request being accepted; nevertheless, it is not a cause or even a surrogate measure to make a decision upon. I have looked into RfA cases of English Wikipedia several times; you rarely find an accepted case with a low percentage of support votes, which proves my idea of being a correlation between the two factors. I found no clues of a causal relationship between the two though.

So all in all, I think all those things we right on RfAs are comments, no matter they are summerized as support, oppose or neutral (or any thing within this spectrum). - Huji ^reply 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And in English wikipedia where they are a lot of editors and a lot of admins that would work just fine. Here, as noted below there are about 20 active editors at any given time. There are 16 admins with about 11 or 12 of those being really active. Consensus here is the majority because there are so few editors. Because there are so few editors, I feel there is a need to have more concrete benchmarks. For example if we had a situation where there were 9 votes in favor of an issue and 8 votes against, and a bureaucrat or admin makes a ruling those in favor win that is an abuse as consensus has not been reached under your argument. However, there aren't any more people at that stage to vote or we could wait forever for someone on a break to come in. A lot of people are stubborn and won't change their mind. If someone who infrequently edits came in and pushed the scale, the other side would be outraged that a non-regular user's input was taken into consideration. A rule regarding passage, whether a simple majority or a supermajority of votes is needed for passage of something is needed. If that were the case, the 9 votes would win and everyone could live with the decision. They might not like it, but there would be a clear rule that showed that the 9 votes won the day. If and when this wiki gets more users, there is less need for this as consensus become easier to achieve and there is a broader power base. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but in my point of view, we should not agree upon something which works right now, just because it works right now. When it comes to standards relating to RfA and similar issues, once a consensus is reached on something, it is very hard to change that tradition. So we should be cautious about what we are agreeing upon, and look forward the days when we will have 200 active editors, not 20. I prefer not to over-value the majority, but to clarify its real value. - Huji ^reply 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Huji that we should do things the way we want them to stay. Even though numbers are convenient now, we shouldn't go strictly by numbers anyway, because eventually that will not be as good a reflection of consensus. The person who acts on consensus should always take into account the arguments presented, as well as the count. If it is a 9-8-0 vote, obviously no consensus has been reached, and the change should not happen, assuming that the arguments also reflect the same lack of consensus.

It is true that counting votes is not how deletions or admin promotions happen or should happen, but they do help in the process, so that the people who will act based on consensus have a better idea how the community feels. In my opinion, neutral votes are created to specifically not affect the vote count. The idea I have of this is that a support vote is like +1, an oppose vote is like -1, a neutral vote is like 0, and weak support and weak oppose can be counted as +/-1 or +/-0.5 as long as they're counted consistently. The neutral vote and the comment are not the same: while many comments can be made by a single user about a particular proposal, a neutral vote is done to actually vote, but reflecting neutrality about the proposal and to intentionally not affect the count. You can only vote once. Maybe I'm splitting hairs a little, but that's how I've always thought of it. This means (as far as Browne34's question at the top) that I think neutral votes should be allowed, but not counted (or counted as 0), not making it harder to get a final support ruling. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Before making an opinion on this, you must think: what does the neutral vote mean? To me, the neutral vote shows that the user isn't great or bad, that the user needs more time as an editor to build trust and show they are a good user.

That being said, I think neutral votes should be allowed. They show an opinion just as a support or oppose does. They may influence another user's vote, therefore actually affecting the outcome. They shouldn't make becoming an admin harder or easier. I believe they are allowed mainly for a user to express their opinion without voting support or oppose. --Isis§^(talk) 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Percentage needed in RfA for bureaucrats

Hello, All bureaucrats are admins. There is little to no added frills, form one to the other. Given that a 'crat can basically see everything, 'cratship is a position of confidence, and trust. For this reason I think that 'crats should need higher scores (as I said, 75% minimum). we do not want unanimity, because that would lead to a possibility to block such electtions. Hence, my 75-80%, of all votes. --Eptalon 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the minimum for 'crats should be 75% +1 vote since request for bureaucratships are much harder than RfAs. Also I think the minimum of the # of edits for a 'crat should be at least 1800 to 2000. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a minimum of 10 supportig votes to be required as well. - Huji ^reply 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, there are about 20 active (named, 1 non-vandal/non-admin-relatred edit a week) editors, fyi --Eptalon 19:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be RfB? RfA stands for Request for Adminship. --Choosnink ^TALK 20:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Once you are an admin, counting edits becomes a meaningless task. If I look at my last few months, about 10-15% of my edits are admin related (most of them deletes). Of my 531 edits last month, only 284 were in the main article space. I currently seem to have 10.250 edits (roughly 7.900 in main article space). Using tools like AWB it is easy to get the editcounter up; if we really are for editcountitis. Rather than fix the number of edits, we should agree on the fact that there are no direct promotions to 'crat. Besides, at out current user level, we seem to have enough 'crats, for now.--Eptalon 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Tdxiang's RfB isn't going well due to the "we have enough 'crats" fact. Anyhow 10 supporting votes sounds good enough for now. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RC advertising

Would anyone oppose the idea of advertising RfAs and RfBs on the recent changes template in the last few days of voting? That way it won't annoy everyone all week but might catch anyone that doesn't watch this page. Archer7 - talk 20:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm with keeping it on RC the whole week. It works fine on Meta-Wiki. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is a standard text based on agreement on users, being equally used for all cases, I'm open to it - Huji ^reply 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

... has been nominated to become an Administrator/Bureaucrat. The vote started ... and ends ... . Named users can vote or voice their opinions about the candidate ...' --Eptalon 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that would take up quite a bit of space on Recentchanges. On Meta-Wiki, there's a link to RfA, and it is bolded when there's an RfA candidate at the present time. You can see for yourselves right now. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to having it on recent changes, like on Meta. Majorly (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for CheckUsership

Does anyone think we should also have a RfCU like we did in the past? Also currently, simple has only one checkuser Drini that hasn't been active since last November. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Drini is a steward that must have forgotten to demote himself last time he did a CheckUser for us, we've never voted one in. We've had these in the past when we seemed to need a lot of CheckUsers, but to me now it seems that we don't need that many at all. I don't know what's happened (it could be just me), but the number of CheckUsers we're asking for seems to have dropped dramatically. For privacy and security reasons, I'd rather leave it to the stewards I think. I'm also worried about people doing more CheckUsers than necessary if we have local ones, and I think people might forget that they're dealing with confidential information. People can get too wrapped up in wiki business and forget that these are real people we're dealing with (even the vandals). Thanks, Archer7 - talk 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think we need a CU on this wiki. This wiki is small enough, and stewards are always available. The language is in English too, which makes every steward capable of verifying the facts required to show the necessity of a chekuser. So all in all, it is way too soon to have a CU here.- Huji ^reply 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Archer7 and Huji on this one. --Isis§^(talk) 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SupportI have to agree with Isis, Huji, and Archer on this'n. --Choosnink ^TALK 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that a CU could be very userfull --vector ^_^ (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the stewards have been doing a great job, no need to have any local people with checkuser.--Werdan7^{T @} 06:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say to both take the best of both worlds and just simplify matters. A local CU would be nice, but the stewards are doing a fine job at it for us. Of course the steward would have to give himself the flag, do the check, then unflag himself.. as shown with Drini, that could get messed up. So why not do the obvious? We already have a local admin who is a steward. Make M7 our official CU also just so he doesn't have to keep flagging/unflagging himself when needed. We get a local CU, our CU needs are still filled by a steward to help protect privacy, and no cluttering things up with the need to change rights twice each time we need it done. -- Creol(talk) 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't have just one local checkuser. We would need at least two.--Werdan7^{T @} 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Werden7 is very correct, but we have more than one member here which is a steward; the second one is User:Angela (who has no edits here since dec 2006. But what I want to add is, flagging and unflagging is a regular, not-that-time-waisting action, and regarding the few checkuser requests made about Simple WP on meta, I don't see this as a problem which needs to be solved, especially by making M7 and Angela our local checkusers. Nevertheless, if we were to choose some local checkusers, my first choice would have been just the same person Croel notified: M7. - Huji ^reply 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the promoting and demoting doesn't actually cause much 'clutter' either, especially as it's all done on Meta and doesn't show up in our logs. I don't think that there would be anything to be gained from making a steward a local CheckUser. Archer7 - talk 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen stewards who create local accounts for themselves on local wikis, with checkuser access though :) - Huji ^reply 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think we should press ahead with this. Wikiquote is currently holding checkuser elections, and they are a smaller Wiki than this one. We need two or more people to stand, and to get 25 support votes each. This may sound difficult, but I'm asking for help from other places - for instance, I supported Aphaia on Wikiquote despite me being inactive there. The more people who can be found to voice their opinion, the more chance we will get local checkusers here. And with recent events, I think it's wholly a good idea we do. Majorly (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I support having local checkusers. I don't think we could muster 25 support votes though, that's the entire community, even taking into account low count users voting. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We could if we got users from other projects to help. I know of at least two users who don't edit here who can give their support. It's not like they have to be community members as such, but more familiar with the user. Majorly (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't like that idea much. We'll probably get the vast majority of votes from regular users, but I agree that we might have a problem with getting the last ones. We also have to take into account that there will most likely be some regular users voting oppose. Archer7 - talk 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem at all. I'm a regular on three other wikis, and I can ask people who are familiar with whoever goes up to go and support them. Wikiquote seems to be doing OK, and they are a smaller project than us. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree with asking others for voting here. Votes given by people who are not active editors are of very low importance, because people who are not involved here do not know the people they are voting for well. The count of 25 votes is an arbitrary count. We all know we can have 30 votes by asking others to vote here, or by other methods. However, is this only the vote count that matters? Aren't CUs the most trusted people? Is trust only measured by vote count?

Besides, the amount of time we should spend to have others come and vote, is more than the benefit we will have from a having a local CU when compared to asking on Meta for CUs. - Huji ^reply 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote count is essentially a measure of popularity. It doesn't guarantee that we're giving CU to the person who is the most trustworthy. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should lower the number of supporting votes from 25 to 20 since we don't have many active users like en wiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We didn't set that number; it is stated in m:Checkuser policy#Access_to_checkuser. Nevertheless, what is the point? Why should we insist on having a checkuser, at any price? Why should we even compare this wiki with another wiki? - Huji ^reply 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Point? We'd have our own checkusers so we didn't have to bug stewards. Majorly (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also the problem that if someone who only edited here wanted the duty, no one on other wikis would be familiar with their work. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem. Can't think what to say to that :) Majorly (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that one of the reasons that there is a minimum vote for RFCU is because small wikis don't need it. We are becoming a larger wiki, but if we don't have enough regular, trusted users to be able to vote for CheckUser, we probably don't have enough issues for a CheckUser-enabled editor to be necessary, and can depend on stewards from meta for now. We should most definitely NOT invite users from other wikis to come here to vote. That is subverting the very nature of the voting process: we are the only ones who can decide if we need a position and who we want in that position because we know how they work and we trust them. Bringing in others from outside to vote does not in any way help us do that. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1000 edit minimum

I made these changes as an effort to show where the 1000 edit count requirement came from. It seems, they didn't say 1000 edits in articles namespace, but in total. Also, I had to add a sentence before Jimbo's to make sure it wouldn't be connected incorrectly to the 1000 edit count (which is mentioned before it). I'm not sure how successful I've been in doing this. Please correct it, if needed. - Huji ^reply 09:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Standards for supporting are subjective by nature, and they tend to evolve and increase as time goes by and more users join any project. I remember the days when 3 months of editing and 2,000 edits made a perfectly acceptable standard for any candidate at EnWP; today, an editor with those credentials would be shot on sight. The opinion given by those users can be taken as a guide, not a minimum set in stone; hence it's not very useful to discuss whether or not they were speaking of total edit count, or mainspace. The community currently has a consensus to adopt a 1,000 mainspace edits criteria; yet everyone has their own personal standards and appreciates every situation, and act accordingly. However, imho, it's useful to point out to those minimum standards as a guide to potential candidates, as you just did, in order to avoid those who find themselves very short of them the unnecessary stress of failing. My 2 cents of course. Phaedriel - 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think, that of those 1k edits, there should not be more than like 30% in User/User-talk namespaces. I have no problem to support someone who has 700 or so edits in Template namespace, or if someone focuses on categorizing articles (and therefore has a higher percentage in the Categoty namespace). --Eptalon 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, again it is the quality that matters too. Too many User talk edits which show up as chitchats are of course a sign of not using wikipedia correctly (regarding what wikipedia is not rules). But edits mostly targetted in fighting vandalism or giuding other users, will have a different meaning. - Huji ^reply 13:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the content

As Phaedriel notified in the above, it seems that we have an unwritten agreement about changing that recently added sentnce (about minumim expected edit count) from 1000 edits to 1000 main namespace edits. Prior to changing it, I thought it would be a good idea to bring it to the top of our attention here. If you support or oppose the idea, please write! - Huji ^reply 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No way! I passed in May with ~700 in total! It's not a good idea to make a set standard like that. Majorly (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't hit 1,000 main space edits until June. When I passed my RfA on May 8, I think I only had ~600 in the main space, which was about 55% of my total edits at that time. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your posts. I'd like to add some facts too, for future reference:

• At the moment, 55 accounts have more than 1000 edits (in total), 21 of which are bot accounts.
• If we limit the above edit counts, to those made in 2007 only, then we will have 13 non-bot accounts: Creol (10124), Tygartl1 (6790), Eptalon (5179), Browne34 (2840), Isis (2790), Cethegus (2514), Blockinbox (1997), FrancoGG (1619), J Di (1574), Huji (1469), Snake311 (1264), Nishkid64 (1124) and Ionas68224 (1052).
• If we limit the former, to those in main namespace only we will get 21 non-bot accounts (shall I list them again?).

Some of our current admins are not listed in any of the last two. To me, it seems applying a 1000 main namespace edit minimum, would be an overkill, unless we all remind ourselves about its being only a giudeline like statement, not an obligatory statement. - Huji ^reply 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the above, there are Cethegus, Huji, Snake311, Nishkid64, and Inoas68224 who are not yet admins. Of tohse, Cethegus, and Ionas are the only two that have not at least tried to become admins. In view of that, should not lower our standards, to 500 Edits. Or we take those 1000 edits for what they are: a number in a guideline. Most admin applications do not need the guideline. So in sohrt, we might be too picky there. --Eptalon 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually the number of edits that matters, it's the expirience. If a user has no knowledge of wikipedia guidelines, policies, standards, etc, they most likely will fail their RfA. It is just generally thought that a user with a higher number of edits will have more expirience, however this is not always the case. --Isis§^(talk) 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For me it's not experience either, it's a combination of trustworthiness and activeness. I'll vote for someone who I trust and who I think is active enough. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I must tell I'm somewhat surprised to see this debate about setting a fixed number of edits, no matter their number or namespace, as means of "clearing up" any potential candidates. That's editcountitis gone mad, and it would clear the way to easily game the system and allow a potential vandal to gain adminship (something that has happened at EnWP). At my comment above, I was alluding a general idea of the numbers normally believed to have granted enough knowledge of our policies and practices, and made the user trusted by our community. Hence, Isis and Browne are absolutely right, and I strongly agree with them: imagine, for example, an editor with 500 edits to mainspace, but who has created a lot of content, or who has helped to take several articles into Very Good status. Should a rigid minimum prevent such a contributor to help in admin issues? Reversely, imagine an editor who only comes every now and then, and in sprees of high activity reaches 1,200 edits simply reverting vandalism and adding tags and categories. While his intentions may be good, I'd certainly be reluctant to consider him experienced and active enough, despite thhe number of edits.

Basically, and as said above, I do agree to have those numbers at the RfA as they are now: a deliberately vague and generic idea of the number of edits where someone is usually considered to be trustworthy and experienced enough to take into admin chores. Ultimately, every regular editor will use their best judgement to appreciate each case and the particular circumstances that surround it. Phaedriel - 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Huji

Huji should already have admin status. It is UTC 00:37 time now, on 11 August 2007. The votes are Seven (7) Support votes, Three (3) oppose votes, and Two (2) neutral votes. ionas ^talk _contribs 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's 70% support. Normally 75% is the number. Perhaps if another user supported... Majorly (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

7/12 is 58% support. · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the 12 from? Neutral votes don't count, so it's 7/3.. i.e. 70%. Majorly (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they do count. 12 total people voted and 7 supported. I can see where you might be confused because in the past it was unclear what to do with neutral votes, but since this vote specifically had a separate "Comments" section, neutral votes count towards the total percentage of votes. · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

They've never counted before, and I can't see how they can be. See J Di's RfA for example. It's unfair that the neutral votes should weigh towards the oppose side. Neutral means just that - neutral, not caring either way. Therefore, an unspecified position which should have no bearing on the result. If the neutral voters wanted their vote to count, they'd have supported or opposed. Neutral is really just a comment. Majorly (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Browne34 brought this point to the community's attention at the top of this page, as he had voted neutral on JDi thinking his vote would be counted. This problem has been fixed by adding both a comment and neutral section. With 2 separate sections for votes and comments, all votes should be counted, whether they be "support", "oppose" or "neutral". I'm sorry if you feel differently, but those who voted neutral still voted. Those who simply made comments did not. There is a difference. · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What did they vote for then? To promote or not promote? They didn't. They voted neutral, which is neither, so effectively cancels their vote out. Majorly (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, dear Tygartl1, that reasoning is wrong. The whole purpose of voting "Neutral" is exactly that: to express an opinion that doesn't lie on either Support, nor Oppose. By taking the Neutral votes into account, and then calculating the percentage of Support, you're effectively counting them as Opposes, and thus completely defeating their purpose of being neutral.

The following example will help you understand this better. Let's take Huji's RfA (at the time of the above posts): 7 Supports, 3 Opposes, 2 Neutrals. With the reasoning you express, that's 12 total votes. But why calculate the percentage of Support? Let's do it reversely, and calculate the % of Opposes. That's 3/12, which following your reasoning, it'd be 25% opposition. Does that mean Huji had 75% Support, then? Of course not.

For this reason, Neutral votes should never be taken into account over the total number of casted votes. Doing so changes their very nature of being neutral, since when you calculate either the percentage of opposition or endorsement, they either get added to one or the other depending on how you perform the final count.

The "Comments" section serves a completely different purpose: a section for discussion, where anyone, no matter whether they voted for Support, Oppose, Neutral, or decided to abstain entirely, can point facts relevant to the discussion, or ask questions to the candidate to gauge his/her opinion, or knowledge. At Huji's RfA, a good example of this was Lizix's question.

That being said, as of now, Huji doesn't appear to meet the minimum percentage of Supports to be promoted, from my modest point of view, so this is more of a theorethical exercise than anything; yet one that is good that we make completely clear, as I don't see the discussion above reached a definite conclusion on either sense. Best regards, Phaedriel - 06:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole look at the vote is not technically correct, as they are often thought about. With the 7/3/2 example, there is a 58% vote for him, a 25% vote against him, and a 16% neutral - period. Having 25% oppose would not mean the other 75% is support, but it would mean 75% were not opposed, much like in this case, 42% are not supporting. It would be much like voting for a leader: Party A has 58%, B has 25%, and C has 16%. Unfortunately, the rules of the vote say you must have a certain percent to be elected so no one wins (unless B or C was the "Anyone by Party A" group, then they win because A did not win which is much the case here.) The check of the vote for RfA is "Is there enough support for this to pass". With that question, true, neutrals count against it passing but they are still not a part of the oppose category. Were this a vote with not such a cut and dry result, Neutral votes should be affecting consensus. For example, with RfD's neutrals get a lot more important. They are not keeps, they are not deletes. They could be both, they could be entirely different options. Neutrals are "Other:". When RfA's are more consensus based rather than strictly numerical, Neutrals take on an entirely different aspect of the vote.

Exactly my point, dear Creol: yet, as you aptly put it, RfA is a cut and dry result; and for that reason, it is extremely unfair to make the Neutral section actually count against (or for) any given candidate; and as you say, they should not be affecting consensus. Archer7 gave above a superb definition of the Neutral votes as they are generally understood at pretty much every Wiki: "Neutral" votes are just a space to put a comment. This is also the reason why it's usual practice for Neutral votes to say things like "Neutral, leaning towards oppose/support", for in borderline cases, the closing bureaucrat may take them into account in order to gauge consensus.

As for the analysis of "With the 7/3/2 example, there is a 58% vote for him, a 25% vote against him, and a 16% neutral - period", which is technically correct for voting processes in every day life, but not the normal Wiki-way, the implementation of such system calls for another reform (as Browne34 excellently figured out when suggesting it a few weeks ago): consequently lowering the general minimum needed to establish consensus to promote (Browne mentioned a 50%+1, I believe). It is impossible to accept one measure without the other, for the very reasons you wisely commented yourself. I really feel like this debate should be continued, and a conclusion reached, because I believe most of us are not sure where we stand now: whether or not Neutrals are counted, is certainly not a minor issue; and quite a revolutionary way of doing things on wiki as well. Phaedriel - 08:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Huji (2)

I thought more than 50% of the vote=win adminship, and less than 50%=lose adminship, and there ya go. ionas ^talk _contribs 04:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To pass a successful RfA, Archer7 has noted that a minimum of 66% support is required, whereas a succesful RfB (for bureaucratship) is required for a minimum of 75%. So in Huji's situation, if the neutral votes were not counted against him, his total % of the vote would be at a 61% (for 8 out of 13 votes); if the neutral votes were counted against him, his percentage would be at 53% (for 8 out of 15 votes). Nonetheless, I see that Huji's RfA didn't come to a sucess. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 08:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

While being careful to leave the final decision to our bureaucrats, I must say I fully agree with Snake's assessment of the results of this particular RfA. Phaedriel - 08:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

I just read all the above comments. To me, it isn't the discussion about my becoming and admin that matters; I am concentrated about whether we have finally found out what neutral votes are for, here.

Tygartl1 said "since this vote specifically had a separate "Comments" section, neutral votes count towards the total percentage of votes". The fact is, I created those sections, and I wasn't thinking of it like this at the time! But I'm very happy that I did it! Afterall, it brought back this discussion to live. :)

Not passing an RfA is not a big deal. I still will do my best here. However, as I feel we haven't finally reached consensus about the role of neutral votes, all I hope is we will continue this discussion after the current RfA is closed too.

Thank you all for voting and for discussing. I appreciate it. - Huji ^reply 09:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral votes (2)

Before you read on, please read what is above. Let us quickly have a look different scenarios:

2 category scenario

There are two categories, one is called support, the other oppose. All votes cast are either counted in one or the other. In Huji's case above, this would mean 8 support, 5 oppose. 62% approval. 38% opposition The sections neutral and comments do not influence the vote (other than perhaps influencing those voting in one way or another). --Eptalon 09:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

3 category scenario

In addition to the two categories above, there is a third one. This is called neutral, or comment. The items in that category are considered to be votes. They have however the awkward tendency to not count as supposed. 8 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral; 53% support, 33% oppose, 14% neural. 47% non-support, 67% non-oppose. --Eptalon 09:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Results

I think it would be unfair to apply any changes we agree on now to count in Huji's current RfA. That is like changing the rules while playing the game. For this reason, I think we should clearly take the 2 cat scenario above. Also, he himself created the neutral/comments section. Neutral votes should therefore be what the Latin word ne-uter means: Neither (of two). That way, they should not be counted. (And sorry to Isis, and Vector, if you think this was different when you voted neutral). --Eptalon 09:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll use the 2 cat system for this one. Although this one is very close (when you stop thinking of pure percentages and look at general consensus), I'll close this one as not successful. Archer7 - talk 10:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest: Where is the 66% for admin rule?- If there was a policy (or guideline), we should link to it, from the RfA page. --Eptalon 10:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I said 65%. It's in one of my comments in the very top section of this page, not in any policy or guidelines. It's just the standard we've always had. Archer7 - talk 11:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that I would agree with Archer7 that the 2 cat system shuld be used instead. But I think we should still have a comment subsection to discuss about the user's RfA/B, but not use it against the polls.

Also about RfA rules and policies, I've noticed since I joined this wiki that there was too much questions and debates about the policies of like how many edits or experience should a user have to qualify for an RfA or how much should be the minimum percentage to succeed in a RfA and so on. As of now, the community has agreed on a 1000 edits, 3 months experience which was already taken care of, but is now fumbling over the percentages in an RfA and about neutral votes.--§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Snake's idea about having the comment subsection. At Huji's RfA, for example, it proved to be a valuable venue to ask questions to the candidate. Regarding your other point, I think it's because the general standard of the 100/3 rule is not in question lately (given that everyone puts it in practice with different degree of flexibility or rigidity), but the other point (Neutral votes) is certainly under discussion now. You're right, there's been a long debate on every aspect of RfA, and there will most likely continue to be; this is normal, it happens at nearly every Wiki. That's why the idea of making a Guideline is excellent, from my modest point of view, because it will eliminate the confusion; and I strongly encourage everyone to read it and give their opinion at its talk page. Best regards, Phaedriel - 08:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline

Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship can be pushed from an essay to a guideline, if you support it and complete it. - Huji ^reply 12:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, its kinda missing a few important points the community has discussed or agreed on in the past. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Such as, dear Snake? If you believe so, then please, be bold and add them :) Love, Phaedriel - 20:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

I have now put Questions for the Candidate in here. How do I do this, and should I? Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 03:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Just wanted to apologize for putting up an RfA for myself when I should've waited at least another 11 weeks to post it. Sorry for doing that. -Razorflame 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How much do I have to cotribute on Simple English Wikipedia to be an admin?

^^ That's just a question. Don't say 1k because I don't know how much it is so just tell me how much 1k IS. Claimgoal 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You should generally have at least 500 article namespace edits, the more the better. In addition, a lower number of high quality edits is better than a higher number of lower quality edits. (1k is one thousand) Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 08:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What about project pages? Claimgoal 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On this issue, I can only tell you what I look for in a candidate for me to support him or her. I generally look for at least 1,000 mainspace edits (meaning to articles), at least 20 category edits, and at least 1 template edit. I also look for people who need the tools enough to get them. This means that you have to actively support fighting vandalism and you also have to be involved in some of the issues that are on-going on this Wikipedia. Hope this helps, Razorflame 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if the person had 999 article edits, 19 category edits and no templates? Would you have to oppose? I'd fail your criteria badly anyway - 3 category edits and 672 mainspace. Majorly (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I still would fail on the category edits and most certainly would have failed at the time of my rfa. But this whole thread would be unnecessary if the first person to reply would have directed the user to Wikipedia:Criteria for Administratorship where there is a convenient list. -  EchoBravo  contribs  15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal: since our community is a very small one, with a very high admin ratio, I think that it would be a good idea to make all admins bureaucrats. Since all admins normally pass RfA with 100% or high support, it shows clear trust by the community. Bureaucratship is absolutely not a big deal at all. By making all admins bureaucrats, it reduces the myth that bureaucrats are "better" and "more trusted". Additionally, it removes workload for tasks that I personally could entrust any admin to do. As I said on EchoBravo's talk page, admins could ask to be a bureaucrat after a month of adminship, and provided there were no serious issues, the bureaucrat would promote them.

An issue here could be the problem of inactive users. Perhaps, like some other projects, we should remove admins/bureaucrats after at least a year of inactivity. This will remove risk of compromised accounts/rouge admins etc. What do people think? Majorly (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great idea! SwirlBoy39 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral after reading oppose comments. SwirlBoy39 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Chenzw  Talk  06:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Same for me, but Creol has a point, we have too little 'crat actions. Chenzw  Talk  13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• strong Oppose we are a small comunity and I don't think it's a good idea, it could be a good idea for meta but not for simple.wiki I'm sorry! There aren't a lot of change user request/admin to promoted/bot's request flag so I think that we can stay as now. --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong? You seemed to love the idea over on Meta, even asking me to be promoted before I was supposed to. What's the difference here that makes a "strong oppose"? Majorly (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose All bureacrats can do is rename users, promote people to admin status, and flag users as bots. These are not things used very much, therefore only having a few 'crats is ok. If we currenlty have enough 'crats is a different question though. --Eptalon (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the benefit in limiting how many users are bureaucrats? Majorly (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • To which I would ask "What's the benefit of having more bureaucrats than are needed to do the job?" -- Creol(talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing wrong with extra help. Majorly (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose On several points:

1. There really is no workload for tasks involved. With the exception of the one day I decided to go on a renaming vandal spree, we have had under 40 'crat actions so far this year (20 renames, 9 bots, and a couple user rights). That is less than 1 change per 'crat per week with only using 3 of our 'crats. With SUL there may be an increase in renames, but as that is buggy at the moment it is not likely to be a major issue and would only be a short term workload issue once it does get fixed and expanded if they don't include a global renaming procedure to handle most of it without us even noticing it (crosswiki auto-usurp for 0 contrib accounts, for example).
2. While to date most of our admins have passed with high percentages, this may not always be the case. Each admin was voted on for the specific job of admin. The people voting may or may not have decided the way they did based on this. Would they have voted the same for bureaucrat? Could the next person up for the vote pass with a 65%? (enough for admin, but not 'crat) One of our admins passed with a 78% under the "neutral votes don't count" policy. Had that same thing happened today, he may have still passed, but at under the 75% needed for 'crat.
3. Another problem would be the "in a month if there are no problems issue" as this puts the decision of "worthiness" into the hands of just the already accepted 'crats. If anything that promotes further clique-iness as new 'crats are selected by old ones and not the collective users. Realistically it would require a vote of current 'crats to decide as there are likely to be cases where some believe the admin should get it and others think he shouldn't.
4. Not really a full oppose point, more of a comment: Admin error/rogue action can be corrected easily in house. There is nothing an admin can do with their tools that we can not correct ourselves if there is a problem. Someone blocks or deletes and someone else can unblock or undelete. This is not the case with 'crats. Stewards would be required to be called in to correct user-rights problems or cases with #3 where one 'crat flags the new admin only to have the others have problems with that decision. While 'crat error can still be fixed (unlike CU error which can be both unrepairable and disastrous at times), it is still an issue that it may be beyond our capability to repair the mistake. Limiting the number of people who can cause the mistake to just enough people to easily get the job done limits the chances for mistakes.

-- Creol(talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but even though I was enthusiatic about this proposal, I had some things that I had concerns over:
  • What if the person that was an administrator wasn't ready for the jump to bureaucrat?
  • What if the user that was an administrator didn't want to be a bureaucrat?

• These things would have to be taken into account before I would ever support this idea. We are too small of a community to be able to have something like this currently, so therefore, the only thing I can do here is Oppose. Razorflame 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Er what jump? There is no jump, it's just another user group. They are in no way senior to anyone else. And your other point, becoming one would be optional. So I've taken this into account, you should be able to support now. And the fact we are small makes it better to allow every admin have the rights, since we (should) all trust one another to do the job. Majorly (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I know that we should all trust one another to have the rights, its' just that I don't think that we will see this come to fruitition because of what Creol stated. I'm really concerned with some of the things Creol has stated in his Oppose, which is why I also opposed, but not just because of what he said in his oppose, but also for the reasons that I gave out. Also, I really don't think it is a good idea to constantly rebuff everyone by posting a comment. While in some places it might be desirable, in other instances, like this one, I would think it to be completely undesirable. I really don't like having questions rebuffing my own opinions because it makes it feel as though I have to a)answer the question, and b) explain why I feel that way, both of which I really have trouble understanding. Cheers, Razorflame 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you're going to make a comment that is nonsensical and contradicts what I wrote, you should be prepared to answer. Both the things you said are irrelevant. Anyhow, no one seems to like this idea, so let's forget it. Majorly (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I said that I didn't like answering them, but I never said that I wouldn't. Cheers, Razorflame 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Move Proposal

As this page is used for other flag requests (i.e. 'crat and checkuser as well as admin), I propose a rename to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. mC⁸ 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support - No harm in renaming the page; it sounds better too. Chenzw  Talk  12:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a sensible idea. Majorly (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's just more accurate. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support' as nom' mC⁸ 14:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• --Oysterguitarist 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• per Majorly --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The title should reflect the purpose of the page.--TBC 04:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support More accurate. The current title suggests that only admin requests are listed while more experienced users will already know its for more. The move will save us from answering needless questions and will cut down on confusion (in other words, make more simple). Synergy 10:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - It is not needed right now. We don't have many B'crat or C'user requests anyway. -- America ^†alk 03:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to do this yet as we don't have enough requests for bureaucratship or checkusers at this point in time, nor do we need them. Cheers, Razorflame 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sounds terrible. Request for Adminship is better. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

How about Wikipedia:Requests for Promotions? "Permissions" seems a little vague. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Promotions suggests a higher level. Bureaucrat, admin and checkuser are all the same level (bureaucrat is only limited to admins on a technical basis). There is no hierarchy. Also, I don't think permissions sounds vague, as that is precisely what is being requested. Majorly (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A 'crat can do what an admin can do and more (block and delete as well as flag bots and re-name), so I think that there is a hierarchical system here. Just as an admin can do what a regular user can do and more.

Permission, for me anyway, gives the impression that a user is asking for permission to do something in general, which leads to a vast array of things (deletion, undeletion, protection, renaming, blanking or even changing templates). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They can do what admins can do because they are admins. When someone is promoted to bureaucrat, they don't lose their sysop right. Example: [1]. Vector had the bureaucrat right added, not replaced.

On Meta, Steward requests are called "permissions", which include every user right. Promotion is simply the wrong word. Majorly (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In real life, when a worker in a company is promoted (note the word), then he gets extra rights added on (longer holidays, bigger pay, hot blond secretary). I think it should be the same here when users get extra abilities added on (adminship) and when admins get extra abilities added on ('cratship) since they're effectively receiving a promotion.

This is just my view though, and that's what the voting is for above. Others might agree with you and therefore "permissions" will pass rather than "promotions", we'll have to see what others think as well. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Promotions would not be a good word to use here on the Simple English Wikipedia because it implies that the user is gaining some authority over the other users on the Simple English Wikipedia, and that is entirely not the case. It also could be seen as a little intimidating to some users who would want to apply for a possible request for adminship. Personally, I would rather it just stay as Requests for Administratorship instead of Requests for permissions because request for permissions could mean a variety of things, which is not the case here. We do not do a variety of requests here like they do on the Meta Wikimedia project. We only use the Requests for Administratorship for things like Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Checkusers. We don't use the page to request temporary administrator privledges like they do over on the Meta Wikimedia Project. I see no reason why we should change this to anything else other than what it is right now. That is the way that I like it. Razorflame 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

At --Gwib ^-(talk)-: A 'crat isn't a sysop - they need a sysop flag to continue being an admin, so in that way they are not being promoted, they are getting an extra permission. mC⁸ 14:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At Razorflame - a 'crat and a checkuser isn't an admin, are they? A 'crat and a checkuser (in theory), don't have to have a sysop flag. mC⁸ 14:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't true. A bureaucrat has both the sysop flag and the 'crat flag. A checkuser has the checkuser flag and the sysop flag (because I believe you have to be an admin to be nominated for checkuser). Cheers, Razorflame 16:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just arguing that "promotions" is better because when one becomes ad admin, 'crat or checkuser, they're getting extra permissions which is what a promotion is in the first place.

$user+adminship=promotion-due-to-more-abilities$

$admin+'cratship=promotion-due-to-more-abilities$

Permissions is just too vague. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Requests for flags? That is actually probably the most accurate of all of the suggestions as you really are just requesting a flag. Cheers, Razorflame 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be the literature teacher, but "request for flags" can be inappropriate because we have a different page for granting "bot flags", and they are both flags! - Huji ^reply 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes! I forgot about the bot flags. Never mind then. Razorflame 17:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unident I think that it should be Permissions instead of Promotions for the following:

An admin or 'crat has no more weight in discussions than an unflagged user, and thus has not got a higher level, as "promotions" implies;

A 'crat, theoretically, can have the 'crat flag without being a sysop, although in practice it doesn't happen. Therefore, it is not a chain of Unflagged > Sysop > Crat, but Unflagged > Any Flag. Oh, and can people !vote for either side? Nanochip08 ^Microchip08 on_WHEELS 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Locked

Hmm, this page seems to be protected, I'm unable to edit. Why is this? Have I missed something? TheWolf 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, but it was for vandalism. -- AmericanEagle 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Had to protect the page, it was being constantly vandalised. It seems to be over now, sorry for the delay. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

I can't say I'm very active on the simple Wikipedia, and only edit when I see something show up for the SWMT, so I don't know if this has been proposed before. I think it'd be a good idea to place nominations on subpages like en.wiki does for RfAs. It keeps things simple and can help with edit conflicts. Just my passing thoughts :-). Mønobi 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it seems a bit unnecessary for such a small Wikipedia, at this stage in point, I wouldn't mind moving/writing all RfAs from this point forward on a subpage. Although I really think that we are too small of a Wikipedia to have to work, I guess that we could start doing it now instead of later, when we are getting 3-4 requests a day :P Cheers, Razorflame 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This latest lock-down episode shows why it's better to have subpages. With subpages all Eptalon would have had to do is fully protect /Razorflame 8. Now he has to protect the whole page which prevents others from discussing The Rambling Man's RFA. Cassandra (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Subpages are an excellent idea. Majorly ^talk 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What about listing the the current requests (Razorflame,. statement, End: .. Link to voting/discussion Result:...) on the main page. On the subpage, we get the same info again, plus the well-known section for voting/comments? --Eptalon (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am completely fine with that. Cheers, Razorflame 00:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead and be bold and add subpages to the RfA page? Cheers, Razorflame 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, be bold.--Eptalon (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

I believe that I have finished subpaging this page now. Please let me know what you think! Cheers, Razorflame 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are to have to protect WP:RfA, the requester (i.e. "Razorflame (8th nomination)") his name (at least the highest) should link to the subpage and not to the username (like WP:ER does it). Thoughts? Cheers -- America ^†alk 02:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would still work out this way. This is the same way that the English Wikipedia does it, with a little bit of a twist from our own WP:ER. Cheers, Razorflame 02:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)