Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2008

RFA ending times

I've noticed around here that adminship requests are nearly always closed hours early, often by a bureaucrat who voted in it. I added a note to the main page - "Bureaucrats should close only after the acceptance time, unless the consensus is clear and they did not vote." In the past, I have closed early, when I'm about to go to bed, or I'm off out, and I don't know if another bcrat will be around. But I think, that with 6 elected bcrats (much too many imo, but there you go), there's no need to race to be the one to close. If you vote in the RFA, I don't think that you should lose the right to close it (although that would be ideal), but you should certainly wait around for other more neutral bcrats instead of closing early. I'd like to have people's thoughts on this, particular other bcrats. Majorly (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I hope one or some hours delay of promotion make little harm on this project .. yet. --Aphaia 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Even if a candidate had to wait for one or two days, that should be no problem at all. I don't think that it happens that no admin is available at all and that it's therefore necessary to promote as early as possible. ;o) --Thogo (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a reminder to me. I did close one a day early (miscalculated on part my) however having noticed Majorly then closed one in under the full 7 days I did close today's slightly early. I shall not do so again but as Majorly & I are the main active 'crats at present I felt it totally inappropriate for Majorly to handle the promotion as he had nominated the user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All the other bcrats are active, however they are just not getting to the jobs soon enough (perhaps we are too fast? ^_^) This is a reminder to everyone, including myself. I've noticed that I, Herby and M7 often close early, but I feel it is perhaps unnecessary. We have plenty of admins here, so as Thogo says it isn't urgent. I for one won't be closing early again. Other projects will wait until at least after the ending time, and I intend to abide by that. Majorly (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going anywhere :P..you could have extended to 2 more weeks and I wouldn't have complained but the "time" factor is a problem in enwikipedia where a bureaucrats promotes more than 6 hours later or more in most cases since the crats are usually "unavailable" but I don't see any problems here so time isn't really a factor and since we have abundance of "active" crats here..I don't think it will ever be a problem :) ..and off-beat since Majorly nominated, 'your's truly', it will be reasonable if an uninvolved crat close the nom and maybe promote the victim ahh new admin..--Cometstyles 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

>you could have extended to 2 more weeks and I wouldn't have complained

But we would have! :) --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 14:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I always wait till the full time has passed. I've yet to actually close one because someone else always has gotten to it first. :( I agree that we should always wait the full time. I also agree that unless there is some real extenuating circumstance, with the number of active 'crats we have, it is best that the nominator not be the closer. I'll go farther and suggest that the closer perhaps ought not to even have voted. (that's usually what I do on commons, only close ones I didn't vote in, but I don't think that I've hewed to that 100%)... waiting the full time ought to be a requirement, not closing ones you nominate a very strong suggestion, and not closing ones you voted in a regular or weakish suggestion. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal. On next elections, the first "passer-by" could easily add a phrase

This election will be open at least until [%first_vote_timestamp+7 days]

Is it feasible?

--M/ 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that earlier..but forgot typical..yeah a Time frame added next to the candidate similar to enwiki format might just work :) ..--Cometstyles 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. Lar: the nominator ought to never close, unless the RFA is ridiculously overdue. I closed one RFA I had nominated, and that was wrong of me. However, unless you vote very strongly one way or the other, I don't think it matters that much if you vote and promote, especially as the result is usually clear. Majorly (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've slightly edited Meta:Requests_for_adminship, suggesting to set a minimum ending date on the elections. Would you please check my wording there? --M/ 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not to see a rule that says the closing 'crat cannot have voted. Meta is a small & friendly community and one vote - usually of many - does not seem to me to be undermining the foundations of anything? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a rule about it, it's a "suggestion" or recommended practice that I think we should adopt. I would say it is much less important in cases where the outcome is almost unanimous one way or the other than in cases where the vote of the closer might be the deciding vote one way or the other (or close to it). That is where a perception of a conflict of interest is likely to arise (rightly or wrongly about whether it IS one, it's the perception that causes the problem) and we should always avoid that where ever possible. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if an RfA is closed slightly early, but I wouldn't see an RfA closed too early because of this note. I don't think this note is necessary, so I propose to remove it. Korg 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree, to some extent. I feel like it is more of a BEAN rule added to the ruleset. I think we can remove it. Huji 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Majorly changed it; thanks to him. Korg 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stewards & sysop rights on Meta

I am sure there is an argument that all stewards should be granted admin rights for the duration of the stewardship (as part of their stewardship). It is suggested that they should be active on Meta anyway and it would save the rash of RfA? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on Jusjih's RfA, I'd support this. Of course, the elected admins would stay that way even after their stewardship ends, provided they are reconfirmed. --FiLiP ¤ 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with this; I have often wondered about why this was not so previously. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. Meta is its own community, and stewards don't necessarily need to be admins. For example, Darkoneko has managed quite well without admin rights. If they want rights, they can go for RFA, which they will obviously pass, but it's the best way to do it. Majorly (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point Majorly, but, Meta kind of being the middle ground for stewards, where all the requests come in, it makes sense to me. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They were elected as stewards not Meta sysops. If they want Meta adminship, they can use RFA like everyone else. Majorly (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but that way at least they loose them when they cease to be stewards :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar situation with stewards and checkusers on meta. Stewards are, AFAICS, allowed to have CU status on meta, even though they weren't elected. And they lose the status once they lose stewardship. This would be the same. --FiLiP ¤ 13:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They'd pass RFA with ease... they may as well use it. I'd prefer checkuser to be elected too, but I suppose there isn't much I can do about that. Majorly (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose a policy change and see how it goes. I'd oppose it but that's the approach I would think would be best. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The CU rights (or at least my suggestion for them) is for "log access" only. They should be aware of what is going on. Frankly CU requires some experience and to some degree it worries me that stewards get to use it in fairly complex cases without any real knowledge (unless they happened to have the rights before) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad that Spacebirdy has put herself forward for a vote, instead of just giving herself the right. This is the best way imo as she's more accountable. I agree it would be perhaps useful for stewards to have log access, but not necessary. If they are active in fighting cross wiki spam/vandalism, then they can request checkuser access. Some stewards tend to only deal with the user rights side of things, and thus don't need the access. Majorly (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last part (if you don't plan to do CU you don't need CU for log access) but not the rest. Her vote would not be necessary to grant log access CU, and in fact I'd oppose, if all she wanted was log access and nothing more, on the grounds that it was an unnecessary vote and a waste of time. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unelected CU access on meta is a special case... you need log access "somewhere" to carry out duties (or else you have to temporarily turn on CU somewhere every time you want to check a log... many of my CU activities start with a log check and go no further) and by convention or practice, it's come to be here. I think that's fine, every steward should have it for that just for the asking. But to carry out checks here they should stand for election. I further would oppose unelected admin or 'crat access for stewards on meta, as there is no particular need for either to carry out steward duties. To Herby's point the best we can do there is to make sure they're on the CU mailing list, and urge them to ask for help if they have any questions or concerns as well as informally offer to review things and give feedback if desired. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA suffrage

I recommend we go ahead and resolve this unresolved, now troublesome issue. My recommendations:

1. Any editor in good standing on a Wikimedia project may comment in a meta RfA
2. To have their comments counted in the required support totals, participants must have at least 50 useful, non-trivial edits on meta and must have had an active account here for at least 3 months.
3. Canvassing here or elsewhere is forbidden. Bureaucrats have wide latitude to disregard comments from participants that may have been drawn here as a result of canvassing. As a start, I suggest looking to the en.wikipedia guideline, en:Wikipedia:Canvassing, for guidance on what is and isn't canvassing. (Note: I do not mean to imply en.wikipedia should call the shots here -- it's just a usefull document I'm familiar with).
4. The same standards apply to admin reconfirmation.
5. Except in the case of RfA irregularities, bureaucrats have some (but only limited) latitude in interpreting community consensus.

I'm sure others will have good ideas -- I offer the above as a starting point. Mainly I would like to see this resolved quickly. We've certainly flogged it extensively already here and on other pages. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should have higher requirements for voting in an RfA/RfA confirmation. I would say 200 legitimate edits, 3 months activity to vote and 500 edits, 6 months activity for RfA candidates. --Meno25 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Way, way too high. I had barely 200 edits and a month of activity when I became an admin. I feel that we should perhaps raise the level to the same as Commons, 200 edits to become an admin and about 2 months activity (double from what I had this time last year, but standards do change). I think something like 20 edits for voting (obviously not spam welcoming), and no time limit (one of my earliest edits here was voting on the RfAs, and I'd hate to not be counted). Majorly (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I like most of A. B.'s proposal with the exception that I do think there is need for fairly wide latitude on reconfirmations... see Meta_talk:Administrators/confirm#status_to_be_confirmed_in_July_2006 which pretty clearly shows quite a bit of discretion being applied. As I've said elsewhere I think that 'crats should take into account the relative contributions of admins when evaluating the confirmation... an admin that was relatively inactive presumably would be given less latitude/discretion than one that participated (as an admin or not...) extensively in key activities at Meta (coordination of projects, translations, actively participating in deletion discussions, helping out in evaluating interwiki links, etc etc) and which Meta would be more negatively impacted by losing their services. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally see Meta as being a somewhat "subservient" project (for lack of a better term), similar to Commons, but not quite as distinct. Some people only have accounts here so they can participate in Foundation-wide activities (such as discussing potential Wikimania venues), and therefore have low edit counts here, but have higher participation levels on their home projects. I understand the importance of people not grinding an axe here based on actions elsewhere, but I'm not convinced that account age and activity is the best way to sort out the trouble-makers from the regular users... though I fully realize how unhelpful I'm being in saying "I don't like that" without offering a counter-example. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Minimum of 50 edits for voters' requirement sounds quite reasonable, yet I have one concern now. If it is going to be applied to steward elections too, I oppose to that application. Steward has cross-wiki influence, thus voting rights should be remained for those who are not so active in meta but are active in their home wikis. If it applies to RfAs/admin confirmations for meta only, I do not oppose to the proposal.

Also, I would like to add as #6 of A.B.'s proposal that telling false things on the voting page, both by voters and by candidates, is forbidden, with additional sentence, those who told false things, regardless of voters or candidates, will be banned from meta for a while or indefinitely. Yassie 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now why would it be applied to steward elections? This is for our local adminship requests. I'm not sure where you get the idea otherwise. Majorly (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal that suffrage in steward elections be the same requirement as board elections... it requires activity on the home wiki and account linkage here, and does not emphasize activity here. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

50 edits?..that's a bit too low but I'll accept it if most of those 50 edits aren't to his/her userspace and secondly, they must have been on Meta for atleast 3 months so that we don't see new accounts being created prior to the confirmations and those accounts making small yet insignificant edits just to be able to vote on the confirmations and regarding yassie's comments its better to have

those who oppose without giving a validated reason or those that falsify claims just to prove a point regardless of how long they have been editing on meta, may be banned in accordance of policy till the confirmations are over and if they try to create sockpuppets to get their message through, they will be banned from meta indefinitely and their attitude may be reported to Bureaucrats of those Wikimedia wikis that they are part of

.. it's a bit shocking but its more to the point, since it elaborates on how "serious" this confirmations are to be taken and will and should prevent any monkey-business :)...--Cometstyles 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How come is it applied to "those who opposed" only? It is total nonsense. When a candidate gives false information in order to defend him/herself, then isn't s/he get banned or at least get failed in the poll automatically?

I do not oppose to voting requirements basically, but I do not want the rule to be used as a "tool" to defend some particular person(s) and/or group(s). It will not be "the policy" for the entire community if it is used so. Yassie 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think voting rights should be used as a tool to defend a particular person but I also don't think that people with little or no Meta activity should be able to block a candidate regardless of the views of those who are active here, helping carry out the important work done here. Since Meta is cross wiki as well as local, the input of those from other wikis is important, yes, but is not the only factor. A.B.'s proposal strikes that balance well in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been giving this some serious thought for sometime now. While Meta "services" other wikis it is a wiki in its own right. As such it is essential that it decides the terms on which folk are eligible to be admins, who can vote for them and how any tools held may be removed.

I strongly support confirmation. It is a philosophy that attracted me to Meta in the first place and I think it sets a tone on the atmosphere here (I will continue to work on bringing confirmation to Commons if I can).

I have said elsewhere & previously that Meta admins have substantial cross project influence with areas such as inter wiki links, blacklist & policy. It is important to note that this "influence" has changed considerably as the project as a whole has grown. I think it is very important that candidates for any tools here are of a high quality. This in no way makes them "better" than anyone else - however they need to be very careful indeed & highly trusted in their actions & activities.

I am a strong believer that only those with genuine activity & need should be granted tools. It seems also reasonable that those expressing an opinion (either at RfA or confirmation) should be "established" users. I am well aware that people will say "ah but I would not have been eligible if that had been the criteria". I'm afraid my answer must be "so what, times change". I am reasonably sure that I should not have been an admin here when I became one (if that bothers folk I will happily stand down & stand again). Equally I am pretty sure I am now a competent admin is some aspects of Meta - by no means all.

I believe that this discussion should be continued here where it was started a while back. This is a matter of both importance & urgency - I would urge all those with an interest to contribute to this. We need to resolve this as soon as we can --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: why do you think you should not have become an admin when you did? Majorly (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew nothing like enough about Meta & its ways to deal with the pages the are important to Meta at that time in a safe & proper way. I was aware of the blacklist but not the extent of its cover, I was not aware of interwiki mapping for example. I was a vandal fighter mostly, not bad at it but not (with hindsight) necessarily a safe candidate for admin.

I can say that there are others since who have gained the rights who probably should not have done. However they appear to have avoided some of the more "dangerous" areas of Meta and those who are actually active here learn. I'm not sure we can assume we will continue to be that fortunate in the future. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

>A.B.'s proposal strikes that balance well in my view.

I agree with Lar's comment above. A.B.'s proposal itself sounds quite reasonable to me too. The problem is not the proposal itself, but some person(s) who try to have the rule be favorable for particular person(s) only. Yassie 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not done for anyone's benefit. This is for Meta's benefit & all the contributors who work hard here, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very important point. Policies shall not be used as a tool to ensure some particular persons' benefits. Yassie 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I like A.B.'s proposal. It's close to perfect from my point of view. 50 is a reasonable number of (useful) edits, I guess. (But not less than 50.) But I also think that bureaucrats should not be bound to bare counts of votes especially in reconfirmations. They must be allowed to just weigh the arguments provided by the voters/commenters. --Thogo (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

However we do have a situation here where Yassie is accumulating edits that I regret to say are of little or no value to Meta itself. Some are bound to argue about what "useful" edits are. I'd prefer 100 (useful!) edits & three months activity (I would also prefer the discussion here as we will need to make it policy as soon as we can. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In all projects there are more severe parameters for nominations. I think that here it cannot be different. The presented numbers seem to me reasonable. Now, what a "useful" edit? Alex Pereira ^falaê 14:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They're all "useful" unless a bureaucrat decides the voter is trying to game the system. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexanderps has just raised a very good point. Someone can discount the votes and/or comments that are not favorable for some particular person(s) by tabbing their edits "useless", just as Herbytyme did on the comment above. It is nothing but gaming the systems. Yassie 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse suffrage to comment on an RfA (or a confirmation) with qualifications to stand for RfA... those are being discussed as well, and are rather different. I agree that here would maybe be better to continue, with a link back here so all comments are known. The problem/tension I see here is the difficulty to properly balance discretion and common sense against needing some numerics so it's not perceived as whim. I would like to see the policy say "these numbers are suggested guidelines but the 'crats have reasonable discretion to decide on whose comments to count as 'votes' and whose to just take on board as comments, and reasonable discretion to apply margins" or else we are tying the hands of the crats and denying ourselves the benefit of their experience. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Let's get this to closure. Someone go in and edit in their best guess at the consensus on the policy as given here and see if it sticks, maybe? I will if no one else has. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you think the consensus is here first before you add it. Majorly (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough to try to state it at least once I guess. What do you think it is? ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, but I have an awful feeling I won't like it. Majorly (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good exercise to try to evaluate it, especially if you think you won't like it, because if you come up with a view on what consensus is that you don't personally support, it's hard for anyone to accuse you of bias. We do need to move this along so why not give it a try? I said I would if no one else would but I'd rather you did. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling most people agree with a high number (200) of edits, which I disagree with strongly, for my reasons given on the policy subpage. I feel it arbitary and unwelcoming to even consider barring newcomers like this. Majorly (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm... maybe. I may have been misreading but I saw consensus forming around somewhat lower numbers, more like 100 or even 50. What about time? (as an aside you do think that consensus seems to be that some numbers (edits and time) are needed, even if you are not as sure what they are, right?) I'll say this, I've personally come around to thinking that 200 edits here may be too high as well (for suffrage, not necessarily for adminship) ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll

They're doing this over on Commons: a simple poll to decide. Please state what requirements you think each should have:

Candidates

• 200 useful edits + 1 month (and of course being an admin on another project, preferably for at least 3 months) Majorly (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think the admin eligibility is more complex & should be addressed here where a number of views have already been expressed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why can't we keep the discussion in one place? Splitting it up seems to be part of the reason this is taking forever to sort out. Here is as a good a place as any other, I think. Majorly (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Because some quite substantive views have been expressed there & should not be ignored by people looking at this page? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if that's a question or a reply... but anyway, I don't think people are ignoring them. Shall we move the poll to the subpage then? Majorly (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        • One rather obvious issue would be the fact that eligibility probably should be based on rather more than merely edits/time here. Suggestions on the other page involved length of time or edits on the existing admin wiki for example. Quite a lot more aspects could do with clarifying, the suggestion here being simplistic in my mind --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Herby. Lets do voter eligibility here, first, and leave Candidates for afterwards, it's more nuanced. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Voters

• 3 months experience on another project. No limits on Meta. However I'd expect bureaucrats to consider each RfA independently, and regard votes from brand new users in close cases using their best judgement. Majorly (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• 50 useful edits minimum + an active account for three months per A. B.'s original suggestion starting this off --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify: an account on Meta? Majorly (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd agree that at least an account should be had, but that's me. It at least displays a user's participation in the Meta project. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, we don't accept votes from IPs anyway. Majorly (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• As stated somewhere else already, I mainly concur with A.B. 50 useful edits on Meta (excluding talk pages, voting, and also mass edits on one page) and the first useful edit must be longer back than 3 months from the start of the voting. --Thogo (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm with Thogo on this, since 50 useful edits is not clarified anywhere above apart form Thogo's description, which seems as the best description of "useful".....--Cometstyles 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Would strongly suggest that people comment with minimum/maximum acceptable numbers otherwise no option will clearly be best. ++Lar: t/c

Comments

As I said on Commons, I think this should be closed by a bureaucrat. I feel very strongly about this, and as I've voted I'll recuse closing it. Majorly (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My understand (here & on Commons) is that we are seeking to find the consensus figures for a change in policy. This is to establish that consensus, then there would be a policy proposal which would require advertising to the community and a "proper" policy vote? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the result of this poll should change the policy. We need this fixed once and for all. If it needs to be advertised, feel free to. Majorly (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This poll is not structured in a way that would lead to a clear and binding outcome. It is a good way to further test what the consensus is likely to be (but we mostly already had some idea) but binding? If we were going to have a vote instead of just deciding (not sure we should, but if we were going to), I think approval voting with a list of alternatives would be the way to go. whichever alternative got the highest number of approvals would do the trick. This would allow for ranges (I would approve suffrage options starting at 50/1 and going up to around 300/4 or so (even though I think it's too high, I could live with that if I had to) and disapprove those higher and lower, for example) which I think is better. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that Commons is another "cross project" wiki the comments here may be interesting/relevant to this discussion. I accept that licensing makes Commons "unusual" in some senses but it may be worth a look, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides all, where was this poll announced? It may be at least mentioned there is ongoing poll on WM:RFA's voters' requirements section? --Aphaia 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Once this is sorted out (mechanics), perhaps announce on babel. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Requesting input here: Requests for comments/Meta-wiki suffrage in regards to local elections ~Kylu (u|t) 04:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Radical idea

I don't know about anyone else, but I trust every admin on Meta. We are a small community, and admins tend to pass RfA with flying colours rather than just scraping by. As well as this, all the RfBs, with the exception of Linuxbeak's back in 2006 have passed with flying colours as well. My idea is, since all of our admins are promoted by pretty much all the community's approval, unlike say enwiki where it's a tiny percentage, they are fully trusted, I think every admin should have bureaucrat rights as well. I've been a bcrat since July last year, and it's absolutely no big deal at all. I am pretty controversial as everyone knows, and at least one user has regretted the way they voted on my RfB. I think I only became one because I asked at a time when bcrats were very clearly needed. I think if someone like me can be trusted as a bcrat, I think most, if not all admins on Meta can be as well. There would be absolutely no need to use the tools, and you could specifically ask to not have bcrat rights. But my point is, leaving requests I'd trust pretty much any other admin on this wiki to perform to a very limited group of users seems a bit counter-productive in my view. I'd appreciate people's thoughts on this proposal. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose incubator:I:A#Requests_for_permissions: "There are no requests for bureaucratship; any administrator may optionally ask to become a bureaucrat after one month (providing they have behaved well)." — VasilievVV 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Majorly (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. Most admins here are trusted across all Wikimedia projects. With that level of credence, I doubt anyone would go rogue. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea indeed (after all, I was the one who came up with that rule on incubator, IIRC :) ) — Timichal 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with that. — Kalan ? 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem with it, why not? Every attempt to remove levels is good :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

hehe, yeah "I Я crat" sounds nice, user-levels do create problems and if it has worked well on Incubator and I believe its being followed on wikispecies too, i don't think it will be a problem, like the Spanishwiki has so many crats and that wiki hardly ever has any problems..--Cometstyles 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually got the idea from Wikispecies, where they have been running for both "positions". I thought it would be a nice idea for this wiki. I'm glad it's getting support :) Majorly (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

for me it's ok :P --.snoopy.  15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with any of the proposed items. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a fine idea. --Az1568 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have we ever had any requests for bureaucratship that failed? --A. B. ^(talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Linuxbeak's. This was back in 2006 though, with many members of our community not even editors at that point. Things are rather different now. Majorly (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There'll still be "levels" since oversight and checkuser are restricted, but this does get rid of one more of them. Also, it's a good idea in my mind (at least) to restrict "temporary" admins to just that, as they've supposedly got specific things they use the tools for. Considering that shell users don't much care about how many user levels we've got, perhaps we can convert the local bureaucrat right to be able to remove the admin flag, so we can handle the temporary adminships and failed confirmations without bothering stewards? With more bureaucrats, there's less chance that this can be abused. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I like the sound of bcrats being able to remove adminship and would make chance of abuse less. Of course temporary adminship should just be adminship, but it should easily be revoked without having to bother a steward, I agree, and same with confirmations. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We would, of course, need a good temporary rights log. I rather like the style used on RfP, with the caveat that we should just have one or two removal cycles per month, both to not flood the rights log and to simplify the format. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea and the motive behind it. Hopefully other stable wikis will follow. +sj | help with translation |+ 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Set the bureaucrat permissions...

$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['userrights']          = true;
$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat');
$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot', 'sysop');

...kinda like this. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Majorly, It appears that Es:wikipedia has been using this model for some time.[1] Hillgentleman 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  Heh, it's from es.wp that the Wikispecies idea came from. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  Wikispecies is doing rather well for itself, with a rather smaller community. +sj | help with translation |+ 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave it to Majorly to come up with a quite interesting twist on the 'crat question! I like the sound of this idea, the only concern I would have would be what if we decided later we didn't like it? unwinding it might be a fair bit of work. Perhaps suggest that we'd reset back to whatever 'crats we had when we adopted the idea. But sure, why not? I think I trust all the admins here to do bot toggles and renames, for sure. And promotions are not that big a deal, theoretically. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK so far I can't see any disagreement here. How shall we do this? Should we promote users to both or just admin, then they can ask for bureaucrat after a month? Do we need to get a setting change so that bcrats can remove rights as well? What's the general feeling on this? Majorly (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer the latter, where one can ask for cratship after a set period of time. This is just my take, but I would also not mind seeing a certain number of actions to show that they are active as an admin, or at least a fair number of recent edits. I believe this might be indicative of their activity as a crat. This is just my view of course, just a suggestion. I just don't see the point in giving the tools to the inactive (so far as adminship/editing) --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of 'cratship being available after a month; nothing tied to it, and it's something any 'crat can do if asked (on their talk page, perhaps). I'm also a fan of Meta 'crats being able to remove rights as well; with the stewards here, I don't think we need to worry about the usual level of balance, especially considering this is, you know, Meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea as well. Requesting after a month of activity seems sane. We actually used to have the exact same concept on srwiki. --FiLiP ¤ 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted a bug request here. Once this has been done, I intend to promote any admin (with the exception of temporary admins) who asks me for rights, as long as they have been an admin for more than a month. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cbrown1023 talk 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

...now I want to make a lolcat that specifically says "I can has Meta 'cratship from Majorly" for this express purpose. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You should ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have another idea. Perhaps we should create some kind of page where admins can request that they have cratship, after 1 month. The request could stay open for x-amount of time to ensure that there are no concerns; if there are, someone can express them, and then a proper RFB can begin. It seems wrong that a potentially problematic admin become a bcrat without the chance for anyone to point out a problem. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I realy don't think that it is necessary to make alot of fuss about bcrat rights. If we create a page (or modify an existing page) where admins can as for bcrat rights, people will have a opportunity to point out problems, but I don't think we should make it so formal, with a waiting period and so forth. If people are trustworthy enough to be a sysop, why not just give the bcrat rights with as little fuss as possible? So my propositions is that a sysop has to make a formal request after which any bcrat can grant bcrat rights (using commons sense of course). If there is some problem with the user anyone can point this out at the request page (if they are fast enough :-). --MiCkE^d_b 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"If they are fast enough" = not a valid reason to not leave a fair amount for time for someone to make a complaint. While I love this proposal, and agree with Majorly here, the fact is that, as much as we all hate it (=P), we need a waiting period to account for the less active people. Its a matter of inevitability. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think that the room for mischief is so much bigger for bcrats than ordinary admins. But I can live with a waiting period if others think that it is necessary. Another way to do it is to unify the request for adminship and the request for cratship. That way people can vote e.g "Support for admin, but not for bureaucrat" if it is important to them. --MiCkE^d_b 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I read Majorly's initial message shortly after he posted it and decided to come back later to give my 0,02 € cents, but it looks like lots of you have beaten me to it. ^^ In any case, I agree with the others: I see no problem with the idea, though I also prefer a waiting period between an RfA and an RfB. Cheers, Arria Belli | parlami 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems there's a strong consensus to implement this idea. I say we go ahead with it (if we haven't already). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just waiting for the bz request to be filled Nishkid. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad that Majorly put this idea forward. I think this proposal is a great idea and can work on this wiki and others, especially smaller ones where every RFA is close to 100% consensus. FloNight 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so what will be the time delay between the RfA and RfB? It wasn't clear to me... Alex Pereira ^falaê 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A month between passing adminship before you can ask for a bureaucrat flag. The proposal is, to just be able to ask for the flag without an RfB. Perhaps this needs to be clarified. Majorly (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a question: is the automatic change of status? Or is it necessary to make a simple request? Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea, so far, is to grant the change unless there's some objection. I don't see why we don't use the existing WM:RFA page, with a mention of the new local policy. I'd still like to see the ability to remove rights granted, first, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A simple request is reasonable. Just a checkin to confirm that the user is active after some min. period of adminship. +sj | help with translation |+

De-sysopping?

I've just been thinking. Is there any need for bureaucrats to be able to remove rights? I can't really see any benefit, apart from being able to desysop on reconfirmation/temporary admins, but these are very rare and hardly any extra work for stewards. The reason is, I'd like to push this through without having to wait for a developer to implement ability to desysop. Additionally, there was some objection to this on IRC, although the users in question decided not to add their points on this page. I think it'd be easier to abandon the desysop thing, and begin to promote admins who asked. Majorly (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a deal-breaker for me; while I think it would maintain balance, I don't think it's too big an issue for the very reasons you mentioned (especially if we'd have to wait on devs to tweak stuff just to implement this). This is where Stewards live too, so it's not like it'd be very hard to get them to de-op. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, it seems more a nicety than a necessity. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a vital point. --MiCkE^d_b 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So?

May we start giving out bureaucratship by new rules now? Desysopping isn't considered as a vital part (see the section above). Also, I asked one developer today to fix bug 13509, he refused (so, as I see, not many people really support it) — VasilievVV 09:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see other bureaucrats agree to it first, here. Majorly (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind giving crat access to every sysop in good standing, but only after 6 month of service. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

6 is a very long time... would you compromise lower, to 3 months? Majorly (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The number is quite negotiable, but my opinion is that it certainly shouldn't be automatic. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Three's fine with me. Worst case scenario, the stewards are handy in case a bureaucrat goes rouge. Another related question is, "Do we confirm bureaucrat rights differently from admin rights, so can they be revoked if the admin simply doesn't use them?" Something to ponder. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A question in reply could be "What's the harm in having the rights but not using them?" They could come in handy at any time. Majorly (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

About reconfirmation, I'd say that we only reconfirm their adminship; if they keep the sysop bit, the 'crat bit stays as well, but (naturally) goes if they are removed as sysop. No need to have a separate system in place for de-cratting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Three or six, I'm fine with it. Huji 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Majorly's request for comment from other 'crats, I am ok with this idea being given a whirl. I'm not keen on automatic 'cratship as soon as you're made an admin, wait a bit maybe... A month is enough to wait. I think 3 months waiting is not unreasonable. 6 probably is too much and I would not like to see that. No harm in having 'crat rights and not using them in my view. Reconfirmation: Tie the reconfirmtion to the adminship reconfirmation, no need for a separate one. I think that covers most of the points? ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well, with that, I will now be willing to promote any admin who has been one for at least 3 months. Majorly (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late chiming in, but I've been occupied. Not supportive, Automatic promotion may deprive the chance to give a voice from the community. The reason I'm not inclining to automatic promotion is:

• There were (iirc, but I forgot the number) b'crat candidates who were self-nominated but not promoted by consensus. It suggests not every admin would be welcome as a b'crat automatically. I'd rather say, if they are automatically promoted, it should be after they are once confirmed, so one year later. They can request for b'cratship before automatic promotion.
• Volunteering roles should be volunteered in my opinion. If they want to help, they should explicitly express their good will; or in the other words there should be a chance to decline. Being a b'crat is no more big deal than adminship, but still they are different roles and tasks. Only people who expressed their volunteering intention to a certain task are to be promoted, not "any admin" regardless with the length they obtains that user right. --Aphaia 03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(agreed with Aph here) +sj | help with translation |+ 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There was one user, Linuxbeak, back in 2006. Things are very different now. And please be assured, it's not automatic. Users will request the right, and so if they do, would make use of it. Majorly (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine to hear it will be based upon request. --Aphaia 11:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The bug has been fixed. I tested on Cbrown1023 and we can remove rights too. Any admin for more than 3 months who wishes to be a bcrat can request on the RfA page. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, and we should stick with the 3 months sysopness requirement plus that its only available to those that went through the proper RfA procedure and is not available for temporary sysops though another thing to see is that "inactive admins" cannot request it until they become active again on Meta again..just some of my ideas...--Cometstyles 04:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I will stick with my above idea and try to make it into a policy in the near-future, with the help from other metapedians ofcourse. Just to clarify on my idea about the admin being active, it simply means that he/she has been active as an editor as well as an admin meaning that the person has made atleast 50 edits this year, and atleast some of those edits in and within the last month or so..just a clarification.--Cometstyles 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Steward access to CentralAuth

In light of the recent consensus to promote admins to bureaucrat on request (here), and with the exceptional circumstance that apparently a steward needs bureaucrat rights to manage SUL issues, Majorly and myself have handled the steward requests for bureaucrat rights so they don't need to assign them to themselves in what could be construed as a violation of steward policies.

These stewards did not have adminship prior to being assigned steward rights:

• Daniel Mayer
• Darkoneko
• Paginazero
• RobH
• Wpedzich

If they don't attain adminship before resigning as steward, it is expected that they will lose the bureaucrat rights also. If there are any concerns regarding this .... please don't hurt us! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mav has been a meta admin prior to gain his stewardship [2]. RobH may be granted the right as staffer, but I am not sure. --Aphaia 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support (speaking as a 'crat) assigning these stewards meta 'crat rights to make things go smoother with SUL implementation... we are starting to see a significant uptick in volume. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any of the aforementioned will resign as Stewards anytime soon, though 3 of the above are inactive as Stewards and the remaining 2 are trusted member of the Stewards and meta cabal ahh clan. I don't see any problems and when Tim, who is right now "in a very happy mood" decides to enable SUL to all, it will be great to have multiple active Stewards taking care of this..--Cometstyles 11:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally! They make a cute couple anywho, ne? ~Kylu (u|t) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: undone for now, since there's an issue with CA and all. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for dragging up an old thread, but isn't RobH exempt from this, being Foundation staff and a developer?? Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat add/remove permissions changed

New groups rights set for Meta bureaucrats: bugzilla:13509

$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat');
$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat');

Thanks to JeLuF :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Active admins

Since no one is reading this, I'd like to make one thing clear, Crats please give crats to those admins that have been active in the last 3 months as an editor and sysop since Anonymous Dissident gave cratship to Jdforrester which I'm not happy with because James only made 13 edits this Year, 2 0f which was to the request and only 1 sysop duty as well. as i stated above and quote "Just to clarify on my idea about the admin being active, it simply means that he/she has been active as an editor as well as an admin meaning that the person has made atleast 50 edits this year, and atleast some of those edits in and within the last month or so..". I'm not sure how many will agree with me, but we don't really want to give crats to those that just want the right and not really use it, thats why if we ask them to be active before they request it, they will be forced to work on Meta and be useful rather them coming in getting cratship then disappearing off again..similar to those that were decratted/de-sysoped earlier this month. I know one editor is against this. but can I hear other people's views on this ?..thanks ..--Cometstyles 05:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree here. When I crated Jd, I followed policy, which was that anyone who had merely been a sysop for 12 weeks could request. Activity would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My views on "activity" are very strong indeed. If you do not actively work on a wiki you do not need the tools. To me quite a substantial portion of admin should not have the tools. Nothing personal but they are not trophies but tools for using. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we should start from now and not de-crat anyone... James might not be that active but he's certainly not left and tools will be useful occasionally. Majorly (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"if we ask them to be active before they request it, they will be forced to work on Meta and be useful rather them coming in getting cratship then disappearing off again." Just curious Cometstyles, but what work is not being done at the moment that you feel existing sysops should be doing? My understanding from talking to people with sysop rights here is that a lot of them can never really find much to do... WjBscribe 17:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, I remember adding that in Meta:Bureaucrats sometime ago, but no one noticed it seems :) ..--Cometstyles 08:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it would not be wise to come too quickly to this conclusion, Comet. We should wait at least a day or so before the three months part is changed to three months activity. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes this specific instance doesn't bother me (much!) but as it does say it maybe we could try and make sure our raft of 'crats understand what Comet has already written --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cometstyles, it needs to be added to the RFA page as well. That's probably why it wasn't noticed. Majorly (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I was trying not to push my idea on anyone but I did mention it previously though it will be a good idea if we wait for the outcome on this and refrain from promoting anyone in the time being till we had made a decision :) ..--Cometstyles 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but insisting on actual sysop actions may be counterproductive - there isn't a great volume of admin work that needs doing on meta compared to the number of admins here (I've certainly never felt limited by not having sysop rights here). Actually insisting on admin actions (not part of the reconfirmation activity criteria) doesn't really make sense to me, though I can understand wanting the user to be an admin who edits meta reasonably frequently. That said, I cannot see that any harm can be caused by giving crat access to James F. If he goes insane, his meta bureaucrat rights will be the least of our problems... :) WjBscribe 17:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree with WjBscribe about adminship actions; for the amount of admin work that is needed, we're positively swimming with idle admins. For example, in a five month span, I only had 16 deletions, whereas I can (and have) hit that in one day on en.wp or Commons. Showing at least some sort of activity would be a good measure for who should be a 'crat, but admin actions probably shouldn't be it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some admins are a lot more active than that. Have a look at Herbythyme and Pathoschild for example, who make tons of blocks and deletes every day. I think that having adminship simply for the sake of having it is a really bad idea - hence why I tend to vote remove on inactive people on confirmation, regardless of their "status" in the Wikimedia world. I simply don't see the need for them to keep the flag. If people really cared about meta, they'd make an edit here once in a while. Majorly (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to WjBscribe, if you compare with enwiki which has 26 crats of which "13" are tagged as actually a bit of crat duties here and there which is quite misleading since if you look through them, you'll realise there is only about 5 crats which are active enough as a crat and editor, which means 5 out of the 26 crats are active which is about 20% and sadly since enwiki has no policy on de-sysopping/de-cratting unlike Meta, nothing can be done about them and those 5 active crats would be wishing they could get more help now and then and when good candidates who are active year in, year out comes by, they get rejected by these same group of inactive crats, who don't do much work either themselves, I have heard about the backlogs in Usurpation and user renames and now a question to you since you are actually the most active crat on enwiki :).. would you prefer to have more new crats who can do their job or retain the old bunch that are just hogging the powers and might never ever be helpful to the project. This is what I don't want on Meta, people getting crats and not using it, showing it off as trophies during elections, other wiki RfA's and I know there is not much that can be done on Meta but as it is the Co-ordinating wiki of wikimedia, you have to find work here. If you are active as an editor, you will definitely become active as an admin, and one good example is M7 who appears out of no where, fights vandalism on Meta (which has really fallen in the last couple of months thanks to our enthusiastic vandal fighters here) and disappears and also randomly fulfilling his stewardship requirements and as Majorly stated above, its about actually caring for the project and if you work hard enough, you will definitely find something to do..take cue from our most active admins here, most of which are stewards themselves, who still manage to find time to work here while at the same time fighting vandalism in 760 other wikis  :) ..--Cometstyles 23:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I'd say I'm with WjBscribe here, I don't really see the point in requesting a great deal of activity in any case...even if they aren't really active now, there could be a situation at some stage in the future where James F having +crat could come in handy...and considering most sysops/crats here are generally highly trusted users across projects, I don't think there's any harm in giving them the tools here, for a rainy day. It's a fairly different place to EnWP...:) giggy _(:O) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Herby as usual :) The tools are just that - tools to be used. I'd love more stringent activity requirements. Concerning giggy's comments regarding a "rainy day" - well if they become active and need the tools it is just as easy to grant them at that point as it is now. Granted it is not particularly harmful, but the fact remains that these are not trophies. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's really easy to grant tools, but that (to me) begs the question of why bother removing them in the first place. I probably lean more towards the viewpoint that we should be giving them out (at least on meta) and only removing them in cases where they are shown to be a negative with this person, rather than the other way around. giggy _(:O) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for activity requirements are stronger where there is some work going undone. On enwiki, there are often backlogs in both admin and crat areas. On Commons, there are often backlogs of images of unknown copyright status to be investigated and deleted. Requiring activity to keep tools on such projects would make some logical sense. But is there work going undone on meta? If sysop tasks are going neglected on meta, I would probably see this discussion quite differently. However, from speaking to some of the less active meta admins they are not inactive through disinterest or apathy but because they genuinely cannot find anything to use their tools for... WjBscribe 12:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that editing the Interwiki map page & the Blacklist are admin only pursuits so there are quite a few people who are actually "admin active" who will not show up in conventional admin stats.

For the brave or the insane there is almost always work to be done in both those places --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Herby, there are lots of places where admin help is needed, work on protected pages, spam-blacklist, interwikimap, portal-pages and work in the image section... I can't believe someone does not find enough work here. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 12:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) WJB, there is no need to continue being an admin if you don't make use of the tools. There is a lot of stuff that needs doing on Meta, particularly on the Spam blacklist. Additionally, Meta admins have access to change things like the front page portals, message translation, as well as the RC patrol. Look at people like Spacebirdy who makes several actions every day. There is always something to do - even if it's just commenting in a discussion. But some inactive admins don't even do that. If they can't find anything to do, they probably aren't looking hard enough, or are even familiar enough with Meta to know these things. Majorly (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

{double ec) Please note I shouldn't post this :) I am always surprised by the people who RfA with "I'll help out with the backlogs" here (& elsewhere). They succeed, the backlogs do not go away - maybe some people are better at finding backlogs than others (& yes I would love to stop dealing with them as I am trying to get some rather more creative work done on Commons but somehow the mop is always needed). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Helping out with backlogs doesn't mean they'll get cleared, it means they may get lowered. Majorly (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - just expressing a viewpoint but you are correct! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Early closes, closing after participating

Majorly made this change recently... which suggests that early closes might not be such a good idea. I think it's a good change, it avoids some situations that are potentially problematic. Further, I would like to see it stated as at least a "guideline" or "good practice" that 'crats not close discussions they were involved in unless the margin is really obvious (almost all one way or the others)... ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agreee except for the "margin is really obvious" part, even if the person has 50 supports, and no opposes, it doesn't mean it should be closed early, earlier 2 RfA's were closed too early and this really is wrong in my POV, Erwin's RfA was closed 3 hours too early, Alison's RfA 33 hours to early, this type of attitude by the crats just shows that they just want to abuse their crat powers and are not following policies, and probably is one of the reasons I now oppose most candidates since I believe, a crat or an admin is only useful, if they know what they are doing and do it accordingly and not be hasty. In enwiki, RfA's close like 10 hours after the deadline, we don't have that problem here, but that doesn't mean we close it too early, even if its at 100% supports..--Cometstyles 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for closing RfA's early. It hardly matters whether someone has to wait a few hours more to get admin rights and letting it run for the defined time means that we can have more confidence in the result rather than, as I've notice recently, users who are the subject of the RfA being concerned about whether the result might be called into question. Quite simply bureaucrats shouldn't close RfA's early. I wouldn't go as far as saying that closing RfAs early would be abuse of bureaucrat rights, rather a misuse which should be discouraged and if a user persists then the community should consider removing the rights. Adambro 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 'crats shouldn't be closing RfAs they've participated in, or closing discussions early. While not early, I was slightly bemused as to this close, for instance. giggy _(:O) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

O rly? :O Majorly ^talk 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, I have always closed RfAs regardless of whether I took part. There's no reason to change that. Majorly ^talk 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

actually crats can take part, and can promote if the candidate passes with flying colors but if its controversial, then its a good idea for those crats taking part not to promote the editors, yes I was bemused to that one too but I discussed this on IRC and it seems no other crats noticed this or weren't paying attention, "crats not close discussions they were involved in" is a bit silly though because we will end up with no crats supporting/opposing a candidate and all trying to close the RfA and promote the editor if it passes, and thus we will have crats misuse their rights once again by closing earlier...--Cometstyles 01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in clear cut (like, 100% cases...) I've got no problem with a 'crat who voted also closing. I don't think anyone cares who closes it if there are no objections. But in a discussion where there is opposition, and it's not trolling, I think it's better if someone who hasn't voted closes it. I mean, with all admins older than 3 months getting +crat here, there isn't a shortage to choose from! giggy _(:O) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe's promotion

OK, again Nishkid64 has gone and done what we specifically asked him not to do, firstly he never participates in any of the discussions on Meta and secondly he hardly even edits Meta but manages to show up, promote users to admins and disappear again, I'm sorry but he was earlier warned about this by me and instead of learning from it , he just pops up on Meta, promotes WJBscribe and then vanishes again, I'm sorry, but i made this clear time and time again that if any crat breaks the time limit protocol again, will get de-cratted and I'm sorry to say but looking through Nishkids edits, I can strictly say, he is no longer active and I'm not sure why Cbrown1023 promoted him to crat in the first place since he only had 32 edits in 2008, and 50 edits in the year was a requirement, similarly with James, but since he is inactive rather than breaking protocols, I'll leave this for another day..I know it was just 12 minutes early, but the policy clearly states that "bureaucrats should only close after this minimum time.". His inactivity shows he is no longer concerned about Meta and is only doing it to create memento's, sorry but I believe something has to be done about this and I'm sad to say decratting is the only option, can't say he hasn't been warned, I would have overlooked his last promotion had he been active on Meta, but sadly not..I'm sorry, but I would like to ask the community on this decision...--Cometstyles 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I have to agree. I think we need stricter requirements before admins are made bureaucrats. High activity in both edits and logs should be standard. Whilst I don't doubt Nishkid's trustworthiness or whatever, the principle is this is the kind of right that should be used and not misused. Two dodgy promotions in the last ten edits, and not particularly active in any case makes me kind of agree with Comets.

I propose that for any new admin wanting bureaucrat rights, they request and they must have an endorsement from a current admin. I strongly believe that if you have the rights you should use them, and use them well, not have them for the sake of having them and occasionally use them and mess up. The activity requirement should be at least 100 edits or logs in the 3 months prior to requesting. And I suggest that bureaucrats should be made to 6 months of adminship. Majorly ^talk 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Majorly on this, sorry but getting crats is soo easy on Meta and ppl keep messing it up, luckily it hasn't been messed up on other areas of cratship, but increasing requirement to 100 edits is definitely in the right direction, and sadly now I have to agree on the 6 months policy also, because this way we can better judge a persons capability and see how active they are and if the deserve the tools at all...--Cometstyles 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: my promotion/requirement... where is this? I do not see it on the attached page and that is where guidelines should be. Not saying I'm happy with it either, but... Cbrown1023 talk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing is not a sign of activity for me. I've been checking up on Meta on a daily basis; sure, you'll see no edits, but that doesn't mean I am totally out of touch with the Meta community, nor have I "disappeared" (I'm on en.wiki every day). I closed the RfA 12 minutes before the ending! Since the Alison RfA closing (which I admit was improper), VasilievVV has closed two RfAs before the official ending time (one was closed 3 hours before) and Majorly closed 1 one minute early. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Complaining about a close 12 minutes early (as distinct from, say, 12 hours) seems rather silly. giggy _(:O) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nish you can hardly say a minute early is a problem. By the time the rfa was closed and archived the time was up anyway. 3 hours is much more of a concern though. Majorly ^talk 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the same be said about 12 minutes? By the time I had archived and congratulated WJBscribe, there was only four minutes left in the RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well your last few edits have only been closing RfB's and congratulating candidates, while other active crats try to follow the rules and try not to close the RfA's too early, you seem to over look that implication and think that you are the only crat on this wiki, not the right way to go, this is a community and instead of being part of it, you tried to do it your own way, I'd say its a major improvement from closing 33 hours early to closing 12 minutes early but still its breaking protocol, if we allow a few minutes early, people will soon close an hour early, then a few hours early and this will never stop, I'm sorry to say but I disagree with your opinion at this point in thime and policies are not made to be broken and if you were active enough, you would have seen the discussions happening and would not have done this, I do agree that Vasilievv also made a mistake and I even frowned at him on IRC and thus why I was forced to make the decision regarding the closing time...--Cometstyles 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw the discussions; as I said before, I'm not clueless about Meta. Anonymous Dissident closed an RfA 41 minutes early, VailievVV closed two RfAs early, Majorly closed one early. These premature closings account for all non-Nishkid64 closings in the last month. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the concerns raised by Majorly above interesting, and ones I can agree with when considered on a larger scope than the specifics here. As I said in my RfA, I will not be requesting bureaucrat access through the normal apply-and-get-it means. If I do decide to volunteer to assist in this capacity, I would most likely try some sort of hybrid system, where I would (for example) ask people to raise objections in a 48/72 hour period. If none were raised, then I would ask a bureaucrat to give me access. If concerns were raised, I would hope that discussion would be initiated towards either establishing a consensus on the issue, or to establishing a compromise (ie. 6 month limited term with same procedure to be followed at the end of the 6 months, etc.). I'm a fan of the current setup, but with respect to those who established and supported it, I don't think that for my case, it's the best for Meta. I'd prefer to allow people to raise any concerns they have, and we work towards the best solution if there are any concerns.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that all people here accept that RFA's should be closed sooner than proper time.so i think from now we would see this problem happen again.and i also suggest to add some point to rule that shows clearly no crat is allowed to close RFA sooner than their time --Mardetanha ^talk 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say that at the top of WM:RFA. But since that change was made, a few RfAs have been closed prematurely. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I tried to but nobody cared :( ..--Cometstyles 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think adding a close time in bold seems a good idea. I know I often am trying to decide if it's time yet, and I usually have to get out my calendar and count days (if it is crossing a month boundary) and/or do a test unsaved edit so I can see the timestamp on my sig :) (yes I have the UTC gadget but I just forget to look) I'm just wondering if the impetus to close early is really "memento" (see, I got to do the close) based, or just "diligence" (get the work done as expeditiously as possible)... I suspect no one would want to actually admit it's memento based :) Other than this possible wrinkle though, do folk feel the automatic cratship here is working out well? ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it is added all the time but it seems like ppl overlook it for no reason, I remember when I introduced it, I remember adding it in between the <small></small>, but when i realised ppl don't see it and overlook it, I replace it with bold, bigger timeframe but still people closed too early, I doubt there is any other way to counter this and and all I can do now is give VasilievVV and Nishkid64 final warnings and if any of them re-offends, other crats can de-crat(leave sysops) them, cause they have been warned more than enough and giving lame excuses like its just 1 minute early etc is just trying to hide the fact that you have made a mistake, and to answer Lar's concern, autocrat idea is a really good one but the timeframe really isn't, so we are proposing to increase it to 6 months, I hope you agree..--Cometstyles 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry comet but i don't agree with you for time extending. we just had this problem with crat and from now i think it is solved.if you see anyother wrong action by crat let us know?--Mardetanha ^talk 04:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well 3 months is enough to judge an editor as an admin but looking at recent episodes, I doubt 3 months is enough for an admins capability to be judged, so no, as I mentioned above, 6 months is really actually a better idea and people with ulterior motives may disagree with this but getting the facts straight, 2 admins who were sort of inactive were made crats, though one is still inactive, the other has caused a bit of a problem and apart from that, I can see a bit of immaturity in some of the crats as well, I will not name anyone, but as mentioned some weeks ago, we need crats who are active and follow policy and set examples and we can only get those types of crats if we take time to make our decisions and see through every admins edit to see if they have been active and to also see if they have been helping out in this project, and 3 months in my POV is not enough to judge a persons capabilities and those that disagrees should realise that this wiki is the Hub/centre of the wikimedia foundation and while promoting users to cratship, we must remember if we are making the right decision or not or will that decision backfire...--Cometstyles 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of stricter requirements, but it is not fair to penalise Nishkid now. His cratship is valid, as it was when he was promoted. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, while Nishkid's first close was undoubtedly out of line, I think attacking him over closing a mere 12 minutes early is simply uncalled for, and not really that big a problem in any case. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem here, as with the closing of deletion requests, is that people are turning up here & doing what they like rather than following policy/practice. I accept Nishkid's comment that they look but do not edit regularly however we have rather a large collection of admins ('crats too now thanks to our policy here) who do little & frankly have little idea about Meta & base their actions etc on their "home" wiki. Some respect for this wiki , its practices & policies would be nice --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That, as phrased above by Herby, I agree with. ANd it is a problem. Because of the conglomeration of people from all over here on Meta, we have the problem of a clash of opinions on what our policies should be, which makes it more and more important that we uphold what has been agreed upon. I think we really do need a good talk about closing times in general. A separate page for discussion regarding it, a page to which we can draw community attention, because its not just particular to either RFA or RFD. Some consensus about this needs to be found, else these arguments are going to keep arising. We need some absolution in this matter. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no one is picking on Nishkid, its just that he was clearly warned on his talk page not to close any RfA's early even if it has majority consensus, and he closes the next one 12 minutes early, if people don't learn from their first mistake, they don't learn anything do they, because when Majorly's radical idea was implemented by the devs, we were so happy about it that we didn't set any stricter requirements and thus some people that should not have been given the right got it, now before this gets any worse we should propose amendments to some of the policy, I have stated some of the ideas below, and I hope other can add to it, and then we will have a consensus on it and decide accordingly..--Cometstyles 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Well it seems we enjoy discussing about new changes, but we never actually implement it, so I'd like to start with one now, to begin with, the major problems is:

• Closure of RfD's and RfA's should be done no less than 7 days after it was proposed/requested, though for RfD's since its 2 weeks for now, no less than 14 days and those doing it before the scheduled closing time will be taken to task.
• Admins can become crats after 6 months if they meet the 2 requirements,
  1. Be active on meta with over 100 edits (after getting adminship) and/or log actions (per Majorly's idea above)
  2. Are endorsed by an admin/crat (per Majorly's idea above)
• Inactive crats should not involve themselves in closing any RfD's or RfA's

More ideas can be added below :) ....--Cometstyles 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor thought (& to be honest I am not that bothered) should people be "endorsed" by two current admins/crats? I guess most of us can dig up one "friend" :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

These are fine. Just to let you know, I do meet all requirements. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: how can an inactive 'crat become active if they are disallowed from making any bureaucratic actions? Or are you referring to edit activity here? --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with all Cometstyles' proposals, but Anonymous Dissident spoke a important thing: how can an inactive 'crat become active if they are disallowed from making any bureaucratic actions? Just bots flags and rename users??? Alex Pereira ^falaê 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They become active by editing. Anywhere (on Meta). To Nishkid, do you have >100 edits in the last 3 months? Majorly ^talk 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and inactive editor with crat rights, so if a person makes less than 5 edits in a month, they are termed as inactive and over 15 edits are termed as active..--Cometstyles 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. I've been an admin since February 2007. I have a few hundred since then (unless I misinterpreted the proposal, I meet that criterion). Nishkid64 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but following this a bit, I personally find it ridiculous, first making lots of crats, then being annoyed that there are too much and apparently stepping on each others feet. Be glad You have less workload, wasn't that the intention of this. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 15:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's people not following the rules that is the issue. If people just closed requests after the end time, we wouldn't have an issue. Majorly ^talk 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite simple. I don't think having loads of 'crats is a problem per se but I do wonder if some of this closing of requests early is about wanting to make use of these rights and get in before someone else does. I'm not sure of the current situation regarding activity requirements but are there more 'crats now fighting for the same jobs and feeling compelled to do so to justify them having the rights? I think all that needs to change is that the current rules are more respected and enforced. Nishkid seems to have been asked not to do this on a number of occasions now and does seem not get involved much beyond closing RfAs so I think it would be reasonable to suggest that if he chooses to close any more requests before the defined time then the community should consider removing the bureaucrat rights. I don't think it is necessary to make the current requirements for admin and bureaucrat rights stricter, just because some disregard guidelines to a certain extent it doesn't mean everyone would, and just enforce the current guidelines more. Adambro 16:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I was asked not to close RfAs so early once. There was nothing in that discussion (I was told to "hold back") about closing RfAs after the official ending time. By the way, this is the second RfA I have closed so far (and this was only 12 minutes before it should have officially been closed...three closings before mine have also been early). Nishkid64 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

About Adambro says: why not separate all 'crats activities in little 'crats groups, by affinity knowledge??? Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Second set of proposed criteria:

• Administrators can become bureaucrats after four months if they meet the following requirements:
  1. Be active on Meta with over 100 edits/log actions in the last four months.
  2. User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves at Meta:Requests for adminship.
  3. No objections are raised in 24 hours after he/she nominates themselves at Meta:Requests for adminship. If objections are raised, a short discussion should ensue, at which point after 48 hours a bureaucrat should close it and analyse whether consensus believes the concerns are valid or not. If the concerns are considered valid by consensus, he/she must nominate themselves via a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat.
  4. A bureaucrat who makes less than 20 non-bureaucrat-related edits/log actions (ie. no edits outside of closing RfA's/thanking users, changing usernames/notifying users, etc.) in six months will automatically lose their bureaucrat access. It can be regained through the above method. They will not lose their administrator access.

May seem rules-creepy, but it is actually quite simple. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of changing from 3 months to 4 is (I don't think you can suddenly learn how to become a better 'crat, or whatever the issue here is, in a month), but otherwise I think this is good. giggy _(:O) 11:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the 3 months rule was one of the first ideas implemented, and since then we had many policy changes and problems to deal with, though I stand by the 6 months rule, I'll gladly accept Daniel's idea if there is no amicable solution to this..--Cometstyles 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Giggy that 3 months to 4 months is an odd change. If there is consensus to move to six months that is a significant change but one extra month seems trivial when everyone was agreed to 3 months before. It is however point (4) that I am not convinced by. Say someone is highly active on meta and edits a lot, making many admin actions, however they are never first to respond to a request that requires bureaucrat rights (I suspect the problem meta is having with early closes of requests is that people are "racing" each other to be the one to actually make the promotion). That person loses the bureaucrat tools through lack of use. Later they come upon some renames that they could usefully do. Now instead of just using their (hitherto unused) bureaucrat tools that it was decided they could be trusted with, they must make a request and wait for endorsements and at least 24 hours. The renames they wanted to do have now been done. This could make for a rather lengthy and fairly pointless cycle. All meta sysops must be reconfirmed every 12 months anyway - where someone could say "remove as crat, keep as admin" - is another activity requirement really needed? If someone is completely inactive, I see the logic in removing sysop and crat flags. If someone is active as a sysop but not as a crat (and the crat work isn't piling up), is there much need to have them ask for the crat flag again? WjBscribe 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They do not lose their tools for lack of bureaucrat actions, but lack of Meta activity overall. The criteria says non-bureaucrat-related edits/log actions. Bureaucrats who haven't used their tools for, say, 8 months coming back, not aware of the current policies and standards, and using them errenously is a bad thing. Daniel (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're quite right, I misread that - should have put on my glasses before I started editing today :) ... WjBscribe 11:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

*withholds nasty comment about blind lawyers* *runs* :) Daniel (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Limits

It seems the most problems that have come from making all admins bureaucrats is in the promotions area, both with bots and people, where bureaucrats cannot seem to follow simple rules when promoting people. I think that unelected bureaucrats should be limited to renames only, and SUL help where they will be most useful. That is the most backlogged area. Currently it is becoming ridiculous regarding RFA closes/bot promotions with people rushing to close unnecessarily. It is sad that this should happen, but people can't seem to follow the rules. If a bureaucrat wants to help out with further chores they can run through RFB. Majorly ^talk 13:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, but there is no technical way of enforcing this, unless we create yet another user class, which would probably defeat the whole point anyway. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is enforcable. We just remove the rights of any people who abuse it. Majorly ^talk 17:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose...that could result in quite a bit of unnecessary drama though, and it'd cause some awkwardness and bring rise to certain complication ie. it'd be somewhat of a labour to look back and see who is an "elected" bureaucrat and who was a "quick" 'crat all the time to see if someone did something they shouldn't have, etc. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this from the sideline and I simply don't understand the problems. How hard can it be to wait until a poll ends? In any case I don't think it's a good idea to have different types of bureaucrats. A bureaucrat should be able to help out with all tasks. Of course, a bureaucrat can make mistakes and apparently these mistakes are reason to rethink the procedure. No harm done there, but having two procedures wouldn't solve this imho. --Erwin(85) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the best idea. Why let a few "bad eggs" (with apologies) ruin it for all? I think the better solution is to just de-crat those who have been consistently going against policy (early closes, bad promotions, whatever). If it's blatant, just take their bit; if it's not blatant, start a discussion at WM:RFA and give the community a week to decide. I don't think all of Meta's 'crats should be punished because a few have acted outside of project policy. giggy _(:O) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Largely staying away from the fun here. However, with SUL getting there & making it simpler, it really would be very easy for someone to get admin on a smallish wiki. The requirement for admin here is remarkable low given what a Meta admin can affect project wide. Then - given the fact that there will always be "power nuts" around - they just need to do nothing much wrong for three months & they become a 'crat.

A few admins here are of the pigeon variety anyway (I'll explain if I have too). It may be worth people just thinking a bit - or not. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Changes

Well it seems we may have reached a conclusion, so I will add it to our Bureaucrat policy in 24 hours..the changes are:

1. Be active on Meta with over 150 edits/log actions (after getting adminship and not including own userspace) in the last six months.
2. User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves at Meta:RfA.
3. No objections are raised in 24 hours after he/she nominates themselves at Meta:Requests for adminship. If objections are raised, a short discussion should ensue, at which point after 48 hours a bureaucrat should close it and analyse whether consensus believes the concerns are valid or not. If the concerns are considered valid by consensus, he/she must nominate themselves via a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat.
4. A bureaucrat who makes less than 20 non-bureaucrat-related edits/log actions (ie. no edits outside of closing RfA's/thanking users, changing usernames/notifying users, etc.) in six months will automatically lose their bureaucrat access. It can be regained through the above method. They will not lose their administrator access.

Nearly everything above is Daniel's idea except I changed the 4 months to six months and its only because of recent mishaps on Meta, since it seems 3 months is really not enough to judge a person as a crat, I believe in enwiki, a person who has been an admin for one year is qualified enough to be a crat, if they pass their RfB, so its better if it 6 months here since we all very much agree that we can trust all our meta admins :), before it was 100 edits in 3 months and people have complained that its too high so for six months I propose that it should be 150 until we decide otherwise in the future ..--Cometstyles 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support - looks ok to me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, but, please, don't monopolize the 'crat actions (don't close a RfA early, p.e.) Alex Pereira ^falaê 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not the biggest fan of having to wait 6 months, but overall it's good. giggy _(:O) 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok done..changes have been made ..--Cometstyles 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose for now. Right now I can see a potential flaw in the "20 bureaucrat-related edits/log in every 6 months". This leads to a race to close RfA or renaming user because these actions should not be taken lightly. If such requirements is imposed, it will lead to a quick foot race to close an RfA as soon as it's over without giving much considerations to it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ohana, it's 20 non-crat related edits, meaning that you have to be active on Meta in areas other than crat stuff. -- Avi 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Opps, my bad. Read it the other way around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove 100 edits requirement

I think this criteria is outdated. Nowadays, it seems to be a much bigger deal to be an admin on this wiki, and 100 edits does not cut it normally. Some candidates confuse the fact it says "at least 100 edits" when it really means "don't even think about adminship until you have 100 edits". I think the edit count requirement should be removed. Candidates should be judged on their merits of whether they'd be a useful addition to the team, not a meaningless number. Let's face it, someone with less than 100 edits hasn't the slightest chance. Instead of messing about figuring out a minimum number (which to me is pretty meaningless), let's remove it and judge candidates properly. Majorly ^talk 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the criteria is misleading. As has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, meeting all of the criteria and being an established user elsewhere is not an automatic pass to adminship. What needs to be emphasised is that like on the content wikis, to receive adminship here users will need to demonstrate experience of participating in Meta affairs and explain why it would be useful. A completely arbitrary number of edits doesn't help here, this has to be judged on a case by case basis by the community. Adambro 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was in the favour of increasing it, because a couple of candidates this year who just made the RfA requirement of 100, requested adminship straight away which to me meant they were not really here to help, though I believe we must give more importance to the overall activity levels of a candidate for the last 6 months and why 6 months because, people who have been around for 3 months, with over 100 edits request adminship soon after and though they pass criteria, they would just get the sysop bits and leave, this is very common in big wikis as well, and the sad part is that most people think its too easy to get adminship here, and though they have adminship on bigger wikis, they try to have adminship on smaller wikis like this just to show-off which is a rising problem but as Adambro pointed out above, which practically sums out what I said above..though I do disagree with removing the edit count requirement, it will just increase the number of RfA candidacies, since basically most people can't read the policy and requirements :P, and we may have lots of SNOW cases and increasing edit count requirement won't help either, but for me if a person has less than 50 edits on this wiki but has been actively helping out cross-wiki, I would support that person rather someone with over 400 edits here, low activity in the last couple of months and No cross-wiki experience, so one major requirement we could add to the policy should be "cross-wiki experience" which is very important for meta which is a wiki that deal with co-ordination between all 730+ wikis, and only being active on one of the big wikis and requesting adminship here is not good enough ... --Cometstyles 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with all three comments here however it is a way to get something into "policy" that works for us all. The edit criteria is lousy & should be scrapped in my view. The idea that you can get adminship here because you have "x" edits is mad (almost regardless of how many edits that is).

Meta adminship is not some kind of club for admins on other wikis. To me the issue is the same as other wikis (my view) - they are tools which those who show a need for, & understanding of, should be able to get without too much fuss. To me then they need to show me by their work here that they understand Meta & would benefit the community by having the additional tools.

Time might be an issue but then, like counts, it will be "when I've cleared the hurdle the tools are mine" which is rubbish. Cross wiki experience I would say would be worth getting into the wording somewhere though how you define it I'm not sure. Even the basics such as babel info on the user page would be - to me - important, this is a multi lingual project even if some of us aren't! Not withstanding the current RfA where I understand there are difficulties I would kind of expect SUL to be activated for an admin elsewhere who was working cross wiki? I'll give it some thought - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of losing this criteria, not because I think 100 is necessarily too much, but because it is an arbitrary barrier; I agree with Herby's assessment above. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The EN:WQ policy is "Current English Wikiquote policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikiquote contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." I suggest that as a basis. Having SUL should not be a requirement because, for one reason or another, some people cannot get SUL.--Poetlister 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Poetlister pretty much. Since this is a multilingual project, requiring babel information might fit in there somewhere too. (And on Commons we require email enabled too, I think that's worth considering here.) giggy _(:O) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We require email enabled here, and also the requirement of a userpage (but not user languages). Majorly ^talk 11:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Email should be a requirement. In the absence of SUL info then I guess a matrix would be essential? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

re. Email - cool, just confirming that it's a requirement (and is staying one). I do think a requirement some mention of user languages should come up. giggy _(:O) 12:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Any multi lingual project should really expect babel info out of courtesy even if it shows some of us up rather badly! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course edit counts, time limits etc. are all arbitrary and therefore at best they serve only to keep away SNOW RFAs. As such, there is little value to keeping them. Unfortunately, that is not a view shared by everyone. Email, babel, cross-wiki experience all good, though the describing cross-wiki experience is sometimes difficult.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing :-). MiCkE 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Times definitely have changed and attitudes may have changed, too. :-) --Marbot 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not increasing the minimum requirement to 500 edits to test or see what happens and to gain some more time to develop a suitable policy? My impression is that a consensus on this is not easily reached in due time. Cheers --Marbot 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

500 edits is an excellent suggestion, but it will make people hate Meta more and proclaim it to be too Bureaucratic :P..In terms of cross-wiki experience, I believe Luxo's tool is good enough to show a persons cross-wiki contributions (for now, till someone makes something better)..and regarding babel, yes, we do need at least Bilingual speakers on Meta and we really do prefer people to speak quite different languages but its not really a requirement and though being admin on a major content project may be a requirement, it can always be overlooked for a person who has cross-wiki experience, though not an admin anywhere..in other words, what we need on Meta is people involved in multiple projects and being admins on that projects is a bonus but not really a requirement and if someone says they are involved in multiple wiki but the tool shows that they are only involved in one language wikis, then that should not be seen as cross-wiki experience, so basically the problem will be to determine what actually "cross-wiki experience" is? :)...--Cometstyles 22:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is put in as a criteria for us will be seen as a target by some (sadly people who maybe aren't best suited to being Meta admins!). I think when the current RfA is over we should remove the 100 edits bit (& add babel?).

There are enough tools to check on people experience around wikis. Equally - at the risk of being controversial - Jimbo's comments about adminship were made at a time when being a sysop on Meta did not have the cross project implications that it does now. It may not be a big deal but it can affect all projects quite a bit. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if bringing "no big deal" into RfA discussions ever results in something positive. :) giggy _(:O) 09:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comet, why does it have to be multiple language? What about cross-project contributions in enwikisource, enwikibooks, commons, and enwiki, as an example? -- Avi 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would consider that good cross wiki experience for what it's worth... giggy _(:O) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well cross-wiki doesn't only mean one language wiki, in this case, english, for example a language has maybe 7 wikis including wikipedia, wiktionary, wikinews, wikibooks, wikiquotes, and some languages have a wikisource and wikiversity too (see Matrix), we have about 268 language wikis on wikimedia and just being part of one language doesn't really mean "cross-wiki experience" does it?..and yes their is no requirement for you to be able to speak those many languages, cause believe me, no one can...one of the motto of Meta is that its the co-ordination wiki between the 700+ wikis on meta, and if you have participated on any other language wikis apart from your homewikis, it means you have cross-wiki experience, not sure why its important here, but probably meta needs multilingual or atleast Bilingual editors who can help out on those wikis and help them through meta such as discussions on creating new wikis in their languages or changes to interfaces etc ....--Cometstyles 01:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cometstyles here. I discovered that you do not need to speak the language to deal with cross wiki issues (link placement in my case). Finding templates is a challenge but it makes life interesting. You even pick up some words if you are brave enough to leave the interface on the wiki language rather than changing it to your own! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes made

OK - made a couple of edits to the page dealing with issues here.

I've removed the edit requirements. It is only misleading really and at worst acts as a target to be achieved. I've put in a plea for Babel info and in place of the "prove you are you" edit bit asked for SUL confirmation or a matrix. Feel free to revert, or better, improve if you want. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just when I hit 100 edits, Herby has to go and raise the bar. Talk about bad luck :-P. All kidding aside, I think that it is an improvement. Ive adjusted Meta:Administrators to reflect this. -- Avi 15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also added the subjective line about "being a contributor" that was in (and modified) Meta:Administrators. Feel free to change as necessary. -- Avi 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Threshold to pass a RfO

Before the first of the RfO's are due to close, I think we need to find some kind of (rough) threshold of support/oppose at which Oversight is granted, to avoid confusion on the day. Do we stick with ~75% as is done with adminship, or should it be slightly higher because of the volatility and importance of this permission? Or maybe there is already a designated threshold and I have missed it? --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

actually no, its 25 supports AND 80% support so if we manage to get 25 supports but the percentage is below 80%, then its a fail and likewise if 12 people supported a candidate and its 100% support, its still a fail because you need a minimum of 25 supports...--Cometstyles 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the 25 supports amounting to 80% of the total from? I know that's the approach on Commons, but is there somewhere this is stated to be mandatory for all projects? I can't find anything about the requirements for obtaining someone being granted the right at Oversight and Steward requests/Permissions#Oversight access only discusses the process where a project has a local ArbCom... WjBscribe 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

actually I got it from commons, Meta never needed CU or oversights before so we have to mimic some policies from other wikis where it is successful, and looking at some of the RfA's we have had this year, getting 25 supports isn't that hard so we should follow on here if no one objects to it 25 supps/80% would work here perfectly though people will disagree with the 80% but since admniship is at 75% and stewardship (for which you need to identify to the foundation) is 80%, in that context, 80% for oversight for which you also need to identify to the foundation is perfect :) ..--Cometstyles 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to that being the threshold, but if we are just borrowing it from Commons I think we need a consensus that it's the right threshold to use here. It would be good to have people agreed on what is needed to pass before any requests are closed :-). Is there also a need to decide how long they run for i.e. one week or two? WjBscribe 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As with commons, I think 2 weeks is enough and yes we can vote for it here (not another round of votings :P ) ..--Cometstyles 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As a candidate (who plans to stand aside as soon as two other candidates qualify and are confirmed) I choose not to "vote" on the requirements question. But as a steward, my expectation would be that it's 25 supports or more, and 80% or better. Just like CU. The CU policy says 70-80% currently but that's not how I remember it from the past. Also, as a note, we now have 2 candidates that have passed the 80% and 25 votes threshold. In the past I have sometimes seen positive results taken forward as soon as they happen but I've more often seen the full two week span held to... ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: I've modified the Oversight page to reflect what thresholds the stewards are actually looking for. I suggest that any suggestions below the minimum standard there be ignored, as they won't promote on that standard in any case. Thanks. Kylu 23:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oversight threshold

25 supports AND 80% support

1. (running for 2 weeks) - --Cometstyles 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. It works fine on Commons. —Giggy 06:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
3. This is policy borrowed from Checkuser policy - anything less is absolutely unacceptable.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 10:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Cbrown1023 talk 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Quite agreeing with Mike, and would suggest that future sensitive rights (if any appear from sysadmin-land) should have similar requirements. Kylu 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Looking at how many supports the current RfO's have, 25 shouldn't be too hard to pull off really. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
7. --Meno25 02:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes But i really think comments should be weighed appropriately as Majorly said--Mardetanha ^talk 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Yep 25 votes shouldn't be a problem. --Kanonkas 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC) as Cometstyles comented.
11. Unless there is a serious reason -- based on the "comments" -- showing that the numbers alone can't prove consensus. Huji 18:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
12. I support a qualitative assessment, but it just seems so impractical to manage. For closely contested RfOs, there's always going to be some people who disagree with the closer's consensus. I think 25 supports and 80% supports is easier to manage; for RfOs close to the 80% threshold, the weight of each comment should be taken into account. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just 80%

• I don't think someone should fail because they didn' get *anough* support, especially seeing ho small a wiki Meta is. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• We don't have so much permanent users. At least we have to wait and not close 90%-RfO as failed because user haven't gained 25 support votes yet — VasilievV ² 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote, comments should be weighed appropriately

• Majorly ^talk 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Alex, here. Oversight does require a bit more sensitivity, understanding, common sense, and thought than regular deletion, and while it seems somewhat fait accompli-ish above, I think that it would be better to have the comments be judged qualitatively as much as quantitatively. -- Avi 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that Wikimedia has been weighting certain things as votes, regardless of how un-Wiki it is. If you have a nice civil discussion on an alternate-language Wiki that has no stewards speaking the local language and state that the outcome is to grant certain users checkuser or oversight, they'll want to see votes. Checkuser policy wants 25 votes with 75% approval or the local policy for approval, whichever is harder to get. If projects start pushing Oversight requests towards the lower end of the spectrum, we'll be forced to use the same criteria as is used for Checkuser, now. I'd like to put my opinion here, but I don't think that our asserting it otherwise is going to change the situation. Kylu 04:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a WMF policy that we have to vote on checkuser access. Unless there is such a policy for oversight (in which case it should use the same criteria as checkuser), we should follow the usual rules and let a bureaucrat decide.--Poetlister 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge there is such a policy (and if there isn't, there should be, IMO). —Giggy 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting early closure of requests for adminship

I've read the discussion above and I have to say it has to be one of the silliest I've read in a long time. Closing an RfA 12 minutes is no big deal for a variety of reasons, and as such, I'd like to revisit this change. Adminship on content projects can directly affect user contributions, article content, editing access and a wide range of other things. Adminship on Meta-Wiki is far different. While its been said that adminship is not a big deal with regard to en.wiki, it is doubly true for Meta-Wiki. If there is a clear consensus for a change, for example, unanimous support for an admin candidate, an extra twelve minutes will not change the outcome. I propose re-adding the text that allows clear cases to be closed early. The arguments of "bureaucrat abuse" simply hold no weight. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

...changes made to Meta-Wiki have the ability to affect multiple wikis, see Spam blacklist, www, and the fact that we were previously able to manage Global accounts. I really disagree with your opinion that enwiki adminship is a bigger deal than Meta and we should change our policies so they are more lax then theirs.

All that being said, I have no problem with the change by Majorly. There is nothing wrong with not listing that they could do something (it's not like we had someone put "if you close it before the time, you will be desysopped). Cbrown1023 talk 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing 12 minutes earlier is OK, but it really makes no sense if you can close it on time... — vvv 20:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Majorly's edit is fine, we changed the policy not because of an RfA closing 12 minutes too early but because before that another RfA was closed a whole day and a half too early and the '12 minutes' was just a nail to the coffin and I really don't think comparing enwiki to meta is a good idea as Cbrown1023 mentioned above and that famous line by Jimbo was said in 2003 and since then time has really changed and adminship is really a big deal though you might think its more important in enwiki and its your opinion and I remember the times when RfA's in enwiki which was successful but never got closed on time ( I have never seen an RfA closed early on enwiki just because it had consensus to pass unless it was a WP:SNOW case), it will stand there for hours and even for more than a day but here people like to close it early...not the same .. ;) ..--Cometstyles 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, how DO you get all that typed in one go without taking a breath??? :) But ya, I agree. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

O_O, Yoga my friend ;) ...--Cometstyles 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush. It's not a race. The wiki is not going to blow up if we wait till the full time period has went by for making new admins. So I wouldn't favour even closing 12 minutes early. At least not on purpose. Now we've had two early closes on commons recently, one by me, by mistake, of a failed adminship and one by someone else on purpose. Bad practice in both cases, and I'm mad at myself for being sloppy. On the other hand, we stewards recently introduced the Global Rollback rights process, said it was going to be 3 days, and then Birdy closed and promoted a bunch early. In THAT case, it WAS a bit of an emergency, there was some nasty vandalism crosswiki to clean up, and those folks went off and did it as soon as they got their bits. So... it depends. Wait if possible, please. Leave the wording as is. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, no need to rush. And it is a big deal on meta, as Cbrown points out, we can edit the Spam blacklist/site portals which update instantly. If it's done by accident, not a problem, but purposely closing early is a bad idea, especially given the amount of bureaucrats there are. Let things run their course. Majorly ^talk 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While it's not a big deal if someone must wait, it's equally not a big deal (see very large discussion above indicating it is a big deal) if it's closed a few minutes early. Process for the sake of process is a Bad Thing. While Meta undoubtedly hosts a number of important pages, whether someone is made a sysop at 12:00 or at 11:30 makes no impact on the state of the Www portals or the Spam blacklist. I fear the point of my comments has been somewhat lost, so I'll try to restate / rephrase it: it is no big deal if, in clear cases of adminship or bureaucratship, a bureaucrat promotes early. Nobody in this discussion and nobody anywhere thinks that Alison's RfA was going to fail had it gone the extra few minutes. And the exact same thing can be said for many other RfAs. --MZMcBride 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unequivocally. See the essay meta:snowball that I started a while ago. First thing first, snowball clause claims to have been derived from ignore all rules. Meta is an inter-wiki and international project. There are projects and participants which treat rules quite seriously, and it is not at all clear that every wikimedia project has adopted "ignore all rules". So on Meta we should't do it.
• Then "re-adding the text that allows clear cases to be closed early" is not a good idea. It is impossible to draw a line on what we exactly mean by early; And if you don't draw a line, people may become upset when they disagree on the meaning of "early". As many (the first I know was from Aphaia) have observed, most people do not keep watch on meta pages, and so it is unfair to move the deadline of a discussion.
• Most importantly, I have seen time and again the course of discussion changed decisively by one person. The most recent one was by Angela on hotlinking. The whole point on not closing early is not to wait out for the apparent consensus to pass, but to make sure that everybody has a chance to raise an objection. Hillgentleman 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• For the sake of diversity, never. I can say that a CU of a project could be banned by another community decision, or a bureaucrat of a project could be banned by another project Arbcom. In respect of Wikimedia global community diversity, and as Hillgentleman, the majority of meta editors are not watching meta 24/7, there should be no rush and we need to keep the door open as long as possible. A vote could be easily turned into the opposite side, like the recent vote on "HtDP" --Aphaia 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In certain cases, sure. But a vote without any opposes is a bit different than one with one or two or five opposes. If the result is clear-cut, it seems to be following process for the sake of following process. Even if one person were to object in the last thirty minutes, it wouldn't change the result of the discussion. Which is ultimately the point of the discussion in the first place – to reach a result. --MZMcBride 02:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What is gained by closing a few minutes early. If as you say the outcome is not going to be affected then gaining the tools minutes/hours early is hardly going to have a real effect on anything.

Some people do visit Meta less often than others while still quite active here. Why should we not allow the full amount of time for anyone to have their say? Frankly I fail to understand why there should be any rush. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One can also summerize it like this: "People think there is no worry if an RfA is closed a few minutes early".. so if those few minutes aren't important, why not to let them be there? Why to take them? Huji 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade closed-request template

I propose upgrading {{closed request}} (originally copied from w:template:rfap) so that it summarises the result if closed, links to the request page (instead of the category of all requests), mimics the usual {{closed}} format, categorizes discussions under either Meta-Wiki requests or Closed Meta-Wiki requests as appropriate, and is not substituted (to simplify maintenance).

{{request subpage}} is a demonstration of these changes. Compare:

open request	none	proposed
closed request	old	proposed

—{admin} Pathoschild 23:53:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the proposed version. Cbrown1023 talk 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a template on open requests - what's the point? It also tells us the completely obvious "This is a subpage; for more information, please see Meta:Requests for bot status" (which incidentally, links straight back to the RfA page) thus isn't really needed - I think our editors are intelligent enough to realise this is the case. And the usual way to define an ended RfA is "Promoted" or "Not promoted", not "Done" or "Not done". Closed requests using the old template were far more simpler, without having the need to remember awkward template parameters, and the result is always added on the page itself in any case, so it's simply duplicating it. I also don't think it's necessary to link to other requests in the archives either. Old archive pages should be left alone as much as possible. Majorly ^talk 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a point. We shouldn't limit readers' convenience just because they're intelligent enough to manage without. Placing the template on open requests auto-categorizes them and ensures that we won't forget to close them (for example, Millbot-Stats was never closed and is uncategorized). Adding "closed" to the template when you close the discussion is not awkward. You can use any summary you wish, and "promoted"^12345678 is used roughly as often as "done"^1234567 and much more rarely than "granted". The result is frequently omitted (example), particularly on older requests, and it is not always easy to find when it is not. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:59:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Millbot-Stats is a one-off error. It is more awkward because now I'll have to remember a different template with extra parameters. I struggle enough on RFD (which is why I don't close very often). "Done" is more for bots than administrators (though it's not a major problem I have, it's just a word I wouldn't use for promoting an admin), and the examples you give for requests that don't have a result are very old. It is easy to determine (not sure why anyone would) that Jhs (or anyone else) was promoted, by either looking at their edits, or the user rights log. Though perhaps the result could be added to requests that don't have a result, but I don't see why it should be added to the more modern requests, where they all do as far as I know. The early RfAs were a very add hoc process, and I have spent hours reorganising the archives, so I know what they're like. Majorly ^talk 02:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The other one-off errors are electcom 2008, Dschwen 4, Kylu, MonoBot, Prom3th3an, and Werdna 2. You don't need to remember a different template, since it is the same template (with one parameter) and it can be added automatically.

I don't understand why you're so adamantly against the changes, even reverting their usage on 91 pages without so much as a comment to let me know. Most don't affect how the template is used; if learning new usage is the problem, we can add the parameter by default ("closed=no"), so you can close a discussion simply by changing "no" to something else (like "promoted"). Then an added benefit would be intuitive usage without needing to know anything about the template or process. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:49:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see you let me or anyone else know when you decided to change the system (one which you don't really have any part in since you don't close requests). I let you know on your bot request I was going to revert the undiscussed changes. I'll be continuing to close RfAs (if I ever do) as I always have done, as I don't see any real benefit to this change, and I find it rather disruptive to go and mass change nearly 100 requests without so much as discussing it first. Majorly ^talk 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I implemented what I thought was an obvious improvement, you reverted, I initiated a discussion. That is the normal process of consensus-building. I think your accusation of disruption is somewhat misplaced; it took me over an hour to implement, and you three minutes to rollback (and you could have simply redirected the template). —{admin} Pathoschild 16:28:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Meta:Requests for bot status/Pathosbot, I'm now dead against changing this. "The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived" is wrong, it is archived already, and the bold text is downright ugly. I don't particularly mind if others prefer this new imposed system, but I personally prefer to continue with the way I've always done it. Cheers, Majorly ^talk 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because the closing bureaucrat used {{closed}}, not the new template. They would have done so whether or not the proposed template was there (example). Try looking again. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:27:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still ugly all the same. Majorly ^talk 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, there doesn't seem to be a drawback here. I think implementation is the obvious thing to do here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a good thing, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 08:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent for the change, but I agree with Majorly that the language "done" and "not done" seems a little unnatural when applied to requests for adminship. WJBscribe (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "done" and "not done" aren't the best choice of word, but I think it's a good idea otherwise. I'm sure it's possible using magic words to change those in the case of an RfA. Giggy 07:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be fairly unanimous support for the upgrade (83.3% counting the single oppose from Majorly), so I'llimplement it soon if there's no other objection. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:58:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting agreement to do this. Please consider doing the same next time you decide to update hundreds of pages en masse. Cheers! Majorly ^talk 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Sorry, can't think of a better header :) I did a count up of how many RFAs had passed this time last year, for the whole year (not including temp requests); the total was 29. I did the same for this year, the total was only 17. My question: is it getting harder to become an admin on Meta? Back in the day, a few hundred edits and trust on another site was enough; nowadays, people are demanding daily RC patrol, spam blacklist activity, discussion on everything... another question is, do we need anymore admins? I don't think we're particularly desperate, though more are always welcome who want to do the work. A more important question though is, how can we get more people to come to Meta to help us out? That last question is perhaps off topic for this page, but answers are still needed all the same. Any ideas? Majorly ^talk 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not actually getting harder to become admin on Meta, its just no longer simple ^_^. Previously anyone that wanted an extra admin account without actively taking part in language based wikis came to Meta and after just a few weeks became admin and probably disappeared soon after which led to us having so many admins but hardly anyone active, except for those that were stewards, so I believe its the new policies we have that had actually made getting adminship on Meta "less simple" which I totally agree with, but something you didn't mention was that Meta has sort of become "more" active compared to an year ago and its not only in relation to the translation or fund-raising work but also increase in cross-wiki and inter-wiki relations. Do we need more admins?..well I don't think so, but if we can get admins from other wikis with interface knowledge as well as parsers on meta, it will be very useful, though I'm not sure about how to get more people involved on Meta, one step could be to bribe them with cookies which has worked quite well on developers or we could just use the Central Notice for our own greed to advertise cross-wiki like "Help needed, Inquire at Meta" :P ... --Cometstyles 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need more admins. I do not know why we are getting fewer people. I my corner, I have tried to make contributing easier, since it is a highly "finnicky" area & gets less-than-optimal attention. Beyond such efforts, I think an examination of who works here, why, and how to attract more like-minded people is in order. Of course, one must never confuse people who work here with people who are here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)