Commons talk:Requests and votes/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Voting

Hi all.
In past i saw really some people who voted because of experiences with the users in IRC or other projects or only because he/she is speaking their language. I belive this should be avoid because it causes RfA's like this or that. Expecially is this problems with spanish sysops, because local uploades are disabled on es:. I belive we should limit votes by saying noone with less than 200 contribs and 2 month since first login is allowed to vote. Maybe we could also limit voting to only sysops, I dont know. I would really like to hear your oppinions. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree - I've given up voting in ones like that. Last time this came up everyone seem to think it was ok so maybe it is just me (& you :))--Herby talk thyme 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. Some of my earliest edits here were voting on RfAs. It's a great way to get familiar with the community. Sysops only? No way. Majorly (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops should have read it properly. I think we should have a qualification for voters but definitely not sysops only --Herby talk thyme 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My two cents... Probably not bad to set a small threshold: Commons has quite a community of its own and doesn't "need" to have people not familiar with the project voting in it. Never limited to sysops only, though, I agree with Majorly. However, it's a delicate case with projects that have local uploads disabled. I know a couple of people that are really good with image issues and have done quite extensive work on them on pt.wiki, so the pt.wiki community would know they would do a good work with images on Commons and support their presence here; but maybe those people are not so "known" on Commons and wouldn't pass an RfA with local community votes only? I'm just imagining here, I don't have grounds to say that's what would happen... And es.wiki is such a wiki with local uploads disabled too. I don't feel comfortable with phenomena looking like vote canvassing, but in many cases it's going to be very difficult to avoid people from other communities to vote here for "their representative" if they truly feel like such a person will do a good work. All of this blah blah to say that a small threshold will probably do some good in counteracting eventual vote canvassing phenomena (I'm not saying that happened in the cases ABF pointed out though, I'd like to keep as neutral as possible on that). Many projects use this rationale, and as far as I know, even Meta is discussing such limitations. When there is a stable, healthy local community, it should probably take preference in deciding matters that concern them directly. Patrícia msg 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with a threshold. But as I suggested on Meta, the requirements should not be edits here, but elsewhere. I suggested an active account on another project for more than 3 months. Active, of course is the bureaucrat's discretion, if there ever was a difficult closure to be done. Majorly (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - this is about voting to grant someone sysop rights here. Those with a knowledge of this project are the ones who should have the main voice in that not those who "know the person from elsewhere". However well intentioned the important thing is that admins here know what they are doing here --Herby talk thyme 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Like Meta, but perhaps not so much, Commons exists for other projects. I don't see the point in denying someone the ability to vote if they know the user from elsewhere. The only problem is when they start voting (in masses) differently to the active community here. This is when we have bureaucrat discretion. I wouldn't mind a bit if they supported (or opposed) along with everyone else, it's when it's different that it's a problem. Majorly (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

200 Edits/2 Months - yes- Sysops only. No, never. Here are a lot of great Users who don't want to be a Sysop. Why they should not can vote? No. We are not an scientific Academy. Marcus Cyron 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Marcus's comments - 200 edits/2 months sound like a very good starting point for discussion --Herby talk thyme 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree completely. That's how much you need to be an admin. We might as well make it admin only. Needs to be much, much lower, in order to encourage new editors to participate in Commons discussions, not bar them because of arbitary requirements, Majorly (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a difference in the requirements for voters and for admin candidates. But maybe it's also time to increase the indicated "requirement" for adminship at the same time? I've had more than 200 edits in a single day at times. It's quite easy to do if you sort out a poorly structured category. I think 500 is a more reasonable indicated bare minimum for adminship. I don't think this would actually change what users become admins compared to today, as it tends to go hand in hand with other things that people hopefully consider before voting, so I think it would only reflect reality better. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Precondition for any reasonable vote is some experience regarding Commons. Without knowing our guidelines and procedures it’s impossible to rate the candidate with respect to the work an admin on Commons has to do. --Polarlys 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can be familiar with such things without editing (I was, pretty much). Anyway, 200 edits and 2 months is ridiculous. Majorly (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, limiting sysops only is really senseless (i only heard it somewhere for another project and mentiont it), and maybe 100/1 (100 not from image uploads) would be good, what do you think? abf /talk to me/ 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We need sysops with many language skills, and from many different wikis. But more importantly, we need sysops who are engaged with the community. My concern with some of the noms recently is precisely that by having a large number of users from their home wiki comment, it is difficult to determine how engaged with the community they are. Suffrage requirements have a mild correlation to engagement by voters (certainly someone with no edits here at all is not likely to be a community member, regardless of how many edits they have elsewhere). In an ideal world there would be a better metric but a weak correlation is better than none. So, reluctantly, I support some suffrage requirements for voters. 200 edits here and 2 months here? Not a bad point to start discussion, but maybe too high for suffrage to vote. I'd however like to see those saying 'ridiculous' do more, and instead propose some different metrics with rationale for why they are about the right numbers. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose anything because I don't believe there should be anything. Would you seriously remove someone's vote just because they only had 198 edits? That's just so counter productive and bitey. Majorly (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that you oppose any suffrage requirements at all, I missed that. As for disregarding someone's comment at 198 contribs... Not necessarily, that's where bureaucrat discretion comes in to play, I think. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen on the English Wiktionary that in order to participate in major decision-making, you would need at least 50 edits total. For the proponents of this proposal, would this sound like a sensible compromise? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:59, 20 February 2008 (GMT)

That sounds much more reasonable. Majorly (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make a whole lot of sense to say that users have to have 200 edits and have to be user for two months to be able to support/oppose a new admin. In :de we had very good experiences w/ that, especially as it prevents votes made by Sockpuppets. Some user in :de (like me) even prefer 400 edits and four months. Sysops only is not a good idea, though. --my name 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It prevents nothing. I could make 200 edits in a day if I liked. Would you accept votes from me if I did that? Majorly (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, because you would not be a user for two months. --my name 11:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say I have a little bit a problem, if new users starting their work here with voting for candidates. You must know a little bit about the project and must had the time to see, how the candidate work. Maybe we can't say, someone is ready after 50, 100 or 200 edits. But I think, a month in which the person should work regularly in the project is must. At de:WP if I remeber I vote for the first time after more than the two months. Maybe 4 or 5. Here I think it was the same or maybe even a longer time. You must learn to understand such a project. Marcus Cyron 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My first vote on RfA on enwp was about a month in, and no one attacked me for being too new. On Meta and Commons, RfA votes were among my first edits. No one attacked me for being too new, and I stayed. If I had been attacked, I'd have left. Majorly (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not about "attacking" new people, it is about community agreed eligibility. If that is properly agreed and published then no one is attacked (to be contrasted with simple en wp for example) --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why limits like 200 edits, I'd rather see a content upload contribution than blind edits there are enough tasks to get edit numbers up with out needing to consider Commons primary purpose of a media repository and responsibilities of such. Until you uploaded content you havent had to consider copyright, its application and implications. That does give people something to assess as to whether to editors has any understanding of copyright. Gnangarra 12:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So far

It seems to me that there is some consensus so far. Majorly does not want any limits on the ability to vote and everyone else would like to see something. It is equally clear that "sysops only" is unacceptable.

Frankly the ease with which 200 edits can be made in a day (in Majorly's words as well as others) suggests that as a bare minimum to me. The fact that someone works on a conventional wiki does not convince me that they know much about what happens on cross wiki wikis such as Commons (& Meta) so experience here is a sensible factor and that seems born out by comments above.

Lets take a stab at 300 edits (including uploads - get them right & you know something about the project, get them wrong & you will hopefully be learning!) and three months activity. I am with a number of the above comments (I'd personally be happy with higher figures but I also agree with LX that I doubt it will greatly affect the admin make up). However let's get something in & then we can work on admin elegibility. I do realise that Majorly will object however please can we look for real consensus of the community here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus of the above would be 200 edits and 2 months, not 3. Majorly (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
300 edits and 3 months to vote, or to get adminship? I'd be looking more at 50 edits/1 month (whatever comes first) for voting, and those numbers (300/3) seem high to me for running. I got the tools with 223 (IIRC) edits and a few months, and I haven't done too badly, I think. giggy (:O) 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, finally someone here with some sense! Majorly (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Before I get stabbed for destroying consensus, I would like to point out that I don't object to an edit count before RfA voting. I think it's a good thing. I just think that people have judgement to vote well before they have judgement to run (insert presidential candidate analogy here). giggy (:O) 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
excellent - good to know that you think the world gets good politicians (or is that merely the ones they deserve):). Not sure that analogy is good though. --Herby talk thyme 09:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think 300 edits and three months is fine for adminship (though I'm not opposed to 200 edits and two months, either), and a bare minimum of 50 edits for voters (I would prefer something a tad higher, perhaps 100, to discourage sockpuppetry a bit more). Arria Belli | parlami 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Arria Belli, with a preference for the higher numbers. --MichaelMaggs 22:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For Admin eligibility I would definitely want higher. I suggest a minimum of 500 edits (as has been said that is easy to achieve) I'm not sure about time. I think there should be some uploading though I am not sure what level. Equally deleted edits (the tagged ones not self created mistakes) certainly count. I had (IIRC) around 400 edits and 500 deleted edits (sadly I still have more deletion than edits last time I looked!).
Back on voting eligibility how about 100 edits and a minimum of one month's activity? --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 Support the voting minimum. 500 edits total for adminship would be fine, also. I don't think we should set minimums for things like uploads and deleted edits (which count anyway, IMO). That stuff we'll look for when we review the candidate and it all depends. - Rocket000 08:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all edits are equal. I spent some time attempting to reduce the images to be found in Category:Media needing categories. In the time it takes to thoughtfully remove an image from that category and find the appropriate category -- hundreds of images can be 'edited' to be in that category; it is with that experience that I claim that not all edits are equal. This is just one example. Uploads are another thing. With software, it is somewhat easy to upload a lot of properly licensed images from other locations that host properly licensed images, one or two researched and well described images that get used right away or fill in areas that are in need of images might take the same amount of time as uploading hundreds of images that are acceptable. Here is a similar situation -- in USA where I lived for a while, points are assigned for traffic violations. Coasting through a stop sign safely was assigned 6 points, if you were caught. Killing another person while driving drunk was assigned 9 points. There was something fundamentally wrong with this point system in the same way there is with the claim that all edits and uploads are equal. -- carol 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

About requirements for adminship

I've been going through some RfAs from 2007 and got to the conclusion that many of the sucessful candidates had several hundreds (usually more than a thousand) edits and had been around on Commons for at least several months. And that many some of the failed requests were because of reasons not directly related to edit counting. So I don't think increasing the limit from 200/2 months to 300 hundred/3 months for RfA is going to make an significant difference. But I think it's important to make a difference between requirements for adminship and requirements for voting (if we're going to have such), it doesn't make much sense to me that the only people who can vote are also actually technically capable to apply for adminship.

So if there will be a consensus on having voting requirements, please let's have them small. I liked the 50 edits/1 month idea, but combined (both requirements met). This won't avoid sockpuppeting but it does discourage it. Patrícia msg 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the above relates to "voting eligibility" and maybe 200/2 months makes more sense. For admin eligibility something higher is definitely required (probably including upload experience too). --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
agree though it should more a guide than a line in the sand, as may projects have requirements for all images to be uploaded to commons so an admin on them should have some concessions/consideration here. Gnangarra 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, this is making a big deal out of nothing. Are there any really bad admins that were promoted because of an unfair vote? Have there been problems with sockpuppets on RfAs? None that I know of. I think we trust the bureaucrats enough to make a sensible decision on difficult borderline cases. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong at all with people voting. For candidates, yes, I would agree to raising the standards if needs be. But this is simply biting newcomers rather unnecessarily. Majorly (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See the original post from PatriciaR that started this thread up again. I think we can explain why we want people to have some experience before they vote without biting them. I do think there is a potential problem here that introducing some suffrage requirements (not huge ones, I'd be fine with 1 month and 50 edits) will address. I think most other people participating here feel this way too. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! not sure where to respond... I just want to say I support 1 month and 50 edits to vote. I think that's very reasonable. If they don't meet that low of requirements, they definitely don't know the community well enough to vote. Actually, I think it should be higher (like 200/2 mo.) - Rocket000 03:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the main issue here is the thought of sockpuppetry. How many RfAs get destroyed by sockpuppetry? How little faith do we have in our crats that we can't let them discard sockpuppet votes? Again, using myself as an example, look here (my 51st to 100th edit). I commented on some RfAs. Does this make me a sockpuppet (obviously that's not realistic and I'd hope nobody is going to say yes, but see the point...?). giggy (:O) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Puppetry certainly isn't the issue to me. I doubt there has been anything like that since the current batch of CUs git the rights (we are fairly awake!). The issue as far as I am concerned is to ensure that those who know the workings & ways of Commons are getting a reasonable say in who become admins --Herby talk thyme 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Well, to me it's not about sockpuppetry which doesn't seem to be that much of an issue. For me, it's more about voters being part of the community. If they don't even have 50 edits how well can they really know what an admin should be like on Commons? How do they know what to look for? Of course there are exceptions, like in your case, and because many are familiar with WP or Wikimedia in general and just got a Commons account a little late. It's still not the same, but they catch on faster.That's what we're trying to balance here I guess. I just don't like when a bunch of users I never seen before start voting one way or another and it seems to go against what the regulars are voting. I definitely am not saying we should limit it to just the regulars (those who vote almost every time) but at least have some kind of balance so elected admins truly are what we want, not a group of people from another project. - Rocket000 08:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that sockpuppetry does not seem to be an issue, more of having the local community voting in local admins than anything else. Well, we'll see what comes out of the straw poll and try to reach a consensus :). Patrícia msg 10:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll time?

We got a lot of numbers floating around here, let's see where we stand...

Use "+" for when both are necessary; use "or" for whatever comes first. Edit counts include valid deleted edits.

Voting eligibility

Admin eligibility

Comments

Just a polite suggestion: could a bureaucrat(s) please be the one to close this poll, and possibly to avoid any conflict of interest not vote in it? Whatever the resulting decision is, I don't think everyone will be happy, so I'd like good reasoning in the end. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Meta - this is not a binding policy change but an attempt to find what the policy should look like. Then it can be voted on --Herby talk thyme 11:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Herby, I see this more of a check of consensus or failing that, what the policy should look like rather than a binding vote, (we don't usually do polls or binding votes here) so I don't think it needs a "close" per se. Some sort of a time limit (say a week for comments) makes sense though. I'd be happy to summarize what it seems we have gotten to when we get there, but I'm not going to forbear commenting. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Especially for the admin candidate standards, this is mainly useful for getting people to think and talk about their own expectations and for documenting in a somewhat quantifiable manner what sort of standards we as a community tend to expect, so that prospective candidates aren't disappointed by requesting adminship too soon (and so that they don't hesitate for too long either). I think it's a timely discussion, bearing in mind our growth. The expectations are probably higher now than they were when you could count the number of admins on one or two hands. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, Majorly. I don't see this causing too much drama. It seems like we're all on the same page with a couple exceptions and we're all flexible (I think). My purpose for starting this was just to know what numbers we're heading towards. Most were already suggesting numbers. I just wanted to get 'em all in one place. And I would also like a 'crat (one that voted or not) to summarize it after awhile for the sake of giving us a basis to form a policy around.
A couple of comments. One, as Lar pointed out, comments should always be welcomed. Even if it's single-vote IPs (as long as it's not BS). We'll just politely strike out the "keep" or "oppose", nothing else. And second, after we decide on numbersm the question is how strict on this are we going to be? Here's my take on it: For admin eligibility, think of it as the resolution minimum they have for FPCs. :) It's pretty much always observed but if a picture comes along with strong "migrating" reasons, they have no problem overlooking the requirements. It serves as a guideline rather than a strict policy. If a user wants to try running when they're slightly below the minimum, like they have 400/2.5 and the requirement is 500/3, I say let them. IMO, if an admin self-noms when they are below the minimums, that's already one point against them but maybe they're an admin on like six other wikis or they got 1000 edits but only 2 months. These are rare situations so they're not reasons for not having a stated guideline. They may just be reasons to not enforce so strongly sometimes. - Rocket000 00:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

New suggestions seem to have stopped but we do not have one set of numbers that is a clear consensus, there are a lot of variants. I would like to propose an approval voting poll. For each question, we will sort the options by number of edits (and then time as a second sort key), and include other options mentioned as well where it makes sense (also allowing for OR vs AND which was mentioned in a few places). Then editors should sign under EVERY option they consider acceptable. (yes, this will be a lot of signatures, I suggest we use headings to try to reduce edit conflicts). Don't oppose, just don't sign under that option. (that's approval voting :) ). The option that has the most approval after a week (or whatever time we choose) is what we would go with. I would say we should put a definite time limit on it, and ask that this be announced on the pump (and maybe even put into the notices you see). Would this meet with everyone's agreement? Because as things stand I could see us devolving into "1 month and 100 edits is the most obvious choice" vs. "no it isn't, it only got 3 mentions" kind of discussion. Could wait a few days to allow for more new suggestions first, as well as allow for comment on THIS idea. (we would also put up some variant statements on levels of 'crat discretion for approval as well) If people like this idea I can set it up (on yet another subpage I guess :) ) Alternatively we could just try to call consensus and try to make it stick. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 Support I totaly agree with the voting-time :) abf /talk to me/ 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. giggy (:O) 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you think another vote is necessary? I think a consensus can be formed from what we have already. Don't look at me to say what that may be, I started the straw poll. :) - Rocket000 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes I do. I tried looking for consensus, and there is no one option that has clear consensus. There are many with several votes but none that has a majority, or even 30% of the total. Hence I think an approval vote is needed. It may have been good to discuss what we wanted to do before we launched into a poll directly. I'll be working on a subpage to do approval voting on, and will say something here and elsewhere when I have it. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess if you're looking for a majority it's not there, but it seems to me there can be an average devised from what we have. Most center around certain numbers. If you negate the outliers, I think nearly everyone will be ok with the averages. Plus or minus 50-100 edits and +/- 1 month isn't that big of deal which is how much the majority would be off. I think we're flexible. But, you're the 'crat here so maybe you're reading it better than me :) - Rocket000 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A vote is also need as this wasn't really advertised. Look at the fuss folk are still kicking up about the "rights removal with disuse" stuff - that was well advertised too. We do need real community consensus to get something to stick and fortunately that is at least possible here unlike some places! --Herby talk thyme 08:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you got me with that reasoning.. a vote is needed. We did have a good turn out here though. - Rocket000 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - I hope that turnout will make it reasonably easy to get agreement on something that doesn't annoy any of us too much :) Just goes to remind me how much I like it here! --Herby talk thyme 08:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft ready

See Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Voting_Approval_Poll which is a very rough draft. Some smithing clearly would be needed. Adding choices also helpful, as would be adding any explanatory text to help explain things. PLEASE DO NOT start voting yet. We need to thrash out how long, when, where to give notice, etc. etc. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaargh - can we not reduce the options to something far simpler? I really don't think consensus will arise from such a long list will it. Equally by the time there are a few votes on there it will get to be a long page & I get bored easily :) --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, that's complicated! :)Also, despite the number of choices, my preferred choice is not there :P Majorly (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember, it's approval voting. EVERY choice mentioned by one person has to be there to see if it becomes the majority. (I plan for voting for at least 5 of the different suffrage choices, maybe more) ...unless we did a predecessor round to knock them out, but I think 2 rounds is enough rather than having three, that's even worse. As for a choice being missing, it's a wiki. Add it in, and take your best shot at placing it (I tried to rank things in a less-more restrictive order, but I may have flubbed or even reversed the order in some places) where it belongs. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa... you went all out on that. :) - Rocket000 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
ya. :( ... did I miss any? If not, let's nail down start time and where to mention and get the ball rolling. (while we are at it are there any other questions we want to ratify???) ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you covered all the bases and if there's anything missing others can add it in like you said. The only part I'm concerned with is voting for the "Bureaucrat Discretion", "Applying qualifications" and the "Grandfathering" sections at the same time as the requirements. Depending on the outcome of these, it would change what people would vote for. I know I would vote a lot different if these were going to be strict rules with no possible bureaucrat discretion. Same with the grandfathering clause. I was always under the assumption this wouldn't affect users that already were admins. If it's decided all current admins must meet the requirements or be desysoped, I think it will greatly affect some voters' choices. - Rocket000 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we maybe do those first? I put them in for completeness, really, so we would avoid being in a "so what do these numbers MEAN" situation later. Me, I was hoping for "reasonable discretion" on timing of qualification, "only useful edits" on edit types to qualify, "these are guidelines only" on who can stand for admin, and "Grandfather existing admins forever" on grandfathering. But that's just me. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose we can do those first. Or we can go a different route and just start off stating that 'crats (and users when voting) will always have a little discretion when it comes to any of the requirements. This is a pretty common trait of most wiki policies so I think we can safely start out that way. It overlaps with the "these are guidelines only" and the "Only Useful Edits" parts since discretion is being used cases. The grandfathering part may not even be that big of issue, as I think most admins are well past the requirements (there may be some at the higher end, though), but we run into other issues then (like do admin actions count as edits?) - Rocket000 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Go make that change and see if it sticks. Would save a lot of bother, that's for sure. (not sure it would shorten it enough not to bore Herby, but hey...) I won't revert removal of all those choices if they are replaced with a nice solid statement of the policy that removes ambiguity. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No one took me up on it, so I did make the changes to get rid of all the choices around discretion, applicability, and just stated what I thought most seem happy with. ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Lar. I meant to do it but then I got sidetracked (which seems to happen a lot to me in the Wikimedia world). Anyway, it looks good. Thank you. - Rocket000 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the bit someone registers user:Voting Approval Poll and tries to put it through RfA? giggy (:O) 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You lost me there Giggy... :) ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Go to COM:A and try to nominate that user. Then while you're working out what's going on I'll steal your wallet. giggy (:O) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be a monkey's uncle, that's funny. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, that's not a bad idea. It would get some attention that way. - Rocket000 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The user lacks experience(hasnt even made an edit) on Commons, have you got the right user name or has the editor come from another project? 8D Gnangarra 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward: I suggest that we have this approval vote, then. Suggest we publish it in the village pump and the site notice and that it ends at the end of March, to take effect immediately thereafter ... (specifically, ends 31 March 2008 at midnight UTC) Any objections? ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, go for it. giggy (:O) 01:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure immediate implementation is a good idea - it may take us a while to work out what the poll has concluded - the comment above suggest opinions are very divergent and there are a lot of options in the draft poll. If no one option enjoys a clear supermajority, how do we decide what the requirements become? I confess I think discussion is a better way to determine these things than polling anyway, but if we are going to have a poll I think we need some idea of how to interpret results or at least a period of time in which to do that. WjBscribe 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Approval Poll outcome

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Voting Approval Poll/Results discussion ... I am not sure that we have arrived at a consensus for a change, since no option, even despite urging to select as many as one could tolerate, won a majority of votes for either suffrage or for admin qualification. Typically, no consensus == no change. But in this case, perhaps a longer polling time or some other approach might be warranted. Or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no clear consensus for any outcome and think we should leave things as they are. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too. This was a solution looking for a problem. Majorly (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There were too many choices. Start with a few broader options and then narrow it down from there. If it's necessary. Bastique demandez 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Requirements

I see "Edits" under Admin Requirement votes. What namespaces would this include (I don't really know Commons policy, since I am more active on Wikipedia)? Cheers, Glacier Wolf 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Any, if no namespace is mentioned. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (GMT)
I like to encourage "hard limit" requirements at least mention that the edits be useful and not, for instance, all to your own userpage. The problem I have with many "edit" requirements is that I've had accounts on Wikipedia (sorry, just an example) that drop in a new, large article in one edit, and that same edit is worth one vandalism revert, or a spelling correction in a different article, even though the amount of work is the far different. That's rather the inherent problem with hard limits. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage requirements for all admin, bcat, and CU votes

I have a really simple proposal for it, based on Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SB Johnny (checkuser), that I alluded to at here. To vote, you need:

  • In each of the preceding two months before start of the vote, you need at least 10/15/20/30 edits each month

Shows you're active and not just popping in to stuff ballots. Stupidly easy to get, even if we use 30 edits. And it makes sense--if you want to participate in the governance of this site, you should participate in this site. SUL isn't a free pass to have equal weight and authority as someone who edits 1000+ times a month on Commons and has been at Commons for years.

As Commons is a meeting ground for many projects, it's all too easy for conflicts from outside Commons to be imported here, which is completely inappropriate. Same as conflicts here should have no weight or value on English, or Wikiquote, or German, or Wikinews, the same goes vice versa. Commons is no more beholden to other projects than they are to us, or in any other combination... a fight on pl.wikipedia.org should have no bearing on anything en.wikinews.org, for example. Thoughts? I think a simple yardstick for recent activity is even more important than an overall suffrage count (i.e., 150 edits lifetime, etc.), and think we should have something like that as a dead minimum if we do this to prevent mischief on Commons from outside issues and manipulation. Someone with 150 edits from 2005-2006 only that suddenly appears for a heated 2009 vote war I don't think should count as much as someone who routinely works on the current site and knows what is really going on. rootology (T) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'd support this idea as long as it is a guideline that allows common-sense exceptions, so for example a long-term user who was ill for a few months but who had contributed for years could still vote when they return. TimVickers (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please check Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Voting Approval Poll. The suffrage requirement the polls suggested was 1 month/100 edits as an upper limit; that was the highest ranked individual option but 60% favoured a lower level and only 20% a higher level. Given that I'd be reluctant to raise suffrage levels higher in any way.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Me too. The suggested criteria here is way too much. Majorly talk 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, still feeling my way here, I'll go and have a look at the poll. TimVickers (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding the total count aspect of this, what about the activity in recent months aspect, which prevents drive-by vote stuffing? As clarified above, an old-time commons user who was previously active but may not be here, but is active elsewhere--thats problematic, as mentioned for illness, and gets back into the trap of say a primarily English Wikipedia editor that racks up 200 edits in say four months, then vanishes from Commons, remaining active elsewhere, but returns many months (or years) later to participate in votes, but not otherwise. Given how disruptive it can be for people to move cross-project to bring disputes over, the simple "be active on Commons" aspect is pretty easy to maintain. If someone can't stick around for say 15 edits a month (utterly trivial to do) they probably don't know enough about that local project's current state of affairs to decide who governs it. If someone doesn't meet the "15 edits per month for two months before the vote start" qualification, someone can simply note it on the vote, and the closing b'cats can decide what to do with that one, but a long-time Commons regular who goes inactive and comes back to vote in good faith is different than total irregulars swarming to sway a vote one way or the other, from another project. rootology (T) 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to any reasonable definition, since one appears to be needed. I would strongly oppose its application ex post facto. Durova (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no retroactive application, such a thing (and in hindsight I'm thinking only the "be active now" requirement is needed, not a raw total count) would only apply to new votes from when it becomes policy, going forward. An extra side effect of benefit to such a rule would be that those who want to participate in votes for any reason at all would be generating positive work for Commons, encouraging more editors to contribute. rootology (T) 22:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate for a moment, suppose we had an administrator known as Sneaky Evil Cabalist. Sneaky wants ops and runs a political machine. In the five weeks before Sneaky starts an Oversight candidacy, about two dozen people migrate in from other projects, upload a few images and do trivial gnome edits. This renders them "active" and grants them franchise. It seems your solution would stop a sincere grassroots reaction to a cross-wiki problem--which might occasionally be a good thing---while still leaving the door open to the kind of manipulation we really need to prevent. (Nothing personal here; whenever someone suggests a new process I shoot holes in it. If they patch I shoot more holes. If they patch well enough that I can't shoot holes anymore, I join them in proposing it). Durova (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets say we used my 2 months/30 edits rule. Evil Sneaky Cabalist (ESC from here on) sends over the other members of the Cabal to warm up. They spend 60 days doing 60 edits. Lets say that some made-up cabal from another project tried to stop a Checkuser vote from going through here on a fictional fellow named Tommy. Today, 60 edits would pretty much guarantee anyone a heard "vote", wouldn't it? My idea wouldn't really stop people from padding accounts to get "supports" through--because if ESC wanted to get a bad person through named Damian for a position, Damian STILL has to do the actual work himself to get in. Good edits for a long time, participation in the community, have a clue, and to be impolite, not be an a-hole in anyway. Plus, since recall of any position is so much easier here, if Damian went all... well, "Damian", we could boot him trivially. The engine self-polices already against bad people getting in, my 2-months activity rule is aimed at stopping the ESC from Other Projects keeping people from getting in, when it's none of their beeswax whos elected here as non-regulars on Commons. If you opposed our fictional Tommy yourself--as a very, very regular Commonser--I 100% support your right to have your views and opinions count equally, as you've definitely proven yourself here over and over. It's the people with 2 edits before Tommy's vote or with 100 edits in through June 2006, but 10 in the 2 years since that I don't want having equal weight in the matter. By forcing a carte blanche 2-months activity before the unknown start time of the election(s), the ESC has to have all their sleeper secret agents all active all the time to play their evil team political defense, especially since Opposes in a vote are always more subject to scrutiny. Will the bad faith ESC people really be able to keep that up for 12 months a year? If they do, god bless them, because that much activity should probably entitle them to say no on a vote. Does the 2 months/30 make more sense in that context? rootology (T) 12:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Any system can be gamed, but upping the ante a bit will if nothing else make the pot bigger (more images, more contribs, etc.), which can't be a bad thing. --SB_Johnny talk 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's best to build game-resistant structures whenever possible. 2/30 sounds like something in the reasonable range. Durova (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Durova. Antigaming is always good. Plus, free scutwork. (as a 'crat if I saw nothing but polishing the userpage in the contribs I'd probably IAR and disallow anyway... I see the outcome here as crisper guidance to 'crats, not a mandate to do exactly X) ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, didn't notice this until after commenting to Root at the other discussion; some thoughts here (probably best to reply to them on this page). —Giggy 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Giggy (talk · contribs) that another poll to assess community consensus about suffrage would be a good idea at this point. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I certainly agree (& would not have agreed to strike votes in the RfCU if I had not). To me the problem last time was that we offered every option to vote on. There is a greater likelihood of consensus if only 3/4 options are offered I think. In fact "encouraging" people to vote is as much the issue - many active folk on Commons don't bother with Rf* - that to me is a shame. --Herby talk thyme 07:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2 months with 20-30 constructive contributions is actually pretty good. It's neither particularly high nor rediculously low, and at least assures some exposure to the mellow slow for those more accustomed in the hustly bustle. If there's going to be a poll on it, I suggest striking while the iron's hot... we commonists tend to get busy with the content when we're not stirred up by something. I'll send out one of those "thank you talkspams" over the weekend, and can add a link to a poll from that if everyone thinks its a good idea. I think this also might spur some of the dedicated Wikipedians to try to maintain some level of contributions here as well, since it's clear that at least some of them very much want to be enfranchised here. --SB_Johnny talk 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no opposition to the 2 months/20-30 edits idea (I don't see any major opposition) by Saturday night, another 48 hours, given that I spammed this talk section on a couple of pages--Village Pump, your crat chat--any objection to opening a quicky poll on Sunday, sending out the thankews then with the link if none object? Maybe just two options on it--2 months/20, and 2 months/30. A simple, hyper-focused poll to see what regulars think of the idea. rootology (T) 12:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Per what I said above. I think you have to give a "no requirements" option as I do know some think that is reasonable. Otherwise it would be great to get something going here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, sorry. So perhaps three total? 1. 2 month/20, 2. 2 month/30, and 3. "leave as is" ? rootology (T) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the previous one (link is above) higher edit requirements found quite a bit of favour (50/100 & more). Might be worth considering 1 month/50 & 2 months/100 or even a little higher. The problem with the past one was nothing "won" because there were too many options (& I guess Commons being Commons no one voted tactically :)). --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
These are really good points... I'm going to be offline most of the day, and I tossed up a draft poll at Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/August 2008 suffrage draft poll. Maybe we should keep it to a total of no more than 4-5 items? Anyone: go nuts on my poll draft. I think it's too wordy... =/ rootology (T) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OH, and by 4-5 options I mean total votable options, not 4-5 top level things with 4-5 sub sections. So right now, there are 4 options up on the existing draft. rootology (T) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Do nothing" is not going to be an option, if that means allow anyone to turn up here with no edits and distort our processes. It's an OK option if it means that crats continue to have discretion to make the call as they see fit. We already have a 'crat discretion clause. This vote, to my thinking, would be to provide guidance on where the discretion ought to be, because the outcome of the last one was that the community didn't have a clear single choice and it was left to our wide ranging discretion. That said, I do like the thinking behind requiring recent activity, not just banked activity from 3 years ago and nothing since... ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When people are allowed to be part of the Commons community and the Commons processes, it is wrong to suggest that people distort "our" processes. As they are part of us all, it is wrong to exclude them. When you exclude people, you will find that they in return think nothing of the "incrowd", the people that decide for others on a project that is there for all the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. I have not done much actively on Commons itself but people in the know are aware what I aim to achieve for Commons. GerardM (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Gerard, "exclude" <-- I am not a common commoner. Yet if I have something to say, I would not hesitate to give my opinions and arguements. I am sure somebody would read it, which is more important than whether my comment is counted as a vote. Hillgentleman | 傾偈 ---2008年08月11號 (星期Mon), 08:30:33 || =|| 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand: the proposal is that even after uploading 10,000 or so images - at least 80% of them of my own making - and improving categories on perhaps another 3 thousand images, if I focus on en-wiki for a month and don't happen to be doing much on Commons, I lose my ability to vote here until I get back active again? Seems to me like a poorly framed policy. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if the 2 months thing passes, possibly, but it's still 'crat discretion at all times for the guideline--its guidance for them. If the per year goes through, anyone long term/semi-regular at worst would be totally covered in everyway. rootology (T) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proportional Vote Weighting

If you count voters with 10 or more edits as being fully counted votes, why not proportionally weight those with fewer than 10 votes with weight n/10? That way, someone with nine edits would have their vote weighted at 90%, and someone with one edit would have their vote weighted at 10%. This kind of proportional weighting would reduce the temptation for gaming the system by disingenuosly piling up a record of otherwise pointless edits, just to get one's baseline edit count up for future votes. —Moulton (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the current poll (top of your watchlist). The Option #1/two months factor accomplishes a similar goal--truly active users get suffrage in that system, it's simpler, and harder to game. Even if all someone does is move categories, it's helpful, they're helping, they're active, and that's what counts. rootology (T) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll draft

Why is this poll only in English?

Hiyas,

Dunno if this is the right place to raise it, but since this is where the poll came from, it seems suitable – why is this poll only in English?

(I also ask this at Commons:2008_Election_suffrage_poll#Why_is_this_poll_only_in_English.3F)

Perhaps it’s worth commenting there on why it’s English only or translating into other languages?

An official poll conducted in only one language risks alienating speakers of other languages (even if they speak English!) – it’s upset a German contributor, for instance, though, since I can’t read German, I can’t follow the ensuing discussion at: Commons:Forum#Election.

Thanks!

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot flagging?

Out of policy I'm sure but anyone mind if I flag User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome as a bot? It is making checking new talk pages much harder (while doing a great job!). I imagine RC is flooded too. --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you do, you should ask the operator to stop marking the edits as minor. Minor edits from a bot won't result in a new messages bar. --Erwin(85) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point - I wonder who the "operator" is? :) --Herby talk thyme 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
bugzilla: or Siebrand? Siebrand's the author of mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. --Erwin(85) 10:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk · contribs) looks to be owned by Siebrand (talk · contribs) judging by the history of the user page. naerii 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a protected account used by mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. Its edits are hidden from RC by default. No flagging needed. Giving it a bot flag could (not sure) lead to new users no longer getting 'the orange bar' announcing that they have new messages. Flagging bot unwanted, even. P.s. I do not know the password of this account. I just typed some 30-40 characters in a text editor, copied it, pasted twice on account creation, and closed the text editor without saving :P. Siebrand 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They don't seem hidden by default to me!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My specific issue was the flooding of this area. It often leads me to people who have misunderstood what Commons is about. However the fact that they are getting a "welcome" may prevent that. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 06:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you can hide page creation, can you? Rocket000(talk) 08:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, you can. I draw this assumption from the usage of article creation bots on Wikipedia. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to hide page creation - I want to hide the bot welcome creations (there is an "exclude bot edits" button) so that I can see all the others :) --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what I meant. But, nevermind, I forgot that even new pages disappear when you click "hide bot edits". So in this case, they would have to have a flag to be considered a bot and thus be hidden along with all the other bots (unless there's some secret new way of hiding edits). Rocket000(talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - if only we both spoke english :) By the look of it bot flagging might prevent the message bar tho as it is marked as a minor edit? At least that is how I understood some of the above postings.
I guess I could flag it, create a new account & see if I got a message & then unflag it but I think life may be more important! --Herby talk thyme 09:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not substituting {{Welcome}}? All user message should be substituted so we can change them in future (and not change a million other pages at the same time and make someone say something they never said). Plus, it's a bot. There's no reason it should be using shortcuts. Rocket000(talk) 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it was made that way intentionally. Rocket000(talk) 08:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The template should be substituted. Also, this pseudo-user should have the bot and autopatrol rights (that should probably be done as config settings in the code, not through the wiki). Alternatively, we can make those edits non-minor edits, and then flag it. That would give it the appropriate rights, and the orange bar would still fire. Perhaps poke Siebrand on this issue?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's a personal thing to me and not really that big of a deal, but I'm ready to block this bot if it doesn't start substituting those templates. Right now I'm having my bot follow behind doing it for him. Such a waste of resources. Also, I don't think it's activating the orange bar. I got a couple messages thanking me for the welcome. Rocket000(talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot flagging should no longer be needed. There was a configuration error in WMF wikis. Fixed[1]. Siebrand 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
And I just created a new account to test it and got the orange bar instantly. So that's good. I think it would be better if it waited until the user makes an edit (and I still would like them subst'd without having to run another bot). Rocket000(talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does it need substitution? Doesn't "subst:Template:Welcome" work as contents for "MediaWiki:Newusermessage-template"? If not, a patch to the extension would be needed... Siebrand 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It does, though I needed to create Subst:Template:Welcome to keep the link in the edit summary blue. Now to see if I can get the /lang part to auto-subst...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that I don't mind leaving unsubstituted. Even though it gets updated the most, it leaves a lot of messy code behind. If you really wanted to, you can use {{Lang links subst}} for any template, but I wouldn't recommend that for direct use on user pages. Rocket000(talk) 11:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit count?

Well it's a surprise to me a certain amount of edits are required. And even when a candidate meets them, they're still opposed for "no enough experience". Why can't voters decide what is and what isn't a suitable amount of edits? It seems a little pointless having a requirement, because even if people meet it, they're still getting opposed. How do you turn this on (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I actually removed the edit count requirement on Meta as it was seen as a "level to achieve" to become an admin which is (IMO) completely wrong). I'd be happy to see it go here - 200 edits can be done in one day quite easily and prove nothing at all.
However Commons folk can & will oppose anyone who they do not see appropriate. There are those who seem to insist on DR experience for example - odd to me as I had none when I became an admin :)
I would say that there should be experience in some area where admin tools would be beneficial. There are plenty of folk who do great work on Commons and have for year to whom admin tools would be of no interest (nor use). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) {{{2}}} (UTC)
Yes - everyone has their own requirements. As you say, it's very easy to get 200 edits, thus making the requirement pretty much useless. Then again, there could be a very clueful editor with 199 edits, but would be denied to even try requesting. I think the community will decide who will make a good admin, rather than a strange requirement of 200 edits (seems odd that nothing like time spent on Commons, experience in various namespaces etc is mentioned, just a numerical edit count requirement that seems out of date). How do you turn this on (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support removing an explicit editcount requirement. However, it might be useful to provide guidance of some other kind like "Administrators are experienced members of the community..." so it is clear we are removing the editcount, not the bar to adminship.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mike's proposal. Giggy (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"nod"/"Concur" whatever, waaay better than a "count" :) --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree, ditto. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done then. Tweaking welcome.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear about the wording "an experienced contributor to the wiki". Don't we expect candidates to be experienced on Commons, not just on some other WMF project? Would it be clearer perhaps to say "an experienced editor on Wikimedia Commons"? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with MichaelMaggs. Certainly should be Commons experience. Other experience may be "interesting", "useful" etc but this place is different to other wikis. --Herby talk thyme 19:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Tweaked :)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More updates

Commons:Administrators#Requests_for_adminship seems to refer to voting in the strictest sense, and apparently the bureaucrats (or one, at least) are actually counting votes. This needs to be fixed - suggestions on what to say here that would be accurate?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more or less. I think the bureaucrats should be weighing their reasoning rather then just some "support" "oppose" votes. A recent example is this which ended in a desysop & the bureaucrats counting the "remove" votes without any reasoning, which I think was wrong. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I just can say so far: Work on this is in progress. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two areas for clarification here:

  • One is on adminship, to tighten up the wording around how consensus is evaluated... numbers there are a guide (if it's 98% by counting noses, it's fairly unlikely that a more indepth analysis is needed, for example) but not a strict bind (c.f. how we handled Sterkebak where it was not completely clear what community consensus was, we found a middle path).
  • Another is on deadminship. Two parts to this... first we need to tighten up that deadminship should NOT come out of the blue. There needs to be some preliminary steps and we need to be crisp about what, as a minimum, is needed... with the notion that in future if those steps aren't followed, we'll close the deRfA as "out of order". Second part is that there was a poll, which I considered binding, that said "majority consensus" (50% more or less if you're counting noses, after evaluating who is a community member and who isn't) was needed to remove...

I'm hoping we can work through this at a reasoned pace instead of headlong rushing into it but yes I think we do need to work this. (And yes, ABF is right, there is some work in progress) ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What work is that?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
People are circulating things privately, nothing is ready for public review yet though. ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Requests_and_votes/Archive_2&oldid=708170913"