Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship/Archive 1

If you make any changes to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft please make the same changes too Template:DfA, because that is the one that will be subst'd when new nominations occur. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's here. Please discuss the new proposed policy here now. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User Description

One thing that I'm not so keen on losing is the "Your description of the user here" bit. Bad faith or inexperienced RFAs can easily be identified by a poorly filled out one of these (Wikipedia is very very cool. RfA rocks!). I'm not sure a brief comment in the meritous section is as good as a proper paragraph on the user. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense but it introduces a loophole to get around diffs. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of

====User Description====  (keeping it commented since it will only be seen by nom and would further clutter AfA)? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually we have a lot of wikipedians around here. *scratches head* I wonder how we managed to get all of them together. Well, since they're here anyway, perhaps they could cooperate on creating an NPOV description of the admin-to-be. Rather than leaving the burden on the shoulders of the poor nominator. We might even be able to leave out the requirement of a popularity contest that way :-) Kim Bruning 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it might help users who may not write/get the best nomination, although I'd say it would be good form for nom (or self-nom) to add some Meritous actions (with diffs). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! My proposal is much more far reaching. How about sort of making a short 'article' on why someone is objectively suitable for adminship? And having a nice conversation on a persons merits (or lack of :-P) on the talk page thereof. After a week, if the article in balance says "yes promote", then that'd be good. We'd be reusing existing encyclopedia process. :-) Kim Bruning 00:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

can we clean up a bit?

Let's clean this up a bit. Why'd you suddenly change everything into formal voting? *Sigh* well, we can reword that.

In fact, we could possibly leave out voting altogether. perhaps a discussion is in order. Kim Bruning 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's voting? I don't see voting! Where? Let me kill it now! — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, all over the page: "In order to vote on adminship candidates" "votes lacking suffrage" "voting" "revote" "Voting and commenting" "Who may vote" "100 edits is welcome to vote" "votes for self are not counted" "Who may not vote" "Votes of very new editors" "You may explain your vote" "Voting will last for four days". Please kill it with fire. Dmcdevit·t 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all but one instance. -Splash^talk 23:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jolly good! Kim Bruning 00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, this was being discussed in lots of places. Can we make notes where ever relevent pointing here? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've offered at RFA talk to put myself up as an experimental candidate (Lord Bob offered as well). I'll make the same offer here, if people are interested in starting this off. I'll await your feedback. Chick Bowen 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to instructions

Not feeling to BOLD today, so I'll just suggest:

Suffrage for admins and discussion participants are both mentioned twice.
Swap the timings around, four days talk, three days ~~voting~~ polling. Get Durin to chew some numbers, but I'd guess that for the vast majority of candidates their percentage doesn't change that much after the third day anyway.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No voting! :-P Polling yes, like we have now. Better yet have a discussion. And hey, have you ever seen me get involved in an adminship poll, or AFD poll? :-) you can move the votes a bit, provided you're both honest and polite. Kim Bruning 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the template

I've done #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship]] for now to avoid any further fragmentation of discussion. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I was unaware of this discussion, I'd knocked up my own template. In it I suggested that we do not sign diffs, but that this is treated as a quasi-article. Someone writes "AdminWannabe is from Cuba, and Cubans are cool!" and it's not signed, rather than having to debate it, we simply remove it a POV. Someone says "User:AdminWannabe grossly bullied User:Helpless newbie!" without a diff, we add add {{citationneeded}} and change it to less heated language. Displace all argument to the talk page.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Perhaps with a little more discussion it can be merged with our draft nom. Please see the bold note at the top of this page though. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is going on?

Can somebody explain what is happening, all that suspension of RfA, new sudden changes to how the RfA's are administered, etc? I read the relevant talk pages but could not get it. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems two bureaucrats decided to, and unilaterally, suspend RFA for the new DFA. Then there was a big hoolabaloo, and RFA got un-suspended. So this is basically discussion over a possible "new" process for getting adminship. I'm still just as confused as you, though. NSL E _(T+C) 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And when are we going to be asked which process, the old one or the new one, is preferrable? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Some wording issues

The phrase "however, overtly supporting oneself is not counted." is unclear to me now that this proposal involves two stages. Obviously, you shouldn't be able to support yourself in the polling stage, but could you provide diffs in support of yourself? I'm not sure how I would read it - it could use some clarification but I'm not sure how would be best. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-article

Kim and I have both proposed a "narrative" version, without signatures and created using our existing practices: unbiased, working on talk page, citing sources (diffs), etc. Creating this section for talking about that. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So how would we determine whether the candidate should be made an administrator or not? It's something of a binary decision—either the sysop bit is set or it isn't—so it wouldn't be as amenable to compromise as article text. —Kirill Lok s hin 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite as radical as Kim. My version would have bog-standard "voting" at the end but hopefully avoid injecting personality into the mix in the "discussion" phase. My ongoing RfA is a good example of what's wrong with discussion, where Tony and I got into our usual back-and-forth. A collaberative approach to telling the story of the nominee would avoid that. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's worth a try: I think the narrative would probably indicate if the user can be an admin or not all by itself. Just apply the NPOV criterium. If the nomination page has an NPOV disputed tag at the top at the end of the week, you probably shouldn't promote ;-) If it really won't work, we can always fall back to brennemans idea :-) Kim Bruning 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It'll probably work most of the time; it's the borderline cases that might be more problematic. —Kirill Lok s hin 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My philosophy is let sleeping dogs, babies, and Wikipedia conflicts lie.

After I finish my checklist, 100 places to visit on Wikipedia before I die (or Rfa), I'm was going to Rfa. If the diffs will be displayed, I may not do it. Displaying the diffs could be embarrassing to other Wikipedians involved in a conflict. This has the potential to re-ignite old conflicts. Going to end up being WP:BEANS. Telling people not to bring up old settled conflicts will make some people dig for them.

For example, it is one thing to say, “I had a brief conflict regarding KM’s stated attitude toward parties in Arb comm cases. I walked away from it to diffuse the situation.” Quite another to display KM’s actual words. Is it in the best interest of WP to awake up these old conflicts? Should I have to decide between embarrassing another editor and becoming an administrator? --FloNight 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Any comment has a possibility to ignite old conflicts. Someone might say "I had a brief conflict...I walked away..." but someone might say "This user is entirely unfit for adminship because they present a totally incorrect view regarding parties in arbcom cases." — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something in both arguments. Of course past history will come up, but I do wonder if - as other people have suggested - there ought to be some sort of statute of limitations. Ultimately though, Ilyan is right and there's no great change from the old procedure. Diffs are often used right now. I would propose starting the new process in parallel as soon as possible, and we can work on these issues as we go. --kingboyk 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Of course it is possible now. But it doesn't happen very often. This encourages editors to look for conflicts. Won't this increase tension in settled conflicts. Lot's of people settle conflicts by staying away from each other. When someone sees their past sins featured on a Dfa, won't this awaken bad feeling. My biggest fear is embarrassing other people that made uncivil comments in the heat of a dispute. --FloNight 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BEANS is irrelevant, because people look for conflict now. One bad diff posted can derail an entire RfA (and sometimes rightly so, sometimes I'm not so sure). One 'problem' mentioned with the current process is that someone can vote based on someone else's diff/testimony, then the other user is discounted/proven wrong/biased/got the wrong diff, and the pile-on users never come back to change their 'vote'. Having discussion occur first would allow for reasoned discussion rather than such a popularity contest as we have now, and more informed voters. I'd support having to datestamp your diffs, although the diff itself will do that... -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is good

This is good! I'm sure that the wording could use some more tweaking, but I think it'd be a good idea to replace RFA with DFA in the foreseeable future. >Radiant< 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Narrative descriptions and leaving stuff unsigned where possible are the way to go with this. Alph a x ^τεχ 00:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Three days discussion and four days voting

I was taken aback by this "new proposal", and dear bureaucrats, please do not replace the existing RfA format before asking people first. But now I would like to discuss the most worrisome part of the proposed template. I find that split in three days of discussion and four days of voting to be an unnecessary and artificial rule. Why tell people they can vote only in the last four days? Why do discussion mostly in the first three days?

You want more community discussion, be my guest. You want this to be not as much "popularity context", fine with me. But please don't restrict the periods of when people can vote and when they can't. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The idea is to present a reasonably complete picture before getting people to vote. Earlier RFA votes in the present system tend to be unaware of objections raised later. This system has shown to work fine for WP:FAC. >Radiant< 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you mean something else? This system is not used at FAC, as there is no voting there. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition to what radiant said, The point is not to restrict discussion in the latter part of the nom, but to restrict voting in the former part. We want to encourage people to come back and read the objections that are raised. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Another issue with the ongoing voting is when a problematic diff arises where User:AdminWanabee says that User:Don'tHurtMe partakes in Nazi Midget Clown Sex. Ten "oppose" votes pop off like firecrackers, but then cooler heads prevail and it is shown that User:Don'tHurtMe is a sockpuppet for User:NaziMidgetClownSex. But the damage is done, most people don't come back and review the ongoing discussion, if for no other reason than that they don't log on more than once every week. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

On the flip side, does having a four-day period rather than a seven-day period mean that people who only log on once a week might participate in the first phase but not the second? —Kirill Lok s hin 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but for any period of time used anywhere, it is possible that people exist that log on less than that. For instance, someone who logs on once every eight days cannot participate in all present RFAs. >Radiant< 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously. My question is whether the new system will result in more people unable to participate. —Kirill Lok s hin 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was originally 5 days discussion, 5 days polling (not ~~voting~~, I changed it), but some complained that it drags on the process too far. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd support 5 and 5 - ten days is not so long to consider when you're talking about near-permanent sysop powers. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Duration shouldn't be an issue, since the decision is ultimately to give someone sysop powers. "This should be no big deal" I suppose, but it shouldn't be rushed. --tomf688^{talk} 03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what can be gained by having such a long period of time for both (you're skidding close to two weeks total). Will we get anything on the fifth day of discussion that we wouldn't have on the third? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, you'll get people that don't check RfA daily. Real-life activities can certainly keep someone away from Wikipedia for three days or more. Of course, all the more reason to remove the artificial separation and make it ten days, period. (or seven). Turnstep 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)\

We won't stop discussion in the voting period, but we'll keep voting off until the discussion is over. Considering that, does everyone think we ought to use 5/5 instead of 3/4? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the spirit of what you are trying to do here, but I suspect that most people (including me) are going to find the days of discussion/polling thing to be hopelessly artificial. If I know what my opinion of the candidate is at the start, it feels bizarre to "discuss" why he should or shouldn't be a sysop and then come back later to contribute to a poll on the subject. Feel free to try it and prove me wrong, but I suspect many people will just find that too awkward. One idea you might try is strictly seperating the poll and the discussion sections. In other words have a discussion section (with no votes) and a polling section (with no comments). Dragons flight 04:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody says you have to discuss. If you have your own ideas and preferences, you have your own ideas and preferences. But if you have a specific case that you feel it will benefit others to know, throw it out there in discussion. We want people to get the big picture before they vote, however. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this live? Right here right now?

And if so who dares to go first? :-)

If it isn't live I'm not sure why we are discussing this in multiple places. I'll quickly restate what I've just written on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Draft: I feel that suggesting that the provision of diffs should be the norm is overkill. For the average editor discussing the average nominee it's a waste of time. I think diffs should be provided where there is controversy or a challenge to somebody's assertions but that, ordinarily, general comments such as "kingboyk did a great job on the Apple Corps article" (which I did, I might add ;)), ought to be quite sufficient. --kingboyk 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But if I said that kingboyk would make a terrible admin and has a terribly short temper (not that you would or you do) wouldn't you want substantiation? It's not live yet, for exactly this reason. I guess people can't let anything pass without millions of years of bureaucratic discussion. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm saying is that diffs must be available to prove a point if requested. I'm trying to be realistic, and I for one feel that having to provide diffs for every comment will reduce participation. --kingboyk 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your positions as opossed to each other, guys; and in fact, if this is the only reason why this isn't live yet, well, it's time to get it kicking. Basically, we're talking about common sense and the necessity to prove assertions that might have a serious impact on the course of the process. In the light of assume good faith, saying that AdminWannabe gets along with others nicely shouldn't necessarily be proved by a diff; yet a statement disproving such claim should definitely be backed. It would be completely impossible to demand a diff to prove "everything" that could be said, especially in favor of a potential candidate. My 2 cents. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 03:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why the wording was changed to add "where possible". You can't provide a diff saying someone hasn't been here long enough. But we do need to underline that diffs are important. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed Sharon (Phaedrial). If you weren't relatively new I'd readily support you as candidate #1. (Having said that, let me just check how long you've been here :)) --kingboyk 04:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please respond to my concerns about diffs above at My philosophy is let sleeping dogs, babies, and Wikipedia conflicts lie. --FloNight 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a change to the policy proposal page (but not the template). Please evaluate it and of course revert back if you don't like it. --kingboyk 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed 'may be provided' to 'are strongly encouraged' (and changed the template as well). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wording

OK, this page seems to be Template talk:DfA too. Good. I would propose changing "providing diffs where possible" to something like "providing diffs if relevant" or "if necessary". I think also that the word 'diffs' should be wikilinked. If we're allowing new editors to post comments we shouldn't assume they know what a diff is. --kingboyk 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we though? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think knowing what a diff is should be a minimum requirement. It certainly seems much lower than any of the other suffrage requirements that have been bandied about in the past. Turnstep 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that if someone has been here for a month, they know what a diff is. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 15:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

After reviewing the proposal again, here are my thoughts. First, we shouldn't be rushing through this process. While I'm all for not making this bureaucratic (no pun intended), major changes like these need time for discussion and need widespread community support before being implemented. Second, I am doubtful about any "test" procedures that run concurrently to RfA; it is highly unlikely that a small sample of candidates who volunteerily sign up for this method rather than RfA will present an unbiased result. (For best results, a SRS should be conducted with equivalent amount of candidates for both RfA and this proposal.) Besides being biased, it will cast more doubt into the process; it's never good to have two conflicting procedures running at the same time. Third, I still disagree with the "discussion" time. Even though I was the one who first brought this up a month or so ago, in retrospect, I don't think that it will work out. Featured picture candidates had this procedure for a long time (a two-day commenting period) but it was eliminated because it accomplished little but burdened down the process. I don't think that we'll get different results here, given that it's extremely difficult for a candidate to "change" in a few days, while the featured picture candidates could easily be improved (cropping, contrast, etc.). In addition, the "discussion" period forces people to potentially visit the page twice; also, it's inevitable that people will eventually start voting during the discussion period, especially with RfAs that have little or no discussion, as evidenced by what happened at WP:FPC. Next, I also disagree with the mandate toward diffs. The current process works fine; people who give strong reasons provide strong reasons, and people who don't, don't. Requiring diffs won't do anything but make people spend time searching for that specific diff, a time-consuming task. Also, I also disagree with the "poll". Calling a vote a "poll" won't change it; people will still be saying *'''Support''' ~~~~ or *'''Oppose''' ~~~~ ; calling a wolf a sheep won't change the fact that it's still a wolf. Finally, could the advocates of this proposal mind clarifying what they think is wrong with the current RfA process and how this proposal fixes that? Thanks! (Sorry for the long diatribe :-) , but I'm pretty tired right now. Apologies if any of it is unclear; I'll clarify any questions tomorrow.) Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What you raise seem to be common objections...I'll address them right now then:

As for running it concurrently with RFA being problematic; why in the world do you think Linuxbeak and I tried to suspend RFA?
As for The 'discussion'; We want people to visit the page twice, and what is accomplished by this is that it solves the problem of people voting and then valid objections being brought up. Or a false objection being brought up, and people sheep voting oppose, and when it is cleared up nobody comes back (for example sockpuppets may cause confusion).
Requiring Diffs; we've become more lenient on this as the policy proprosal has progressed. But we want substantiation. Real substantiation.
Calling a vote a poll; when I changed the header in the template it was sort of a light-hearted attempt to remind people that it isn't all the vote. We're just sort of guaging. If your tire needs 25 psi, you don't refill on 24.9.

I hope I answered your concerns. If not, feel free to prod (not PROD ;) ) me further. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer the most important question, in my view. What is fundamentally wrong with the existing process? I find some arguments I read in this page rather unconvincing. I feel that as Wikipedia goes along, more and more people are coming up with more and more rules, and in the same time there are people who are refusing to follow even existing rules, with all kind of excuses that the spirit of Wikipedia is more important than process, etc. We will end up with a lot of rules, suffocating Wikipedia, and with people who would just plainly refuse to follow them. As such, don't fix what's not broken, and leave the system as unburdened as possible. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem as I see with it is that people vote without seeing the bigger picture. As an admin, I, personally, would appreciate seeing more diffs and info than I have on any candidate. Especially with a ever-increasing influx of new users and potential admins. As a bureaucrat, it would make it easier to see if a candidate is worthy in borderline cases rather than reading through the votes (which should be deviated away from as a medium for discussion as much as possible. It is only supposed to guage community opinion.). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 05:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is no reason to forbid people from voting in the first three days, that's the thing. Just put the discussion on top, ask people to provide diffs, suggest that they do not rush to vote, but don't just introduce this artificial rule that for three days you may "just look, but don't touch". If there is a false accusation which would skew the votes, as somebody claims somewhere above, the bureaucrat should be smart enough to sift through that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. --kingboyk 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see asking people to wait is artificial, unless you believe people have closed minds and will vote their original way regardless of what anyone else says. Nor can I see how the closing bureaucrat can fairly weed out skewed votes due to false accusations, if I "oppose per x" then x turns out to be wrong, I might still oppose for other reasons, losing my vote based on a "smart bureacrat" doesn't seem right to me. I see the restriction on voting as a positive, in most other things you get discussion before being asked to make a decision, your comments (if you choose to make them) should give people a fair indication of which way you are currently inclined to vote, but removes the purely number making "oppose ~~~~" and "support ~~~~" from that. If anything I'd lean the other way 4 days discussion, 3 days voting... --pgk^(talk) 09:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. While this may sound ironic, considering I was the one (I think) to first suggest a discussion period one or two months ago for RfA, I've changed my position on this and don't think that it is necessary. Consider featured picture candidates (which is where I got the idea), where a two-day discussion period had been used until last month or so. The vast majority of pictures received no comments during the discussion period; for those that did, they were generally along the lines of "I love this picture!" or the opposite. Little discussion actually took place, and it was rare for a picture to be improved during the discussion period. Eventually, people started voting during the discussion period, and while some attempt was made to stop this, it was inevitable that it would occur; people saw the discussion period as simply an obstacle to voting. As such, the discussion period was eliminated because most everybody agreed that it burdened down the process and did little benefit. I don't see why implementing this into RfA will be different; granted, people are vastly different from pictures, but we should consider what happened in FPC here, especially with a longer proposed discussion period here (three days.) Also, consider the many RfAs that soar through with little or no opposition; what would the discussion be? "I think this is a great candidate!" "Concur!" ... voting begins, comments are repeated. What would be the gain? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly it. People are different than pictures, and there are some RfAs where there is a lot of discussion. As for voting during the discussion period, that's like saying "leaving Wikipedia pages open to editing means that some people are going to vandalize them. So let's at least sp all of them." — Ilyan e p (Talk) 15:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But we need to take into account what happened on WP:FPC here; you're proposing essentially the same process that was scrapped over there. I'm not saying that a few RfAs won't have discussion, but the vast majority won't have and/or need discussion. In addition, discussion already occurs on some RfAs; I fail to see how introducing a mandatory period will help enhance those discussions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But how is the detriment to those that won't have/need the discussion? In the clear cut cases then there is unlikely to be much discussion, but this doesn't "damage" those RFAs, those where more discussion up front would be beneficial will benefit. --pgk^(talk) 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing, a one size-fits all solution will just not work. Place as much emphasis on discussion as you would like, but don't order people that now matter what, under no circumstances, will you be allowed to vote till the three days expire. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(In response to Pgk) What's the detriment? Adding undue process and burdening the whole system. What's the benefit? The RfAs that need to be discussed will be discussed under either system, and those that don't need discussion will only be hindered by the proposal. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet if something happens after the first day, people will come back and see it. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Running concurrent with RFA

I think there is no problem with running this process concurrently with RFA. As long as there are bureaucrats willing to monitor this process and promote candidates on the basis of its result, that's the validity it needs. I see no particular problem if some candidates are being vetted and promoted through this process and some in RFA. A link to DFA should be provided at RFA so people know there is a new alternative. Demi ^T/_C 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This proposal seems to make no fundamental break from the existing process, so I also have no problem with it starting immediately. The sort of changes this incorporates, I think, don't particularly need the support of an explicit consensus (especially if nominees can choose between the two options). Christopher Parham (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the short run, I agree. Test it out, fine tune it, figure out what works, etc. In the long run, I think there should be only one process of sysoping, regardless of whether it is RFA, DFA, some hybrid, or something else. Allowing multiple different methods of sysoping allows for venue shopping among users, creates the possiblity that different forums would evolve different opinions of consensus, and pushes in the direction of allowing any burueacrat that disagrees to create their own process. Dragons flight 07:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the long run, there has to be only one process in motion. But, as per others above, I have no problem with the two processes running concurrently. I welcome it, in fact. If this new process is broken, we can switch back immediately. If it's warmly received, we switch the old process off. Simple. --kingboyk 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Running it concurrently seems silly and m:instruction creep; it means people have to watch two near-identical processes. This is not really a wholly new process, it is a set of modifications to the existing one (speficially, adding a few days of discussion sans voting, and a suffrage line). It would be far easier if the 'crats just replaced the current process with this one; we can always tweak it a bit in the future, we tweak everything as it's running. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- Strongly concur with Radiant! here. In no way should we be running two different processes at the same time; instead, we should proceed cautiously, gain community input and attempt to achieve a consensus. Not only would running two processes simultaneously cast doubt and confusion to the overall process, but it can't count as an experiment: we're letting the candidates choose which process they want, and that inherently introduces bias. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- - Which is what we (Linuxbeak and I) were thinking as well. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - Yes, thank you. That's part of the reason I urged you two to un-suspend the RfA process earlier; we shouldn't be halting a current process that isn't in dire or immediate need of being stopped to test something that still needs a lot more discussion. I apologize if I was I little bit blunt earlier, but I simply felt that suspending RfA was not the best choice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple Explanation

I think there will be a lot of unnecessary question-and-answer in the next few days that pointlessly duplicates what's already been discussed. The process that led from Problem -> Discussion -> Solution should be explained in a few simple sentences, at the top of this page, so people know a) it hasn't been done in a hurry or without discussion, b) exactly what the problem is being addressed and c) how this addresses some of the causes of those problems. It should be a very simple explanation, suitable for the skimmer. Demi ^T/_C 07:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should do like they did for WP:RFR and make a common objections/questions page. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Well, I've been travelling the world for the last few months so might have missed something; but two things are very unclear to me with this proposal which seems to have emerged somewhat out of the blue. First, what exactly is the deficiency with the current process that needs rectifying? Second, how does this proposal rectify it? If it ain't broke... Worldtraveller 10:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, check out this page. - Turnstep 15:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read that discussion before, and it brings up general issues that people think are wrong with RfA. I don't see any specific problems in there, and I fail to see how this proposal addresses those. In fact, as I detailed above, I think this will introduce a lot more problems rather than solve them. Given the success of how RfA is running (granted, it's not perfect, but no system is perfect), we should advance cautiously; there's no pressing need to switch systems at this moment and cut short the discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Too many pages?

I've created a map of all the pages involved in this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/map. Hopefully it will be useful. Feel free to edit it. Turnstep 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I point out the irony of saying there are too many pages and then creating a new page? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:) Turnstep 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How?

Perhaps we need to rewrite the guidelines in this proposal just a tad. We need to set a new treshhold that relies less on voting. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

While I'd like that, I don't quite see how that is possible, unless you get a Neutral Party to decide whether people become admins or not (and that will quickly lead to accusations of cabalism). >Radiant< 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully our neutral party is/are the bureaucrats. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we discuss it all over again?

I found it kind of stupid that some people "unsuspended" the RFA on grounds that it hadn't been discussed properly, since those people were unaware that it had been discussed for a long time. The most non-confusing way to transfer is to stop RFA for one week to get all old noms cleared out, and then have all new noms work in the new way. This change is no big deal! Why are so many people complaining about the way things are being changed, when they don't actually object to what it's being changed into? WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If it helps you feel any better, I'm happy to point out that I actually do dislike what it's being changed into. Specifically, as noted above, I feel the pre-poll discussion is a rather awkward and artificial distinction. And yes, I do see it as something of a big deal since you intend to teach a whole population of a RFA voters a new way of doing things. I have no objection to running concurrent noms for a while to ease into your system and judge reactions, but if you simply want to replace RFA with DFA, then I think you do need to have a broader and more widely advertised discussion of this specific proposal than has happened previously. Dragons flight 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1)I'm not stupid. 2)It hadn't, and hasn't been discussed for a long time. This proposal came out of the blue. 3)It is a big deal to fundamentally reform a major process such as creating admins. 4)I did, and partially do object to what it is being changed into and would prefer that minimization of objections be avoided. -Splash^talk 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that. The point is really that endless discussion isn't going to do anything. If I may cite Wikipedia:Deletion reform, it went on for several months and had zero productive outcome. There is a significant amount of people backing change (see WP:AAP) and ultimately it's a matter of taking the initiative. >Radiant< 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Initiative is fine by me. I realize not everyone agrees, but I would be happy to see you run 10 or so noms through DFA so we have real examples to talk about when discussing permanent changes. Dragons flight 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  - But people would've complained if we were to run them concurrently. We were trying to confuse less people by clearing out all of the old-style noms and making a trial of DFA-style noms. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I came to the same basic conclusion in the past 24 hours. Endless discussions are unnecessary. As long as the bureaucrats will only promote people with legitimate consensus (and obviously our fine bureaucrats will do this), let them play with the process as they want. We users/voters will adjust to doing whatever they request us to do and will give them plenty of feedback. I hand to them my blank check... ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

>Radiant< and NoSeptember ^talk, the devil is in the details. Change can make a situation worse. I stated my objections to this specific draft. How could we do that earlier? It was still being written. I think this protocal is going to make the process worse not better. This isn't going to make candidates better prepared, a main objection on most Rfa. Requiring diffs will make it a big deal and potentially re-ignite more conflicts. Make more work for the editors polling voting (If it walk like a duck...). The solution needs to fix the real problems without making more of them. --FloNight 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it warrant a trial, though? Personally, I don't think any more conflicts will arise here than in RFA. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) The reason I urged our bureaucrats to "unsuspend" the RfA process was twofold: first, there had been little discussion about the specific proposal, and it certainly had not gained widespread support, and secondly, while I appreciate their boldness, two bureaucrats cannot simply suspend the RfA process if it's not in dire need of being stopped to test out a proposal. This site has always been run by community consensus, as the bureaucrats should know; it's always been discuss first and then implement. While I'm all for not being bureaucratic, we definitely need a lot more time to discuss this issue, and I've seen a significant number of people (in fact, maybe even a majority) oppose this proposal (including myself). We shouldn't be rushing into such a major change. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Simpler idea~~
Why not just move the comments section above the Support section, so everyone who wants to make an informed vote has to read any and all discussion before actually writing down '''Extreme puppy support''' ~~~~ or whatever? If we want to emphasize discussion, that seems to be an easy way to do it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is that we want people to come back a second time. The first four or five voters see an empty comments section. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but any truly controversial nomination will see most of the discussion on the first day, so why not just hold off voting for the first day only, and then just keep the current process? I know that I don't vote in the first day of any nominations if I don't know the nominee, explicitly to wait for comments (if I know the nominee, I just vote anyways). However, dragging it down more than one day does not have as many benefits discussion-wise as you would expect. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd note that I attempted to gently prod people into commenting rather than voting by both putting the voting area the way at the bottom and with an html comment suggesting. Note even one taker. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
~~A few minor things about suffrage~~
I understand why we want to introduce a suffrage for the polling, but why do we want a suffrage for discussions? What is wrong if an IPnumber or a new user presents diffs? Otherwise, what do we plan to do if an anon participate in discussion and presents a valid info? - Delete his comment??

We must explicitly specify whether the edit counts are for the English wikipedia along or include all the Language wikipedias. A user can have only a few edits in English Wiki and tonnes of edits elsewhere.

I personally find 500/100 suffrage to be ridiculously low, can we at least specify that this is only about the edits in the articles namespace?

Obviously if the CheckUser facility identify multiple votes from the same user, all of the such votes should be striked out (disregarding how many edits per account the voter may have). abakharev 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what would happen, but how much can a user have to contribute to the discussion if they haven't even been here for a month or don't even bother signing up for an account?

English Wikipedia as it has always been. We're not electing stewards here.

The point was to be ridiculously low. We want to weed out trolls and week-old users.

I don't know about this one.
~~— Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)~~
There are long-time users, who for some obscure reasons prefer to remain anonymous, why not to allow them to produce facts? I am second that the new users may be better posed to point out WP:BITE, etc.

Then we probably better specify it exactly?

Well, any troll I could think of has more than 100 edits anyway, but I see your point

I think it should be stated exactly to prevent controversy abakharev 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have any indications of sockpuppetry, the checkusers should stay out of RFAs. There's no need to reveal private details without reason. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. The point it what to do with the vote if the checkuser was used (for a reason I believe). abakharev 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New user are the best people to point out WP:BITE. --FloNight 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Suffrage to vote for RfA? I hope we won't get there. Gosh, more and more rules, of doubtful value, and with extra overhead of implementing them. There's got to be better things to do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Know-nothing newbies~~
New users are not all ignoramuses. There seems to be a presumption here that they cannot possibly have anything to say that is worth listening to until they've been here for a month. This is a mixture of insult and elitism. Most people can spot a troll a mile off and they signally fail to disrupt RfA at present. I'm not sure I've seen a convincing case for suffrage other than "they don't know ****". My first RfA vote was about a month after I joined, but that's only because I didn't feel like it; I personally think I could have contributed usefully before the 30 day mark. -Splash^talk 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, another reason why we should't have Suffrage is because it allows for some candidates to delete votes and then late on clam that it was a newb vote. I have all ready had some of my votes disappear even without this rule. Mjal 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps they are disappearing not because of the rule? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible, there are many people who can contribute as sysops before 30 days on wikipedia, the problem is that it it almost impossible to judge if a user could be a good sysop until he or she contributed some material. Regarding the "new users" voting on RfA, they are highly likely to do it for the wrong reasons (e.g. after campaigning on an internet board or on a language wiki). abakharev 01:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we eliminating WP:AGF, too? --FloNight 01:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF means that we assume good faith of any individual editor and edit until there are compelling reasons to believe otherwise. It does not mean that we should build our policy on the false assumptions that bad faith edits and/or editors never exist. abakharev 01:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Ask participants in the discussion to introduce themselves?~~
Maybe we should ask the participants in the discussion to introduce himself? Say answer to two questions: "What are your main contributions to Wikipedia?" and "How have you heard about the RfA?" abakharev 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Sounds good as long as it's non-confrontational. I think we should be as welcoming as possible to newbies. --FloNight 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
How is that going to help us elect better administrators? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, quite often, the comment mostly states an opinion: "Nice guy, I am sure he would not abuse the admin tools", "The guy has strong POV and is not suitable for the job, etc.". The opinions are of different reliability depending upon the experience and aspirations of the commenter ("I am a an admin and an author of such and such articles...", "I mostly work on a language Wiki, in the English one, I mostly enter the interwiki liks", "I am here to weed out of such and such POV, my main contribution is the revert war on ... and moving ... articles", etc.) as well as the purpose of the participation in RfA ("I am a regular here", "I got a message from the nominator", "I read recommendation to vote against the candidate on the internet board..."). Depending on the answers the opinion expressed may have a different merit abakharev 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice in theory. The last thing I want to do when voting for somebdy is saying "I am admin, from Moldova, I have been here for 15 months, I have that many edits, I am well-respected, at least I hope so, I was never blocked, I like math, and all in all, I support this person for admin!". Highly unlikely to work in practice. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You can even make it a template. Why do you think it would not work? At the very least it would save us the red pixels on the outlining the possible sockpuppets abakharev 04:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I imagine now the new rule:Every person willing to vote for admin must have his own template with brief bio! Your bio will be checked for accuracy before you are allowed to vote!. I find the proposal outlined in this section be a rule for its own sake. I don't think it will lead to better administrators. It will be just a burden. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I predict we will soon have a WP:RFVP (Request for Voting Privileges) page. I'm composing my RfVP standards now ;-) There aren't that many true newbies finding their way here. Anything over 100 edits and/or one week is overkill. NoSeptember ^talk 01:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you propose? Why not let anons vote then? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Very few newbies come here. A troll would have to work a bit to get to 100 edits (Bling-chav never got there). The one week rule makes sense so that non-english wikiers can't sign up to support their friend's RfA without time running out on them. We don't need to create high newbie barriers until we get flooded by newbies. I see a lot of newbies get active very quick, if they catch the wiki bug. NoSeptember ^talk 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Introducing ourselves to newbies is always a good idea. If very new person comments or votes , a freindly welcome to DFA would be nice. It shouldn't be an interrogation, but a little chit-chat about their experience on Wikipedia would be fine. Prevent later questions about sock or meatpuppets. --FloNight 02:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Request for examples~~
The central point of this proposal is that by forcing substantial discussion to occur before anyone votes, the discussion will be more informed, producing better results. Could someone link some examples of nominations where this sort of procedure would likely have produced a better result than what actually happened? It would be enlightening to see examples of the problems this is intended to solve. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't be sensible! There goes me night, digging through old nominations...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Eequor jumpts to mind immediately. We had discussions with the developers and actually had developers and IIRC even a steward endorsing her (after people were voting oppose because she had supposedly ticked those people off!), but to no avail. :-/ Kim Bruning 10:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
How will this fix that problem? You can't make people have good sense. : ) --FloNight 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)