Content deleted Content added
→Round Two done, Round Three is up: Probation |
The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) ←Redirected page to Much Ado About Nothing |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Much Ado About Nothing]] |
|||
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|||
{{info|This is '''not''' the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. '''To do so, please [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate|follow these instructions]].'''}} |
|||
{{RfA Navigation|WT:RFA}} |
|||
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}} <!-- {{User:X!/RfX Report}} {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} --> |
|||
{{Clear}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
|counter = 222 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(10d) |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{archives|auto=no|search=yes|list=[[/Archives#2003|2003]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2004|2004]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2005|2005]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2006|2006]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2007|2007]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2008|2008]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2009|2009]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2010|2010]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2011|2011]]{{,}} [[/Archives#2012|2012]] |
|||
---- |
|||
{{{!}} style="text-align: center; background: none" |
|||
{{!}} colspan=10 {{!}} Most recent |
|||
{{!}}- |
|||
{{!}} |
|||
{{Archiveline|set=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_|number=20|next=210}} |
|||
{{Archiveline|set=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_|number=21|next=220}} |
|||
{{!}}} |
|||
}} |
|||
<big>Current time: {{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}<br />{{purge|Purge this page}}</big> |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
== RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA) == |
|||
{{formerly|Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA)}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 07:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) --> |
|||
As part of [[User talk:MBisanz/Archive 16#RfA concluded|the discussions arising from a recent RfA]] I've worked up some proposals to attempt to clarify things for participants. There's been some recent discussion [[User talk:Trevj#"RfC" for RfA guideline changes re canvassing and thank-yous|on my talk page]], and it now seems time to seek wider views. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
::'''''RfC note:''' Because of the relatively low participation levels here so far, at what is sometimes a busy place, I'm now starting an RfC on this. If consensus is clear before the 30 days are up, it may be appropriate to close it early. Thanks.'' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
;Outline |
|||
#{{tl|RfA/sandbox}} is based on {{tl|RfA}} |
|||
#It includes the [[Template:RfA/sandbox#Conduct clarification|#Conduct clarification]] section, which is currently at [[Template:RfA conduct clarification/sandbox]] (should this approach be adopted, it may be best to directly include the text, due to the substitution of {{tl|RfA}}) |
|||
#[[User:Trevj/Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/sandbox]] is based on {{tl|Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}} (in userspace because of the protection on editnotices) - the {{tl|cot}} title could be replaced with ''Conduct clarification'' but the current transclusion arrangement uses the title ''Applicable to all'' |
|||
;Rationale |
|||
#There may be a need to clarify when it's appropriate for candidates to publicly thank others |
|||
#Badgering is something which comes up from time to time, and perhaps also deserves an explicit mention |
|||
;Questions |
|||
#Would something along these lines offer an improvement (bearing in mind that we should [[WP:avoid instruction creep|avoid instruction creep]])? |
|||
#If so, can wording be agreed upon here? |
|||
#If the proposal (or a variant of it) offers no improvement, how else can we better address the matters raised? |
|||
Thanks for reading. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support'''. I strongly endorse the clarifications regarding (1) the prohibition of canvassing by any and all parties regarding an RfA, and (2) the prohibition of talk page thank-you notes by candidates until the RfA is closed. [[User:Dirtlawyer1|Dirtlawyer1]] ([[User talk:Dirtlawyer1|talk]]) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. Simple fix to a real problem. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>[[User:Garamond Lethe|Garamond Lethe]]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">[[User talk:Garamond Lethe|t]]<br/>[[Special:Contributions/Garamond Lethe|c]]</span></tt></span></small> 21:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' While the effort is appreciated, I'm not sure this is a good idea for several reasons. Some things - like civility and badgering - cannot be defined and we don't want editors to err on the side of timidity. The badgering clause, for example, may actually end up having a chilling effect on discussions (candidates may be wary of asking legitimate questions from an oppose !voter because of the badgering clause). The "off topic" clause is practically an invitation to editors to move things to the talk page. Once moved, it becomes harder for others to move them back. The 'diffs' suggestion is the only workable one and even that needs to be modified to "try to provide diffs'. We can't expect every !voter to provide diffs (see the support section of any RfA!). I could add that many of the things being advised against are actually good ways to get the measure of a candidate as well but, even without that, this is not a good idea. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 21:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*:Thanks. What about the bit concerning not canvassing? (The diff note is lifted from {{tl|Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}}, and isn't my wording.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 22:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Its not just CREEP; one of the things we look for in a potential admin is CLUE. If we actually have to instruct them not to do this, then it is likely they aren't ready for the bit. [[User:Puppy|Puppy]] ([[User talk:Puppy|talk]]) 10:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Does no harm but as the previous editor points out, it should be obvious that sending thank you messages before closure is naive. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 14:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Wrong Place'''. Instead, I would suggest that [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Thankspam]] be slightly edited to give guidance during an RfA instead of being for successful candidates as it stands now. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<small>(Here by request of RFC Bot)</small> While i'm leaning towards oppose because of the idea of not being able to thank people for taking part in an RfA before it closes just doesn't seem fair to judge to me i'm also aware of the suggestion that Badgering needs to be mentioned and i'm probably missing a lot of factors here so i'm gonna lean towards '''Neutral''' for this one. [[User:Matticusmadness|MIVP]] - [[User talk:Matticusmadness|(Can I Help?) <small>(Maybe a bit of tea for thought?)</small>]] 09:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' (original poster) I'm restoring this RfC from [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 222|Archive 222]], because it's not yet been closed. Therefore, I'm also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&action=view&diff=546867429 requesting closure]. Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*:In closing this, maybe it'd be helpful if some reference could be made to comments raised in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC|2013 RfC]] (which I've not been following closely). Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' --[[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] ([[User talk:Amadscientist|talk]]) 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*:Is there any chance of you expanding on that, please (and maybe addressing question 3)? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 09:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - I agree with the concerns given by RegentsPark and Puppy above. One of the things I look at when !voting is how the administrator handles themselves during the RfA. If we do want to be more explicit here though I agree with Guy Macon that it should be in the guidance thankspam section. [[User:PaleAqua|PaleAqua]] ([[User talk:PaleAqua|talk]]) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== RfB == |
|||
Once again, I earnestly plead with the Wikipedia Admin Corps. Is there no one willing to run for cratship? As of now, there are only about 31 crats on the English Wikipedia. That may not currently be a problem, but can we expect to have no attrition from our current list of crats? There were a mere 5 RfB last year and none so far this year. Note that last year's two successful RfB were closed with talies of 125/0/2 (for {{u|WilliamH}}) and 135/3/2 (for {{u|28bytes}}). There has to be somebody out there willing to give it a try! Somebody! Anybody! Well, okay, maybe not just anybody, but there has to be a good candidate who has the courage to try. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 18:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:31 'crats would be more than enough to handle the job if not for [[User:Snowolf/inactivecratstats#COMBINED|User:Snowolf/inactivecratstats]]. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I apologize, but time and burnout have not been on my side. [[User:Useight's Public Sock|Useight's Public Sock]] ([[User talk:Useight's Public Sock|talk]]) 17:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just a minor point, but I think your "lifetime" section for userrights might be incorrect. Have you included the data from the old log at: [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log]]? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's a very good point, I have not. I have changed the title to "since 2005" as it is more accurate. Might end up doing a full update including that data at some point in the future. Thanks for pointing it out! <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 19:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::It's hard enough getting people through RFA, let alone RFB - most, if not all, admins will have pissed-off some ne'er-do-well(s) who will pop up and rear their ugly heads at the RFB. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yeah, I had thought about it a year ago, but I have pissed off enough vandals and uncivil-types that it would likely make an RFB look pretty ugly :-) ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::In 2012's two successful RfB, the combined tally was 260/3/4. It can be done. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 19:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::In 2012, two successful RFBs - and three failed. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::True, but one of those can basically be thrown out (Apteva was not even an admin yet and he was SNOWED under). In the other two unsuccessful RfB, there were more than twice as many supports as opposes. It's not really as ugly as you might think. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Don't panic! There are many bureaucrats, such as myself, who are very active in other arenas, but not active as bureaucrats for whatever reason. I check daily to see if there any RfAs that need closing, and there never are because other bureaucrats have reached them first. Although there are many truly inactive bureaucrats, there are many such as myself who are not inactive as much as we are [[Redundancy (engineering)|redundant]]. That's not to say that more bureaucrats would not be a good thing, of course. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 19:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Indeed, but more bureaucrats wouldn't be a bad thing. Especially if they could improve our dire bureaucrat gender diversity statistics! <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 19:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}}I'm not really panicking, I'm just frustrated at the lack of activity with RfB. People complain about the situation at RfA and RfB is getting overlooked. Surely there is somebody willing to stick his or her neck out and keep the process from becoming completely stale. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Might have a go in another year or so, if the need exists and if I can increase my activity to the point of earning people's trust. Hey, it wasn't so bad [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana|last time]]. :P ~ [[User talk:Riana|Riana <font color="green">⁂</font>]] 20:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just please don't nominate Kelly Martin again during said year :P <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I might juuuust be able to avoid doing that. ~ [[User talk:Riana|Riana <font color="green">⁂</font>]] 20:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Probably wouldn't be too hard, given the fact that [[Special:Contributions/Kelly Martin|she hasn't even edited since December 2008]]. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*I have some good candidates for bureaucratship, but I'm not sure they'll accept just yet :) — [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''ΛΧΣ'''</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''<sup>21</sup>'''</font>]] 22:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Cratpromo.svg|thumb|A picture to illustrate Deskana's message. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 21:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)]] |
|||
*I believe that Rschen7754 should run for cratship. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**Thanks, but I don't think I would pass. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 22:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not sure I agree. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 22:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The problem seems to be a systemic fear instilled in all or most administrators considering a run. I commented two or three months ago that the rarity of RFB's seems to be the direct result of the rarity of RFB's, meaning we're inclined—as a community—to believe it must involve some unattainably high threshold because of the rarity of successful RFB's (or any RFB's) relative to RFA's. While this probably isn't true since some good candidates passed as recently as last year, it's that ''perception'' that induces fear in any potential candidates. I've given a glancing thought to running myself on one or two occasions—to delve into the mundane behind-the-scenes work 'crats do (RTV, CHU, etc. since that seems to be where help is needed) rather than closing RFA's—but am the first to admit that I'm subject to the fearful sentiment I spoke of at the beginning of my comment. I'd probably give it a second thought if it wasn't for the intimidating nature of the process (and my RFA a couple of years ago was approved unanimously—imagine the sentiment of someone who had a contentious RFA). RFB is really very intimidating. [[User:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">'''Tyrol5'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I understand completely, but you'd think somebody would at least ''try''. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::You're right. I feel bad because I'm not one to sit on the sideline when there's something to be volunteered for and nobody is volunteering. It's a pickle. I adhere to the maxim that it's better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all, so perhaps I'll give it another thought (but it'd be months from now at the absolute earliest). It's not fair to write the possibility off immediately and it's worth consideration. But I wouldn't hold my breath. [[User:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">'''Tyrol5'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 01:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ok. I wish more admins were at least wiling to give it consideration. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ditto. It's tough sometimes to see past the intimidation and there's quite a bit of reading and studying to do for someone considering RFB. I'll have a look and perhaps revisit the possibility in a few months. [[User:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">'''Tyrol5'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Are there backlogged crat jobs? Or is this just a fear that there may be in the future? [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:The second. After all, not all of the current crats are active and the number of total crats won't get higher if no one ever runs. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*AutoStrikeout, have you considered just going ahead and nominating people? They can always decline, but sometimes starting the process for them might be the proverbial kick to the butt they need to let the rest of the RfB process unfold. :) <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]· [[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">✉</span>]]</span> 02:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*I have asked at least three admins about it in the past little while. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Don't just ask, make a nomination statement. Let them really see why you think they would make good crats, and maybe they'll be more convinced. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 02:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't know. Between [[Wikipedia:Arbs are people too|this essay]], another essay I haven't finished yet and a project that I'm trying to get going, I might already have enough without taking on an RfB nomination. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small> 02:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*What might make sense is the concept of a highly experienced, clueful non-admin being a 'crat. Free from the political pressure, and so on. One could expand the concept to ArbCom, for that matter. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 03:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**The problem with that is that non-admins have run... and have failed. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
***Were they serious candidates? The only non-admin I can recall ran for ArbCom but came away with a most dismal showing. Of course, he had a massive block log and was subsequently banned by the community, and I would not call him serious. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 04:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
****Apteva last year. While it's not a rule that crats are admins on enwiki, it is the expected norm, and rightfully so, since crats have the technical power to make themselves admins. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 04:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*****True, and I see neither of us thought much of the idea of Apteva's candidacy. As you see, I totally forgot that one. Interesting how my attitude has come around in a mere six months... indicative of the sea change my thinking has undergone on the whole topic. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 04:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
******[[User:Pgallert]] stood for ArbCom last time round, and is not an admin. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I've been prodded by a couple people to run; I will eventually, but I'm just not up for it now. Still in the zone with my massive undertaking (can hardly believe a few more days will make it 3 months), and if I ever finish that I've got another not quite as huge one to go straight to. Not intimidated by RfB or anything, just feels kinda insignificant right now... [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Well bureaucrats do tend to play an inconspicuous role... and do seem insignificant. :P *runs off* --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 07:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Like I said, it's just a matter of when. Right now my mind is definitely not where I'd need it to be for an RfB (I'd like to think my current work is a lot more significant, but that's for everyone else to judge), so I'll wait until whenever that is. In the meantime I'd encourage someone else to start an RfB, because a few more bureaucrats certainly wouldn't do any harm. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Rschen, I don't think I can follow your argument. Technically I have the power to do quite a few things. I don't do them because it would do damage, most of us behave that way. I don't think a non-admin crat would ever even think of making themselves admin. That said, there is still the perception of ''not admin = not experienced or not willing to be scrutinised''. Hard to say if and when that might change. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 07:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Well, we have to be able to trust that they will not do that, and we also have to trust them in closing discussions, which admins do on a regular basis. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 07:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::So a non-admin who regularly closes AfDs and RfCs to the satisfaction of the crowd should be eligible, the danger is just that a handful of opposers is enough to sink an RfB, and a handful might always gather. That someone with X thousand edits and years of tenure would suddenly go berserk if given new rights is not an assumption we should make, per AGF. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*The issue of having non-admins as crats is a very interesting one and it would certainly be informative to see what would happen if a non-admin submitted an RfB (although I very strongly expect the candidate would not pass). However, in order for us to find out if a non-admin has a legitimate chance to be a crat without becoming an admin first, we would need somebody to try. It would have to be someone who actually had a decent chance to pass at RfA. Otherwise, the person would certainly not have been a legitimate contender for cratship. Of course, this would mean that somebody would possibly have to give up, at least temporarily, any hopes at becoming an admin just to be a test case in a situation where he or she would likely fail, as any non-admin who had an unsuccessful RfB might have to wait a while before trying an RfA. In other words, the risk seems to far outweigh the reward for any ambitious non-admin wanting to become a crat first. I realize that the crat bit might actually carry less real authority than the admin bit, but the perception does not really align with that. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:dark Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:dark Blue">AAPT</span>]])</small> 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I became a crat in 2008. Generalising wildly, at that time, the crats who used their tools with any sort of regularity (see, for example, [[User:NoSeptember/crat_stats#Renames_by_bureaucrat_by_month|this analysis]]) were the half dozen or so who'd been appointed since mid 2007, with the odd notable exception. Since then, that 2007-> group has mostly remained active. We've sadly lost a couple through retirement but have net gained. I'm not sure there's any crisis now or looming, albeit I'm sure MBisanz would like more help with his heroic efforts at the CHU pages. Most of what we do is, as the name "bureaucrat" suggests, exceedingly boring. And with the small number of RfAs these days, I'd say the task has become more dull than it once was. I hardly ever get the chance to close an RfA. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Possibly a difficulty is that a newly promoted admin lacks the skill, or indeed the confidence, to go for RfB; whereas a long serving admin recognises that there are enough editors who will likely vote against that s/he feels it is pointless to try. I have been an admin now for a number of yesars and, while i do not think I have made any major mistakes, I am certain that i have incurred a degree of disfavour among some editors. It is difficult to do the job without doing so. And this makes elevation to 'crat, for many of us, beyond aspiration.--<font color="Red">[[User:Anthony Bradbury|'''Anthony Bradbury''']]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:Anthony.bradbury|"talk"]]</font></sup> 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll second that opinion. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 13:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, that was a very well-stated assessment. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:dark Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:dark Blue">AAPT</span>]])</small> 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Anthony, that was very well written and introspective. Nevertheless, if you were to ever submit an RfB, there is no question in my mind that you would receive the broad support of the community. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 13:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== curious == |
|||
Does anyone here know what the fastest [[WP:100]] was? Just curious. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Just grabbing some WP:100 RfBs, here are the following times for the first 100 supports: |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WJBscribe]] – a little over two days |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2]] – almost three days |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident]] – almost three days |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse]] – almost three days |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay]] – over three days |
|||
:Also WP:200 RfBs (still first 100 supports): |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana]] – about 14 hours |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton]] – about 21 hours |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MBisanz]] – about a day and a half |
|||
:These are just a few that I found and (roughly) calculated. '''[[User:The Anonymouse|The Anonymouse]]''' ([[User talk:The Anonymouse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/The Anonymouse|contribs]]) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks The Anonymouse - looks like Riana has the time to beat then. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I wonder if the current RfB will get to 200. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:dark Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:dark Blue">AAPT</span>]])</small> 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I wouldn't be surprised ASO. A ''very'' respected editor. (good call on the nom) — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Heh. Kinda interesting that my RfB got 200 supports within the first 14 hours and only got 37 more supports in the 4.5 more days it was open! Guess those 39 opposes did what they were meant to do ;) ~ [[User talk:Riana|Riana <font color="green">⁂</font>]] 22:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry if the stats were confusing, but you got '''100''' supports in the first 14 hours, not 200. '''[[User:The Anonymouse|The Anonymouse]]''' ([[User talk:The Anonymouse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/The Anonymouse|contribs]]) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hah, that makes a lot more sense. And I should have verified, too! ~ [[User talk:Riana|Riana <font color="green">⁂</font>]] 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Depends on how you measure things. [[WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 4]] took 52 hours from first vote to hundredth vote. Measuring from [[WP:Requests for adminship/Kww]], it was over eighteen months.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:What was over eighteen months? '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:dark Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:dark Blue">AAPT</span>]])</small> 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Another request for adminship. '''[[User:TBrandley#top|<span style="color:darkorange">TB</span>]][[User talk:TBrandley#top|<span style="color:red">randley</span>]]''' 17:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh! He meant eighteen months between his first and last RfA? '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]][[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="orange">Strikeout</font>]]</span>''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:dark Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:dark Blue">AAPT</span>]])</small> 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== A humble request == |
|||
I know it was six years ago now, but if anyone ever gets the urge to try an RfA with a format like [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis|this]] again, please do me and everyone else looking through the archives a huge favour — '''''don't'''''. It is incredibly tedious to have to determine raw tallies from such convoluted discussions (although I know the whole point of that one was to try and avoid the straw poll process we've become so accustomed to over the past decade). |
|||
Thanks. =) [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:While we're on the topic of experimental RFA's, the format of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2]] (questioning period prior to a !voting period) was arguably more successful and much less convoluted than the one you mention. Although, the experimental nature of the RFA itself was a source of drama during it, so I wouldn't suggest an experimental RFA for anyone, unless of course it is a candidate-consented and community-approved trial. [[User:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">'''Tyrol5'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 16:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't even have to look at that one to remember what happened — they talked about Ironholds for several days, with nothing negative coming up. Then it goes live, and [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] suddenly shows up out of the blue to oppose based on concerns regarding his temperament. As a result, [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] deemed it ineffective and arbitrary. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 06:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ironholds' second RfA is occasionally mentioned here, but as you've named me in this instance, I'll comment. I regretted sinking his candidacy; while others said that the oppose proved that type of RfA wouldn't work, that didn't change the way I felt (and possibly how Ironholds felt either, as it was his RfA). :( I should have used the question period, as was the point of that RfA. I'm glad he passed a later RfA. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 11:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::As am I, despite having gone neutral in his subsequent successful RfA. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::@Kurtis: My point being that, while there is very little chance of an experimental RFA being successful or otherwise deemed successful (in the event of a failed candidacy), Ironholds' second was dramatically less convoluted than the one you've linked. It was more organized and, while very flawed, was an interesting trial nonetheless and one more streamlined and organized than Moralis'. The only different from the current process that I could deduce from a glance at the latter is putting all the !votes under one heading, rather than three, making it very difficult to follow (and, I imagine, would've been quite a time investment for the closing 'crat, but that's beside the point). [[User:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">'''Tyrol5'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Tyrol5|<font color="#960018">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh, of course it was. The one I linked was so messy that it literally gave me a headache reading through it. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Round Two done, Round Three is up == |
|||
[[WP:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2|Round Two]] of the Requests for Comment (RfC) on the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process was a success by any measure, and has now been closed. The [[WP:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3|final round]] is a one-week vote on two proposals that got support, but relatively few votes, so we're advertising widely and hoping for broader participation in Round Three. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I put up notifications here and at [[WP:CENT]], [[WP:VPR]], [[WP:AN]], and Jimbo's talk page, and Ed will be putting a notice in the ''Signpost''. Does anyone want a notification anywhere else? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 15:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::After Round Three is over, what do you intend to do with the heavily supported proposals from Round Two that aren't being dealt with in the current round? '''''[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#00008B;">Automatic</span><span style="color:#FFA500;">Strikeout</span>]]''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#FFA500;">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:#00008B;">AAPT</span>]])</small> 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::The delete-your-own-pages proposal has already gone to the devs ... are you talking about the 3 proposals intended to drum up new candidates, or do you mean Probation and Recall too? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I mean any proposals that were not defeated in Round Two but aren't being discussed in Round Three. '''''[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#00008B;">Automatic</span><span style="color:#FFA500;">Strikeout</span>]]''''' <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#FFA500;">C</span>]] • [[WP:AAPT|<span style="color:#00008B;">AAPT</span>]])</small> 17:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Okay, fair question. I'll be watching with interest as people work on the 3 proposals to try to drum up new candidates, and I'll probably participate, but I won't take a leading role; I don't see myself as the leader of these processes, all I did was make a proposal for an RfC and close Round Two with Ed, and we'll be closing Round Three (which won't take much effort). - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*The predictable part. Round 3 is failing. Overwhelming opposition of both proposals.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline</sub> 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
We've added another proposal, "Probation", to Round Three. Have a look. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:31, 1 April 2013
Redirect to: