Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 2

Voting templates

Why are voting templates being used again? They should really only be necessary for multi-lingual projects. Majorly ^talk 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed here. Should we re-open discussion? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so. They're a pain and I don't think they should be used (btw. Gwib your sig makes it impossible to edit - I tried to clean it up, please do something...). —Giggy 07:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetically pleasing, but virtually useless. Also, all the voting templates being used need to be subst'ed by a bot.--TBC 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who should be able to vote

Hello all, I have now closed Razoflame's RfA, though I have a very basic question: In general, those affected most by who is admin and who is not are those people actively editing here. For some people, voting at Razorflame's RfA was their first edit this year (though their account is older). I would like to propose to limit the voting to active editors. What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you define as active. You also should bear in mind that at most there is only 20 or 25 of who I would consider very active editors at any one time. F S M 12:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Active is a bit vague. I think someone who has made a "good" amount of edits (good being determined by the bureaucrat) should be counted. I do think, however, that anyone can vote and only in close cases should votes be discounted for activity reasons. Majorly ^talk 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Majorly. -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, turning up after a long period activity to vote should be looked at as possible canvassing. Majorly ^talk 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One at a time or a lot at once?

Does only one RfA run at a time or do multiple RfAs run at once, like in EN? - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 12:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You can have multiple RFA's at once here as well. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 12:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive boxes

User:Lingamondo has changed the archive layout from this (which was displayed directly under the table of contents on Requests for adminship) to this box in the top right corner of the page. I reverted back, and Lingamondo reverted me which has led to this discussion: User_talk:Lingamondo#Archives and User talk:Either way#RE.

Lingamondo seems to think that because no one else commented on this issue within eight minutes of the change being implemented, that's a clear consensus to keep it with the new version. However, I believe that this change is not for the better. The small box is too condensed and contains too much formatting which can make it confusing. The bolding and superscripts, for example, are unnecessary and hard to interpret. I think that the way that we had it was functioning perfectly fine, and would appreciate any input on this, Either way (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. I said that silence is consensus, and that you have not given enough time for other users to express their views. I condensed the box in the way I did because:

1. This is the way it is done everywhere else
2. It is neater and easier to read
3. It avoids having to have a whole page subsection for archives Lingamondo (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the order of things should be discussed before change on a major page like this. -Djsasso (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of where this is done "everywhere else"? I'm not sure if you mean it's done elsewhere on Simple, or it's done on other Wikipedias. I'm also not sure what you mean by your last point about reading a whole page subsection. Either way (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think by the last point he probably means having to unhide the box. As for the first point, this is the view that a huge number of new editors to the wiki come in with, because something is done one way on en.wiki they assume its how it should be done here, and don't realize we are a completely seperate entity. As for the second point, I actually find how we had it was the easier way to read. -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto all but that first sentence (no opinion on that sentence either way). --Creol(talk) 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The box Lingamondo implemented was collapsed too, though. That's why I'm looking for clarification on that point, Either way (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA Votes

Moved from WP:Simple talk NonvocalScream (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just getting out of hand... People are just voting what pleases them... There reasons are no longer valid. See Shapiros10's current RFA. People are opposing him because he's not active enough, he doesn't have enough QD's, or VIP reports. Come one guys, you supported Djsasso but he had 3 times fewer QD's and 5 times fewer VIP reports. It's ridiculous. I don't think votes like this are really a valid reason. Please, find another reason to support. It's not because Djsasso is an EN admin that you had to support him. Shapiros10 is just as active as him, and has more QD's and VIP's. He therefore meets more criteria for adminship than Djsasso did. It's just getting stupid. Please comment. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problems from what I can see are his maturity level and his CURRENT activity - not overall activity (27 edits this week, last 100 edits go back to January 1st). Believe me, a Request for xxxxx can fail even if someone with flawless perfection makes one mistake during the course of that process. A hasty action in a time of malcontent or judging something badly, in the eyes of Wiki, show further potential for hasty actions, so an oppose is in order.

I'm not saying one has to be flawless in order to get adminship. But one certainly does have to show a certain level of maturity (someone who's retired because they're unhappy with some situation will never get adminship) and good decision-making skillz. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The absolute second after I wanted to withdraw, someone told me I still had hope. It's not my fault they didn't tell me sooner. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 13:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't play the blame game, Shap. You still do have hope. Maybe not in this particular RfA, but a future one. Use this RfA to be able to shove the opposes into the faces of those who opposed in your next RfA. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been live for 24 hours yet, and I'm not giving up. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing about Rfa is that its the one place on wiki where you are asked to do something based on POV. While obviously not a good oppose you are free to oppose just because you don't like the way they eat ice cream. People also often fail in Rfas when their nominators start badgering people which obviously is not the fault of the candidate. Rfa is completely based on peoples feelings so you strike the right moment when someone is in the right mood and they may support when they normally would have opposed or if do something stupid close to the time you are nominated then you will often fail. -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, any vote that is not about the matter at hand - the candidate and their suitability for adminship - should be dismissed completely. It's not an excuse to make jokes. It's already a tough enough process as it is, and opposing because you don't like the way they eat is completely rude and disrespectful to the candidate, nominator and the whole process. And of course, questioning dodgy comments (aka "badgering") is perfectly acceptable. Discussion is allowed in RFAs, like it or not, and if your oppose reasoning is weak and petty, face the consequences of having someone question it. Don't whine "stop badgering me" - stop making dumb opposes. Majorly ^talk 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think that would be a good reason but that someone is welcome to make that arguement. As for badgering a person you still don't seem to get that there is a difference between respectfully challenging a bad reason and badgering. Respectfully debating a reason is fully encouraged, telling someone they are an idiot and their reason is stupid is badgering. -Djsasso (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not welcome at all. Such a comment should be removed on sight by a bureaucrat. I think you throw around the "badgering" meme way too easily. Maybe the fact that your votes are questioned at all should suggest to you that there may be something wrong with your thinking. Majorly ^talk 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My votes aren't normally questioned...though yours are... -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This kind of arrogance is precisely why I opposed your RFA. Too bad I was harrassed and bullied into withdrawing my oppose. Majorly ^talk 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I respond to a veiled personal attack with sarcasim? Certainly see why people list you as the number 1 reason they don't edit here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I hardly edit this project as it is. I can hardly be blamed for people not wanting to edit here, and if they do blame me, they're misguided. I want the best for this project, but when people try to disrupt it with arrogant and negative thinking, it causes me to stop editing so regularly. It is people like you who stop me from editing more often. Majorly ^talk 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA system

I think the system is getting ridiculous. People can blindly make false accusations and the opposes are still counted. Come on, I could say I oppose "user1" because his personnal life doesn't sorrespond to what I expect or I could oppose "user2" because even though he edits every day, he isn't active enough because he only makes 2 edits a day. I would like a revision of the rfa system, in particular for the oppose votes where a good reason would be needed. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is going to "judge" what a "good reason" is for an oppose? Either way (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A bureaucrat, of course. They are extremely trusted users who obviously have extremely good discretion if they are a crat ^_^ Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they doing that right now though? When a 'crat closes an RFA, aren't they (perhaps passively, perhaps actively) giving the seal of approval to whatever rationales are stated in there? Either way (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One that is about the candidate and whether they'd make a good admin... any that mention activity or edit counts would of course be bad reason. Majorly ^talk 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. With a small wiki like ours, activity matters. But edit count, not really. Unless they are under the minimum standard we ask our candidates to have. Synergy 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New Administrator Criteria

I've been observing RFA for the past week or so, and it looks like the current criteria for the mop are a little out of date. Standards have risen a lot, and I'd like to come to a formal consensus:

• 6 months of being active
• 1,000 edits
• Reasonable amount of QD tags/VIP reports (subject to voter, but a good-sized number).
• Majority of contributions in article space.

What does the community think? Shapiros10 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to set criteria in stone? Either way (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been noticing that most of the editors who have passed (or failed) RFA usually meet (or don't meet) these standards. Shapiros10 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also cut down on the bickering like me and Majorly had earlier today.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How would it cut down on that bickering? Either way (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So? Why do we need this set in stone? Surely people can have their own ideas of what adminship requires, yes? Either way (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the reason I put this up for discussion is that I had seen many people mentioning edits/experience/number of QD/VIP tags in their reasoning at RFA votes. Shapiros10 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this is only encouraging them. We should be discouraging any kind of criteria like that. Majorly ^talk 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Support

Support - I would support.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - Polls are evil, as are arbitrary edit count limits. Juliancolton (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   No, votes are evil (i don't agree with it but that's what it says), Straw polls are encouraged I read somewhere.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   That's right, I read it here.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Really? Two comments to prove me wrong? Juliancolton (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose This should be about "Is this person going to be a net positive as an admin?" Nothing else. No edit counts. No time limits. No activity requirements. No x number of QD tags. I think the criteria should be removed completely to be honest. Majorly ^talk 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Under that criteria, Majorly, and IP could run for Admin, maybe not pass but run. Under no criteria people like FastReverter would be handed the tools, also people like Jonas would be handed the tools.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   It's up to an individual user to decide if they think a user is "a net positive" for adminship. If anything, the criteria right now makes it more open to anyone getting it: just tag X# of articles, warn Y# of vandals (with Z#s of reports to VIP), all while making over G# of edits, and wait F# of months and you're good to go. Either way (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Did you even read my comment CM? Majorly ^talk 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3. This is not really helpful. Each request should be treated on a case by case basis. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Arrg. Why don't we just make it once you reach 5,000 edits, you are auto-granted the sysop flag (10,000 for B'crat, 20,000 for CU)? I disapprove anything beyond editor-by-editor basis. TheAE talk 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose - This wiki is dramatically slower in edits than the English Wikipedia. Honestly, I like the way things are set up now. (3 months, 1000 edits). Versus22 _talk 12:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose people should become admins when the community support them to be so. All the arbitrary edit counts, QD tags, VIP reports are fine when it comes to recommending that potential admins might like to have them before making a request, but nothing should be mandated. That's why we have a community to make a consensual decision. And moreover, we have bureaucrats to help assess those decisions which are considered borderline. Or at least we should have. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The current criteria (at WP:CfA) were hard to agree on; if any change is necessary, I would say the change should be in the following direction:

• Raise the percentages needed for admin or crat by 5%
• Raise the minimal number of votes needed (e.g. to 10)
• Provide for a mechanism to remove the flag from admins that have been inactive for a certain time.

We do not need 6 months activity, or a given number of edits (in a given section). --Eptalon (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the second and third proposed change and think that you should add a change:

• Nominated users for the sysop flag that have their RfA succeed should be watched to make sure that they don't abuse/misuse/mess with the new tools.

As for the proposed change in the percentage of support needed, I would say that it is fine right now at 60% for administrators, however, I wouldn't oppose an increase in the amount of support needed for bureaucrats. Razorflame 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Per CfA, admins -> 65%, crats -> 75%, cu -> 70% (and 25 votes); those are the current numbers. --Eptalon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, lol :). I knew that ;). Just had a brain fart. Anyways, I think that the percentage of support for administrators is fine where it is, although if many other people want it bumped up to 70%, that is fine with me. Cheers, Razorflame 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 65% is sufficient to determine community consensus, but at the same time I wish there was no arbitrary limit. It seems like it would be more sensible to weigh the strength of the arguments, leaving the closing 'crat to judge the candidate on a case-by-case basis. Juliancolton (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There has to be community consensus. If we just left it to the crats to judge on a case-by-case basis, then that would eliminate the need to have a vote at all, unless you are thinking about having the 'crat judge the candidate after the vote. Razorflame 01:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus is usually judged by the strength of the arguments presented by each side, so I would prefer if there was no vote at all. However, I realize that such a large change in the process is unlikely to occur. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Crap

An RFA, an RFB and several RFCU's going on at the same time? Even EN isn't this busy at RFX :P Shapiros10 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah its weird, Creol has barely gone a day and the pack of wolves came to take his place..what a wonderful world we live in..--Cometstyles 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I could have nominated everyone that I had wanted to, there would have been 5 RfBs' and 6 RFCU's going on at this time. We are running multiple RFCUs at the same time to have the best chance that at least one of them will pass, if not all of them. Same would apply to the RfB's, but Eptalon has stated that we should probably wait until after Chenzw's RfB to run more. Cheers, Razorflame 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about archives

In the table listing the RFAs, should the closing crat be listed as well? Shapiros10 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is not very significant (except during drama). If people really want to know who the closing crat is, they can check it on the page itself.--Chenzw  Talk  12:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship v. Administratorship

Right now we have "Requests for adminship" and "Criteria for administratorship." I think that we need to rename of the two (either add the "strator" to the RFA or drop the "strator" from CFA). Any thoughts? —This unsigned comment was added by Either way (talk • changes) 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Adminship" is a shorter, simpler word that is more commonly used here and on enWP. I think we should rename "Criteria for Administratorship" to "Criteria for Adminship". Also, renaming CFA would be a lot easier and less time consuming; if we rename RFA, then we'd have to also rename all the old RFAs with "adminship" in them. --Fairfield Deleted? 22:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't HAVE to rename the RFAs. We could leave them as is, much in the way that enWP still has "votes for deletion" pages from years ago still named that way. Either way (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Adminship" would be a better name for WP:CFA. It's much shorter, and it may be confusing to have two different names in use for the same purpose... stick to one name. — RyanCross (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I think the amount of questions on the current RFA is ridiculous. You do not have to ask three at once, and questions should really be relevant to the candidate, not just generic ones. And if you're going to oppose anyway, there's no point in asking them. This is turning into enwiki silliness. Please end it now. Majorly ^talk 11:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 11:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Asking one or two questions to get clarification is always fine in my book, but I'm not a fan of these generic quizzes we give as "optional" questions. And I'm really not a fan of asking questions even after you've opposed someone. What's the point of it if you're already made your intentions clear to oppose that person? Either way (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The only question(s) that is/are important is what you'll be doing as admin + knowledge of blocking users if they do bad things. Versus22 _talk 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the one question we should ask is "Will this user make a good admin?" If yes, then support. If not, oppose and say how/why. Majorly ^talk 14:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, RFA shouldn't be like this. Techman224^Talk 15:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than asking a question to clarify what a candidate/nominator said in their intro, I don't think questions are usefull, especially here where most people are well known to each other. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In such a small wiki with only a handful of active editors, generic questions are unnecessary at best. –Juliancolton (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. hmwithτ 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I comment on really, really old conversations. Just had to get in my two cents. :) hmwithτ 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support/oppose sections

In order to alleviate the problem of voting on Simple Wikipedia, we need to eliminate the support and oppose sections on RFAs. Why is it that we need to separate the two into distinct sections? We should eliminate them as it only encourages voting rather than discussing. Remember, RFAs are about consensus based on strength of arguments, not percentages. Either way (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another good challenge for this Wikipedia... As we all know, English Wikipedia separates the supports/opposes/neutrals into sections and I guess that's we got our original (and current) approach. The idea of "consensus" here is a little woolly though. For instance, the WP:PGA and WP:PVGA processes mandate very precise % and minimum voting (note, voting, not !voting...) for success. The RFA guidelines here suggest a minimum of 65% support and 5 named voters. The usual en.wiki avoidance of the word "vote" is not used here, much to my disappointment. People are happy to say "voting is evil" but most of our guidelines which discuss processes that require a consensus use the word "vote" all over the place. It's not just an RFA thing, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a good place to start. Bureaucrats are capable of reading and assessing consensus, otherwise they shouldn't be bureaucrats. I'm all up for reducing our "voting" and increasing our "consensus-ness". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, no matter how we frame it, we need a certain minimum number of people to have "expressed their opinion" on whether a candidate is fit for the position he is nominated to occupy; at least for Checkusers we need to follow the guidelines from meta, which also mandate a certain support percentage (range). That the 65/75% needed for admins/crats are not etched in stone is clear, to at least all Crats. We do however need to specify some number (percentage) to get a process where the voting is clear to all those involved. If we say something like "Crats will promote suitable candidates based on consensus" in the guideline this will be much too vague. Personally I prefer having a hard number, which can be tweaked at the discretion of the closing crat. Btw: this also helps the candidates assess their chance of being successful in an RfA/RfB/RfCU.--Eptalon (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Eptalon, are you happy with our guidelines suggesting that we need to "vote" for things as opposed to building a "consensus" for things? Wouldn't that make this Wikipedia unique? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about word-picking now? - An RFA very broadly has three steps:

1. A candidate is proposed for a role; in some cases he needs to accept the nomination.
2. A (sufficient number) of people "express their opinion" as to whether the candidate at hand is suitable for the role suggested. This happens in a given time frame.
3. A bureaucrat judges whether the community (i.e. those that expressed their opinion) thinks that the candidate is suitable for the role at hand, and if necessary uses the toolset at his disposal to promote the candidate (or suggest the candidate be promoted, in the case of CU). This is done once the "discussion time" has ended.

How you call this process in entirely a matter of naming, that has nothing to do with the process at all.--Eptalon (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how RFAs work, I'm just interested that we seem to need to treat our editors as Simple, not just our audience. No other Wikipedia seems to promote "voting" besides this one. I'm just interested as to why that's the case. Do we really need to patronise our editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) So it is definitely word-picking now. :) - What we call the process I outlined above is only a problem of language. Even if we call it "consensus-building" it will not change the process or the handling. A duck remains a duck, even if you don't call it a duck. --Eptalon (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We're getting a little too broad for what I'm intending to discuss here. I'm just suggesting removing the section headers and allowing just, basically, one discussion section rather than segregated support and oppose sections. I think we're venturing a little off course here. Either way (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but you are advocating consensus and right now our guidelines advocate voting, plain and simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We could merge the two section into a section votes, but our current system makes it easier to see how many people support, and how many oppose...--Eptalon (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that people don't want them to be votes so calling the section votes makes it even worse. This wiki goes out of the way to make disscussion an actual vote. While I know you Eptalon realize that the 65% etc is not etched in stone. It is very apparent a number of editors on this wiki do not understand that because our criteria pretty much says if you get 65% you will be an admin. I think this comes across pretty clearly in what looks to me like vote stacking in a certain Rfa that is open right now where a bunch of editors who havent really edited suddenly showed up to swing the %. Another way to see evidence of this is to see how hard CM is voting to keep the voting templates because it makes it easier to count... well its not about the count, but this particular editor obviously can't see that based on the way we word our policies. -Djsasso (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry

i am more experienced on english wikipedia Parker1297 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You have 454 edits there; that's still too low for an RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversightship v. oversightership

Per the above discussion on adminship v. administratorship, I propose that in the future we use "oversightship" for the names of the nominations. Currently we have 3 of one and 3 of the other. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly just "oversighter"? —MC8 (b · t) 11:02, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)

Or even simply "requests for oversight". →javért ^stargaze 12:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Requests for oversightship" seems fine. Anyway, we won't have many OS elections. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Requests for oversight" would be too easily confused with actual requests for oversight actions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point there, Julian, I hadn't thought of that. I don't particularly like "oversightership" or "oversiteship" but the only other name I can come up with is "Request for Oversight Permission". Probably best to leave it as it is as it really doesn't matter. →javért ^stargaze 14:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I think that Requests for Oversightship should be fine. Either way, we have to be consistent in order for people to find pages. hmwithτ 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Running

How should should a user normally be here to ask for adminship? How long would the time be if the user was also a user at the English Wikipedia (which I am a user there)? Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no set time. Each person is evaluated on a case by case basis. Either way (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

see this nice list--Eptalon (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

But if I were you, I'd forget about adminship on Simple. Majorly talk 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Or you will fall into the trap that I fell into a few years ago. Cheers, Razorflame 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

<-I have heard this from somebody but I forget who. You should have around 1k edits and have been here at least 3 months (actively). Learn from Razor's mistake, if you lose the first time, do not try again unless another user nominates you (Razor has tried 11 times). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically I would never try to get adminship...someone will ask you to run when they think you are ready...not that it means you are... Self-nom and you are pretty much guarantee'd to fail unless you have been around a looong time. -DJSasso (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I squeaked by with a self-nom and 2 months experience, but I think had well over 1k edits plus years of experience on en. Also, there were a few editors/admins who were waiting to nom me once I reached the 3 month point. Still, my RfA could have gone either way and I think that the attitude at that time is different from the current attitude regarding number of admins on this wiki. EhJJ^TALK 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about nominating myself for adminship in December, which will give me enough time to think about it. Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wait for someone to nominate you. You will pass for sure if you do that. Razorflame 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd rather nominate myself. I'm not against self-nominations in any way, and I hope that if I nominate myself, that I'll succeed. Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Do what you think is right, but most people will hold that against you. As self-noming is often seen as a power grab. But this is just my opinion, I wouldn't worry about anything to do with adminship if I were you. Just stick to articles. The current opinion of most people on this wiki right now is that we have too many admins as it is already, so you are likely to only garner negative impressions if you tell people you are aiming to be an administrator. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I think is right. This wiki only has around 30-40 administrators, but given the low level of activity here, it's a lot for this wiki. I don't care if somebody is aiming to be an administrator, as long as they are a good one, and stick to their word. On the English Wikipedia, when I ran three times this year, I was opposed plenty enough to get the "snow closure". Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I only tell you this because there has been talk about capping the number of administrators on this wiki to a percentage of the number of active editors we have...currently about 80% of our active editors are admins...this has caused problems. So self-noms are looked at alot more harshly here than they are on en. We are a very different wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to wait. Look at the opposes in Razorflame's RfAs (I took the time several days ago to look at them). Learn from your predecessors so you can prepare for the future. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've read Razorflame's RfA's yet, but I'm planning on running in December at the earliest, but probably sometime in the middle of 2010. Mythdon (talk • changes) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't get into any controversy, and you remain active, you should pass quite easily next summer. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of controversy, I've gotten into just that in the past few days at the English Wikipedia. See my talk page there. Mythdon (talk • changes) 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Although sanctions do not carry over to here, your behavior at enWP may affect the votes of the editors at your future RFA. Don't make the mistake that you made at enWP. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should forget about RFA, Mythdon. The chances of you passing are close to nil. Majorly talk 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll run for 'cratship in 2050 or later... My plans for the future. (An no, I don't want to become on). In short, no one is really interested. Barras || talk 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why are we here? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just all go and write an article and make it a GA. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I want to close permissions discussions and some RFA's when they occur. I'm going to run for cratship at some point. But for now, I have four tasks I'm working on...

1. American History series in the article space.
2. Conversion and simplification of our BLP policy.
3. Userspace essay on thoughtful discussion to aid others.
4. Human sexuality coverage in article space

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have plans to run for bureaucratship too, but I only plan to do that after I become an administrator (if it ever happens), and having the proper experience. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Focus on being a good content editor, not on gathering flags. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I plan to run for adminship either in December 2009, or sometime in 2010, depending on my decision. I will do so if I feel that I have enough experience, and I will not consider content edits experience to become an administrator, because that has nothing to do with adminship, and is in a different category of work on Wikipedia. Content editors and administrators are two totally different things. Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was kidding about running for cratship. I was hoping that folks would get the point, that this discussion, and the goals thereof, are not what the project is all about. :) Loves, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to think that, but the general community prefers its administrators to have extensive (or at least somewhat extensive) experience editing the actual content of the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Evula, and administrators are content editors. The two go hand in hand. I would not support a candidate who did not do content work. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just hope that with my nomination for adminship, that I can pass without "extensive experience editing the actual content of the project", whether I run with or without that experience. Content and administration are different, and should not be interpreted as to help the experience of the other, in my opinion. I think that administrating Wikipedia is 100% different than contributing content to Wikipedia, and do not see how content contributing is a reason to support a candidate. You can be a very good content contributor, but that does not add to your experience in administrating. For example, good content contributors can have no experience in vandal fighting, and may have poor judgment administrating Wikipedia in vandal fighting due to lacking experience. In my opinion, before becoming an administrator, instead of having content experience, you should have administrative experience, such as vandal fighting, making non-admin AfD closures, and all that. I'm not saying that your opinion is that we should have administrators having content experience, but I'm stating my opinion on the matter. I think administrative experience is what it takes to be an administrator, not content experience (though it plays a big role in showing your commitment to the project). Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your goal here on Simple English Wikipedia? NonvocalScream (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My content goal is to copyedit, simplify, correct typos, etc. My second goal is to administrate. I have two goals. Mythdon (talk • changes) 19:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't mean to bring down your hopes of being an admin, but considering how everyone is complaining that we have too many admins, it is less likely that a respected editor or admin will nominate you. Just a thought. :) —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is the very definition of futility. -- Mentifisto 10:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's build an encyclopedia and not talk of useless matters. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove inactive administrators

Original proposal

I am making a proposal to limit the time that an administrator can be inactive before being removed for inactivity. The proposed terms are:

• A) Any administrator who has not used their administrative permissions in a 2 month period will be desysopped
• B) Administrators who were removed for inactivity reasons can still ask for the tools back, if they resigned their tools while still being trusted, though they may still run a re-confirmation RfA.
• C) Any bureaucrat, checkuser or oversighter who has not used their permissions in a 1 month period will have their permissions removed.
• D) Bureaucrats, checkusers or oversighters who were removed for inactivity have to ask for their permissions back with their own request pages.

This will make it less likely for administrative accounts to be compromised while having the permissions. There is also no point in having these permissions if you're not currently active. What do you think? Mythdon (talk • changes) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Really, 2 months? That's rubbish. We considered 6 months to be too less a time, but 2 months? People might be on a vacation for two months. This is utterly ridiculous. Also, please read m:Voting is evil. I suggest that you write an article rather than starting needless threads. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• 2 months in my opinion is rather too harsh. Per Pmlinediter, anyone could have a wikibreak for 2 months, and come back with no rights for no reason just because of a two month break. 6 would be fine. иιƒкч? 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• 2 months is too short of a time. Don't vote on everything. Razorflame 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• 2 months is way, way too short of a time. Shappy ^talk 11:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Poorly thought out idea. Majorly talk 11:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with all above. Barras || talk 11:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• For me it's the one-month limitation on 'crats/oversighters/checkusers that is really ridiculous. Sometimes there aren't that many actions needed in a month where every one of them needs to do something, so they'd lose it too easily and have to go through too long of a process to get it back. Oppose to every part of this proposal. Either way (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree. There may be months where 'crat/os/cu actions are not needed. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• *yawn* —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 12:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you go ahead and explain what you mean by "yawn"? Seems a little inappropriate to make that a comment in a discussion. Thanks, Either way (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Most people feel that a year is minimum as a 6 month guideline was recently rejected. I would Strongly suggest stepping away from all things admin. Take it from Razorflame, you are only permanently harming your chances. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Urk. I don't see any harm whatsoever in inactive administrators - pretty much all damage can (and likely will) be fixed pretty quickly.  GARDEN  21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• 2 months is way too short. As they said above there^. I also agree with them. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Inactive sysop guideline was a discussion a few weeks back, on simple talk. It did not have much of a result. I think if you want to discuss such things you should do so on simple talk. Other than that, good luck at waking community interest. --Eptalon (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

After reading the comments here, and the discussion linked by Eptalon, how about this alternative?:

• A) Any administrator who has not used their administrative permissions in a 9 month period will be desysopped
• B) Administrators who were removed for inactivity reasons can still ask for the tools back, only if they resigned their tools while still being trusted. If after 9 months they do not ask for the tools back, they will have to run a new RfA to ensure that their trust within the community still exists, if they still wish to run. Administrators who resigned without the community trust must run a new RfA
• C) Any bureaucrat, checkuser or oversighter who has not used their permissions in a 5 month period will have their permissions removed. If they wish to get the tools back, they will have to make a new request at their respective request pages

For the same reasons as the original proposal. This proposal will give a longer time for them to keep the tools while taking a break from them, but that after a reasonable period of time, their tools will be removed for inactivity. What do you think of this version? Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you find to be wrong with what's currently in place? Either way (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What "in place"? Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That we go through a request for de-adminship after a year of inactivity (as in not editing...not as in "not using the tools"). Either way (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that inactivity desysopping's already exist? Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that that is our general practice, yes. Either way (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Mythdon (talk • changes) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Continue to use our 12 month standard. I don't see why we need any new proposals. -DJSasso (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose 12 months are prefered. Barras || talk 05:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and desist with the stupid, pointless "polls". Don't vote on everything. Can we just get back to article writing, please and stop worrying about our inactive administrators? Razorflame 07:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm a bit confused. Would this proposal remove admin rights after 9 months or RFDA the admin after 9 months? If I'm reading it correctly, after 18 months of inactivity, they would have to go through a new RFA, right? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't decided how to remove them yet. "After 18 months of inactivity, they would have to go through a new RFA, right"? - That's exactly it. If they want the tools back, they must go through a new RfA. Mythdon (talk • changes) 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Headers

I noticed that BG7 removed the other headers earlier today [here]. I thought about undoing it but decided I'll post instead and see if others disagree with me. Personally I completely disagree with the idea of not having the other request headers (CU,OS,Crat,removal) because we don't use them often. All of the respective Requests for x and Rfx pages redirect here and to come to a page without the spot to put them doesn't make sense. This is why we have {{none}} it's ok for them to be empty. Jamesofur (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it looks untidy having several empty headers sitting around not doing anything. The majority of them are also rarely used - removal is even less likely to be used under the new policy. Why not just rename the entire thing to "Requests for rights" or similar - it's more simpler too. It's easy enough to add a new header when it's needed - we've had it like this for months/years and no-one cared before. Go back to your wiki building. Goblin 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

I think renaming to request for user rights is a better idea. Rollback could be added too then. Majorly talk 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with James. I think it makes it much easier to just leave the headers alone. It will help people in finding the correct place to post their request. I wouldn't have an issue in using GB7's idea, and re-naming the page to Request for Rights just to make it more general.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@both Goblin and Majorly, I actually agree when I first saw it I was thinking that it be better to name it Request for Permissions or something like that (rights may be simpler?). I'd have no problem with that. Jamesofur (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Consolodate it all into "Wikipedia:Requests for User Rights" (including rollback) would be the best way I think. Then subpages can be /Foo (right) rather than faffing around with the seperate rights and section pages? Much more streamlined and simple :) Thoughts? Goblin 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

I propose using <!--- ---> to hide unused cats. That way, they don't show up unless you edit. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe they should be removed with a single header saying "No requests for rights" or something similar, but separate when there is requests. Kennedy (talk • changes). 22:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no real pressing need to change it from how it is. It looks perfectly fine, and it keeps from causing people to argue about how the page should be formated each time there is a request of two different types. No need to keep readding the headers when they are needed when having them there all the time does no harm. -DJSasso (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to comment a bit late, but... I agree that the headers should be left alone, because there is no need to remove them and re-add repeatedly when they can just be left alone. I am also in agreement with a few others that this page should be renamed. I think the best name would be "Wikipedia:Requests for permissions", because adminship, checkuser, oversight and bureaucrat rights are all considered permissions. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 21:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFBs

The idea was that they wouldn't be exactly the same as they always had been. You don't need a long statement, you don't need a subpage, you don't need support/oppose headers. And non-bureaucrats don't need to vote. Majorly talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems the whole point of the change went over peoples heads. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

{{RfA Statistics}}

I have created a template that (should) serve as a way to easily reach information about the candidate. As a test, I have placed it on Megan's current RfP to see if it works well, and whether people want to keep it. Anyone who finds it annoying, feel free to zap it. However, I feel that, as long as I finish it before it is transcluded onto any other RfOS/CU/RfdPs, it should work fine. — μ 14:22, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Some of the links link to enwp... The copy and paste should be fixed. At all it is a good idea. -Barras ^talk 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are they wrapped in <noinclude>? EhJJ^TALK 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bots

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback may no longer have Chris G Bot 3 (talk · contribs) auto-archiving the page. Does someone who knows Chris G well want to ask him if he'll update his bot? EhJJ^TALK 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, has the bot had its color codes updated to reflect the new percentage? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback permission

The page says that users who already have rollback privileges on, say, the English Wikipedia can automatically receive them here. I have rollback privileges on the English Wikipedia, but not under the same name. Would it still be possible for me to get rollback privileges here if I can prove my identity? Kansan (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just make an edit on your enwiki username confirming you are simple user Kansan, post the diff here or on my talk page, and I'll be glad to flip the switch. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CopaceticThought&diff=341366491&oldid=294054665

Thanks! Kansan (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On my way to do it, another admin beat me to it. :) Enjoy. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What's importer?

There's a section for requests for it, but no description for its entitlements/responsibilities. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It lets you use Special:Import to transwiki (move from one wiki to another) pages from other WMF projects. Lauryn^☆ 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a one-tool request, I moved it between rollback and the mop Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@Lauryn: Actually it allows much more than simply that. Might I suggest a review of meta:Import. It also allows suppression of redirects (even when not doing an import) amongst other things. Quite a powerful role really. It's a bit more adminis (new word, (C) Fr33kman :) ) than is rollback. fr33kman 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Requests for checkuser and oversighter require at least 25 supports in order to pass, regardless of the level of consensus present. Therefore, even if a request is sitting at 24 supports and 0 opposes, it cannot be closed as successful. However, in a small wiki such as simple, it's often difficult to find 25 supports in the period of a week. Indeed, we often find ourselves extending such requests beyond their original one-week ending date. Commons has a de facto policy of keeping requests for CU and OS open for two weeks, which seems to have eliminated the need to extend them or beg for votes. I'd like to propose we amend the standard duration for CU and OS requests to two weeks. Any objections? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see us as having two options:

1. We use one-week as standard, but add "may be extended for one week if there is at least 75% support but fewer than 25 support votes", or
2. We use two-weeks as standard, but add "may be closed after one week if there is at least 75% support and more than 25 support votes".

The advantage of wording it this way is that, if a candidate does have 25 supports after one week, they don't have to wait around for another week before getting the tool. On the other hand, we're not desperate for new CUs and OSes, so we could simply make all of these votes two-weeks long with no early close. I am in support of any of these proposals. EhJJ^TALK 11:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

CU and OS require 80% for success so the second option you list would have to be altered slightly. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with the second proposal per Juliancolton. Classical Esther^♣ 11:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there are always 30+ users on simple, but some of them don't wish to !vote. I'd prefer EhJJ's first option. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Information - [1] There is no statement as to how long the vote would need to take. It would seem acceptable to allow 7 days as a minimum. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for nominating users

I want to nominate a user for administrator who has previously had an RfA that did not succeed. When I typed in her name, I was taken to her previous RfA. Do I create a new page with a "2" on the end of her name or something? Kansan (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Griffinofwales 2. Great example. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Kansan (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA talk pages...

There needs to be an easy way that each RFAs discussion page is linked on the transcluded RFA. Currently, the easiest discussion link is this one, but each subpage has a talk page. There needs to be an easy way to discuss the process as it applies to a particular candidate. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps it is the way it renders in the beta... but I'm going to add a RFA talk page link to the template if no objections. Jon@talk:~$ 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucratic discretion

It makes sense to hold a discussion to develop a guideline or policy to determine what a bureaucrat's discretion is and its limits. This issue has been a topic of much comment and controversy for a long time.

Discussion

• My personal take on bureaucratic discretion is that first and foremost a bureaucrat does have a thing called discretion. It then falls to what format it takes and what are its limits. I think that a crat should have the discretion to both override the general pass/fail percentage on an RFP and should have the ability to either count more stongly an argument or count less stongly an argument. I also believe that crats should be able to completely ignore some opinions. The opinions that a crat should completely ignore should be limited to a) obvious trolling, b) opinions based on race, religion, political belief, sexual orientation, gender, age (but not maturity) or disability, c) opinions that are of an attack or POV nature. This does not mean that opinions that discuss a candidate's lack of NPOV (or violation of the other five pillars) based on one of these topics are invalid, they are not, they are very valid points to raise. I think that if a valid concern is raised, and a candidate fixes that issue and a majority of people who opposed (either in whole or in part) agree it has been fixed, then the argument can probably be discounted. It'd be a case-by-case affair. With regards to discretion about the pass/fail percentage, I think a crat has leeway both directions. Therefore, a crat should be able to pass a candidate who is numerically failing and also fail a candidate who is numerically passing. It works both ways. If, after all opinions have been considered, the invalid ones (race etc.) ignored the candidate is a borderline case, then the crat should then be able to use numerical discretion. I think Barras' idea of about 10% (or so) is about right. In all cases a bureaucrat must answer for his/her decision. If needed the crat should discuss the issue with at least one other crat. I do not believe that a crat who promotes, or not, a candidate should have their decision reversed by anyone. If there is a major fiasco, then those who disagree can run a new RFP or DRFP, and/or proceed with a decratting of the crat. The innocent candidate should not be punished for a decision they did not make. That's my 2p's worth. fr33kman 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Baras actually said 5%. That 10% would require a crat chat if I read what he said correctly. A 10% leeway in the current case results in a leeway of 30% of our active editors which is clearly way to much leeway. No crat should have the ability to cancel out the opinons of 30% of active editors. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected :) fr33kman 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I thought we had decided this when we bumped up the percentages and when the fiasco with my RfB happened and then when BG had the same issue. I thought it was long decided that crats had a 5% leeway. Any more than that is pretty much cancelling out the purpose of the Rfa to get the communities imput. For example on the current situation the 10% leeway that the crat thought he could use represented 9 !votes. Our community has at best 30 active editors. This means one crats opinion could undo 33% of our active editors. That is far too much leeway for one person. One of the main reasons we bumped the percentage up was so that crats would have to use their discression less and that decisions would be more clear cut. I would also suggest that no one but the person opposing has the right to determine if an issue they see is fixed. If they think its fixed they will switch to support. Failing that a crat can't determine that a persons oppose reason is no longer an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the latest RFA, it seems not to have been decided! :) fr33kman 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Based on NVS's comments It seems like he thought passing was still 65% which is a different matter. (I don't think he thought he was using as much discression as he was). Based on reactions I have seen and heard I don't think many people thought this promotion should have happened. Most just feel bad undoing it now. (which I don't think is a valid reason to leave someone promoted) I certainly think crats should have some discression, but it definitely should be used very carefully and definitely shouldn't wipe out all the oppose votes which is pretty much what NVS said he did. Giving leeway where any editor can overrule 30% of the community is just plain bad. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I was talking to Barras on IRC and he thought it was 65% also. I don't remember the discussion to change it. How many people took part? fr33kman 19:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I am thinking a pretty large number. I seem to remember it going on forever. I will go look for the archive. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • The discussion was in January. I missed it and that why even I thought it still is 65 %. -Barras ^talk 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I see 6 people discussing it, unless I'm mistaken. fr33kman 20:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
              • note: I actually checked the criteria (as I do every time I close or nom) so I knew it was 75%, which is why I told JC, scream, etc., that I had thought it was going to fail. But I can see why others still thought it was 65%. I'm personally fine with 75% btw. :) fr33kman 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hello there. I will also give my opinion about the subject, but please remember: This is my opinion. It is very well possible that some people do not like it. As this "society" is constructed, the bureaucrat is the most elder role we have. There are checkusers, who can see things that bureaucrats in theory cannot see, and there are oversighters who can hide content so that even bureaucrats do not see it anymore. Both roles serve a different purpose though. In an RFA/RFB ("RFP"), an (uninvolved) bureaucrat must take the decision whether to promote a candidate or not. All he has to base this opinion on is his own feelings, and what others have said about the candidate (in a process that is usually called "voting"). Some arguments will be more convincing than others. At the end, this should not be a numbers game alone, this should be about consensus. In an ideal world (which I am aware does not exist), all the bureaucrat does is set into practice what the community decided. For the last promotion, 65% were in favour, and 35% against (rounded to the nearest percent). A total of 23 people (out of perhaps 30) took part in the vote. If I take a "crat bonus" of 10%, this makes 3 votes (supposing all 23 are considered valid). This probably is not even worth discussing. My point here is a different one though: Supposedly, the crats are the most trusted editors in this community, so they should be able to find an oracle, that tells them how to decide. The problem with oracles is that they speak in riddles. "If you transgress the river Haldys, you will destroy a great empire", Koesus was told by the Oracle at Delphi. Kroesus thought this was good news, and attacked the Persians. With this he destroyed his own Lydian empire. Anyway, if you cannot truist the crat to decide, it would probably be time to get rid of the crat. :) --Eptalon (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I am content that 'crats have discretion and use it. Rather than use straight percents, I would prefer to use other tactics. One is to ask for opinions from editors who are respected, but have not spoken on a case; another is to recognize more clearly that the default position is to say no. Another would be to get tougher when we have enough admins, and loosen up if we need more. However, to come down off the fence, I would be unhappy if as much as 25% of the responses were negative. I note the obvious cases went through almost nem con. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What is nem con? Jon@talk:~$ 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)I think it's an interesting point to consider asking experienced non-crat editors for their views if they are uninvolved. I seem to recall a situation where all crats had taken part in an election and I asked a non-crat if they would close an RFA (with my permission) as they were neutral and well-experienced. Unfortunately, they declined and an involved crat closed it. I don't get your "as much as 25% of the responses were negative" comment however, Mac. Especially in light of the "rather than use straight percentages" statement. Could you expand on that a bit please? :) fr33kman 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• en:wikt:nem._con.. If I understand Macdonald-ross correctly, he's essentially say that our admins should pass with nearly no objections (as many have in the past). I am inclined to agree with him; having 1 in 4 opposed is already considerable and passing with 66% would mean that that a full third of users don't think you're the right person for the job. Considering people tend to support more often then oppose (if split on the issue), having 1/3 of users oppose a promotion should raise questions whether now is a good time to do so, or if that user should perhaps try again in a month or two. After all, not passing an RfA is not a terrible fate. In fact, Mac may be arguing that even those with 75% shouldn't pass strictly because the have enough support, if the few oppose opinions have serious concerns about the candidate. EhJJ^TALK 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Trust your bureaucrats or recall them. Pretty straightforward. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That's frankly my feeling also. fr33kman 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this is a question of how much do we need to trust them however. Do we trust them enough to cancel out the fact a user was 9 votes away from what the community decided was passing percent as happened in the most recent Rfa (albeit accidentally this time). I don't think any person should have the ability to decide to completely throw a guideline out the window that was decided by the community, atleast not on their own. As such a descretionary range is absolutely a good idea. Recalling a 'crat is unfortunately an after the fact reaction, the damage is often already done by that point. As can be seen in the most recent case, no one wants to undo their decision because we might lose an editor, even though most people think an incorrect decision was made. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's just discuss the future please. fr33kman 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Its not possible to discuss the future without pointing to examples. Otherwise we are just talking without having anything to back up what we are saying. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• I actually like Macdonald's idea. We don't really need admins and I think admins should be trusted by a large majority of the community. If the community insists on a numbers game, I think that the 5% discretion for a 'crat and 10% for crat chat is a good idea. I haven't fully read all the arguments so feel free to correct anything I write. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)