Wikidata talk:Administrators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Yes, I know that people aren't supposed to close their own proposals as successful, however in this case I'm going to consider that since the Stewards adopted it in setting temporary adminship for the people appointed thus far, that this was de facto closed by them a few days ago. Therefore this is closed as successful. If anyone wants to question my closing, feel free to do so, I'm not against discussing this further. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that any user who is elected to the role of administrator before December 31, 2012 should stand for re-confirmation, automatically, three months from the date of their appointment.

I have put this forth with the recognition that the admins that are running now, myself included, have no long term track record with the project, and are standing on their credentials from other projects. Additionally, the community has not entirely developed a set of criteria, either formal or informal, for selecting admins. By having this one-time re-confirmation in place, it will allow the community to decide whether the initially selected admins meet the community's desire in an admin candidate, while still allowing the project to have a robust admin corps early in.

• As proposer, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Makes sense. Would allow us to have a local group of people to manage things, without the need for stewards/gs, and still develop standards. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good --Morten Haan (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For any committed admin this will be a formality. —WFC— 22:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely in favour. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Guerillero | Talk 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• --MF-Warburg (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• --Stryn (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Good idea. Restu²⁰ 23:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Makes sense, build enough admins quickly to keep the house tidy, and fix any "mistakes" (and I hope there are none) when we're all on solid ground. Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Raoli (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Tpt (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --IW 10:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support in general. We should make a queue of re-confirmation otherwise the list could be the same as now. In addition, we need some rules for the process (number of votes, percentage, etc). Zanka (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a good idea. Even if we do the re-confirmations in batches of five or six (five or six are up, run for a week, then comes the next five or six), everyone who gets appointed in the first wave will still have done re-confirmation by March. If that means that a few admins' re-confirmations are delayed a week or two, I don't see that as nearly as big a deal as having so many on the page that no one gives the re-confirmations any thought. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Good idea. NNW (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I believe this would help greatly in our initial stage.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Sebleouf (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support.-- ChristianT (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Yair rand (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Jdforrester (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Herbythyme (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Sounds good. Practical. -- Kondi (Talk) 12:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Seeems reasonable. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Avenue (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support –sumone10154^(talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 months might be too short : we are in the first deployment of Wikidata, thus in february or march 2013, will be the community ripe enough for a mass-vote ? 6 months or 1 year could be better. - Bzh-99 (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we should already extend the term. Let's start with a 3-months period, followed by another 3-months period (which makes 6 months). After that period, Wikidata community should be considered stabilised. Moreover, those users who really are good for the project will be reconfirmed regardless of the rules we decide, I think. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree entirely with Sannita. For me, the current requests for permissions are solely about phase one, hence virtually no opposition to any of the candidates. I would start to be a little bit more selective about which people I would want to be admins during the early part of phase two. At that point, where there will be a lot going on and very little in the way of policy, admins will temporarily need to be a law unto themselves. Each of them would therefore need not only to be trustworthy, but to exhibit a strong understanding of Wikidata's needs. —WFC— 13:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Sannita as well.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. I agree with Sannita. Jmvkrecords Intra Talk 08:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it is part of the policy. It is temporary solution for first-wave admins. By the way, how we are going to define "first wave" all admins before a New Year? Zanka (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• When is the "first wave of admins" considered to end? Who is (going to be) part of this wave and who won't? Since when?
  — Danny B. 17:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's right up at the top of the proposal; "elected to the role of administrator before December 31, 2012". This is also Sven Manguard 18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to adapt the commons policy sans inactivity part - more discussion will follow in six months, per discussion on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Commons de-adminship policy is an effective, sensible system, and that it would work on Wikidata. I also believe that it would be better do decide on this now, and have it agreed upon and in place, rather than wait until something causes us to want/need a de-adminship policy.

The one modification that needs to be made is that, until such a time where the community decides to appoint Bureaucrats, any role that the Commons policy delegates to a Bureaucrat must be preformed by a Steward.

As proposer, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strikes the right balance between incentivising activity, and ensuring that good candidates who contribute infrequently are not prevented from helping the project. Infinitely more effective than the en.wiki token gesture for inactive admins. —WFC— 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Romaine (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite usually opposing such proposals, it makes sense for commons and I think it would make sense for here. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• --MF-Warburg (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• --Stryn (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support It's like other wikis and I think it's a good proposal. Restu²⁰ 23:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Raoli (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support With some improvement, of course. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support general idea but need to define "admin actions". Zanka (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support For the record, an "admin action" means a logged action such as blocking/deletion/protection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Herbythyme (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Avenue (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support –sumone10154^(talk) 07:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Merlissimo (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to have to be the lone wolf and oppose this particular idea. We just don't know how many logged actions are going to be required here, and until we do, I'd much rather see a standard based on edits rather than lines in the admin log. At Commons, five deletions is two minutes of work; will there even be five deletions a day long term here? Five a week? We don't know, yet, and the project is unique enough yet that any answer will just be pure guesswork. Courcelles (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's during phases two and three that the administrative work will begin in earnest, which will nicely tie in with when the deletion work from phase one starts to tail off. —WFC— 00:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, maybe not. For now, I think Meta's policy would be better, as that allows edits to count as activity. Will the next phases actually produce logged actions? Yeah, they could, but they might not, and I don't think an inactivity policy should de-admin folks because there aren't enough needed logged actions to go around. Commons policy works because there are always a few hundred things to sort through and delete at commons:CAT:SD; an admin that cares about meeting the activity standards can do it without much effort, though some is required. Until we know what this place will be like in terms of admin workload, I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially, but under the Commons policy we have a year to find out, and amend the policy if necessary (six months of insufficient actions, another six months from the date of response with insufficient actions). By not introducing this now, we may end up in the situation we have on en.wiki, where reform of adminship is patently needed, but cannot be implemented because current admins are unwilling to see the goalposts moved. By contrast, if we start off with this system, and you are correct, any necessary reform would involve making it easier for admins in good standing to retain the tools, which could be passed relatively easily. —WFC— 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well said WFC. Truth be told, I was thinking about Courcelles' concern when I was building the proposal, however I ultimately came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be an issue. There were over a dozen deletions today alone, and admin actions also include editing MediaWiki namespace pages, applying page protections, blocking, and assigning user rights. If it's a problem, we can reassess. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose In the sentance "An "inactive admin" is one who has made fewer than 5 admin actions [...]", "admin actions" should be replaced with "edits".--Snaevar (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want hat collectors who pop in from time to time, or whether we want moderately active admins. —WFC— 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It averages out to less than one admin action a month, so it's not as much a measure of activity as a measure of 'is the person still showing up'. I wouldn't be opposed to setting an edits threshold as an additional option to satisfy the 'is the person still showing up' check, however I would want that number to be 60, or 10 edits a month average over 6 months. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that it would be better to count any edits, not only "admin actions", because the admins number should be limited only by doubts of misuse. Drbug (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the proposal would still likely pass as is (13/16 is 81%), since all of the opposition is to the type of edit, rather than that there's a requirement in the first place, I think there's room to negotiate. Five admin actions over six months is, at Commons, utterly trivial. However active users (especially users that are mainly active on other projects) still let the six months slip because they no longer see enough value in having the mop to justify heading over to Commons and spending 37 seconds deleting empty categories (always a source of admin actions at Commons). I'm not saying that the retention barrier should be high, indeed it's best if it's not high, but I'd like to see it require some sort of (minimal) commitment. I could see "must have 60 edits within the last six months", which I proposed above, as a good requirement. I'd think that 10 edits a month, on average, is enough to make sure that the person is still coming onto the site, without being an undue burden. If this number is acceptable to the three of you, I'd be willing to start another proposal and ask people to designate "first choice v. second choice" on the two. My one concern is that makes closing the discussions more complicated, so I'd like to see some sort of buy in from the people that have already participated if we're going to set up a competing proposal. Does 60 edits over 6 months work? If not, what's a good number? Either way, does the regular edits replace or just serve as an alternative for the five admin actions? Sorry for the wall of text, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Courcelles. We don't yet really know how many admin actions will actually be necessary, so it's reasonably likely that this won't be a good standard for inactivity. --Yair rand (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Courcelles. -- Jdforrester (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose While it's too late for me to simply withdraw this, as it has considerable support, in light of the high level of opposition to the type of edit needed, I'm withdrawing my support for this in favor of the one below. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you add a link to this policy? --MF-Warburg (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to, and then forgot to. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. --MF-Warburg (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe we should define "admin actions" specifically for this project. Zanka (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin actions are actions that can only be done by admins. These include editing MediaWiki namespace pages, applying page protections, blocking, assigning user rights, and deleting pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it, but some decisions requires admin rights delegated by community but not actual "admin actions". Zanka (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an excellent point. Although I suppose that adopting Commons policy would give us a year to work that out. There is little point trying to determine complex policies or introduce that level of detail into existing policies before the site has truly taken shape. —WFC— 17:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WFC. It is difficult to say which way this project goes. Handling interwiki data might be quite uncomplicated compared to the problems that might come when other data will be brought to Wikidata. No one knows if there will be editwars about data (political status of areas, members of religions etc.), so no one knows what will be the tasks thats admins have to handle. Whatever rules may find a majority now, they all should be reviewed in at least a year. NNW (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That exactly what I wanted to say initially. We want to count "admin actions" for withdraw admin rights, but we don't know yet what actions are expected. -Zanka (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to adapt the commons policy sans inactivity part - more discussion will follow in six months, per discussion on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the opposition to the original proposal, which focused on the definition of inactivity, for your consideration is the below, revised proposal:

I believe that the Commons de-adminship policy is an effective, sensible system, and that it would work on Wikidata. I also believe that it would be better do decide on this now, and have it agreed upon and in place, rather than wait until something causes us to want/need a de-adminship policy.

I propose that the document be accepted as Wikidata policy with the following two changes:

• Until Wikidata elects its own Bureaucrats, any responsibilities delegated to Bureaucrats in the Commons policy are to be handled by Stewards here.
• The definition of inactive is changed from "one who has made fewer than 5 admin actions on [Wikidata] in the past 6 months" to "one who has made fewer than 60 edits or 6 admin actions on [Wikidata] in the past 6 months". (Note that meeting either metric satisfies the requirement for activity, both are not required.)

• As proposer, This is also Sven Manguard 15:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support reasonable alternative --Herbythyme (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A very reasonable compromise. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support as a good compromise. Jdforrester (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — Arkanosis ^✉ 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support If the original proposal does not pass, this one is also fine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support (I'd have supported a higher edit rate than ten per month, too, but this works) Courcelles (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support since there's not really that much work for admins to do, yet. --Rschen7754 08:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose If we're dead set on doing this, I recognise that a threshold of 60 edits strikes a good balance between being a low barrier to entry and ensuring that those who hold the tools are contributing to the project in some way.

  My opposition is to the principle itself – I want us to learn from the successes and failures of other projects. Adminship should be nothing other than a set of tools held by people in order to do specific tasks. By adopting this proposal, we are formally recognising that it is also a trophy handed out to popular and/or productive editors, a mistake that a large number of WMF wikis have inadvertently made over the years.

  The only reason I can see for considering this idea is a potential lack of admin work. There is no proof either way, but I can't imagine any circumstances under which five admin actions in 18 months (none in the first six month period, five in the six month period after responding to the notification, none in the following six month period), is unreasonable or unachievable. And in the unlikely event that I'm wrong, so what? That would mean that there's no work to do. Those due to be technically desysopped under Sven's proposal would not be barred from immediately seeking the community's approval to retain the tools. —WFC— 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reasoning behind this, for me, is that I don't want abandoned admin accounts sitting about. While the risk of an account being compromised is minimal, I view it as a problem when people go asking inactive users for help, and then don't get the help they were looking for because no one saw the message. I want people to be able to look at the current list of administrators, be able to pick one, leave them a message, and have a high chance of getting a response in a reasonable amount of time. I want, when people send an email to an administrator, for there to be a solid chance that the recipient is still checking that email, and isn't too detached from the community to be able to handle the situation (i.e. is in the loop about policy changes). I also want us to have some sort of de-sysop mechanism because, in keeping with your "learn from the successes and failures of other projects" theme, eventually there is going to be someone with the mop that has done something that warrants removal of the mop, and having a process in place will make that go smoother. This is also Sven Manguard 20:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than likely the list of admins will get large enough here that your vision of going to any one on the list and asking for help wouldn't work anyway. What if an admin was on vacation for two days? We can always leave notices on the inactive one's user/talk pages, and create centralized pages for requesting admin help. IMO that would be better than either of these two proposals, but people here seem to be bent on removing inactive admins. As to removal of tools for reasons other than inactivity, I don't see why that's an issue... this isn't enwiki, I think that we can use common sense. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at our list of admins, the problem is that, overall, there is only a weak correlation between quality/quantity of Wikidata mainspace contributions, potential need for the tools on Wikidata, and who we are actually electing as admins. The danger is that if we continue in this fashion, we will perpetuate the lookie badge culture of other projects, most notably en.wp.

        I want to create a culture where people who contribute without causing trouble are no less respected than those who do precisely the same, whilst also making use of additional tools. In theory this is a founding principle of every project, in practise it's only true on some WMF wikis. The best way of ensuring such a culture is to follow the following points:

        a) to create a direct link between tool usage and tool retention.

        b) To ensure that there is no stigma or stress attached to holding, or not holding the tools. This can achieved in part through a), and in part by...

        c) Removing entirely the judicial element of adminship. How? By leaving admins to do the janatorial work, such as deletion, protection and vandal-fighting, and electing crats on the basis of whether we trust their judgement, entrusting them to close RfAs, RfCs and the like.

        This could well lead to a situation where some users are crats but not admins; frankly I see that as a good thing. If a good user decides that one element of what they have been doing is no longer enjoyable, I'd prefer them to feel that they can pursue something different and still be highly respected for it, rather than feel a compulsion to leave completely. All too often en.wp admins retire for this reason. —WFC— 10:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This happened a while ago... Sven Manguard Wha? 15:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two de-adminship proposals above but still nothing about voting system. Commons (commons:Commons:Administrators#The public discussion and vote uses following:

• nominations remain open for at least seven days
• at least 75% in favour
• a minimum of 8 support votes
• votes from unregistered users are not numerically counted

Should we use the same policy or change something? I'm not sure about 75% in ruwiki we use 66.7% and about 7 days cause I couldn't predict level of activity. Zanka (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards typically look for at the bare minimum 70%, and optimally at least 80%, with a fair number of !votes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zanka's proposal seems to be good if we use the ratio suggested by Jasper Deng, i.e. we can have something like this:

• nominations remain open for at least seven days
• minimum 70% of consensu, and optimally at least 80%
• a minimum of 8 support votes
• only votes from registered users are counted

How do you think about this? Restu²⁰ 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that would leave the 70-80 range up to the discretion of the Stewards? There are pros and cons to both leaving it to steward discretion and using a hard and fast cutoff. The biggest con to the range is that it creates the situation where a steward decides someone with 71% is in but someone with 79% doesn't make it, for reasons that many people might disagree with. The biggest con of the hard cutoff is that if someone discovers something last minute and opposes because of it, and other people, had they seen it, also might oppose, the candidate might still get in because of bad timing of the oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and in the future, bureaucrats). This is just like any other request for permissions. If the opposes are mainly by users with 1 edit each, then 70% passes. If they are all by existing experienced editors, 80% probably passes. My general idea here is that this should not be a true vote - in fact, Commons's adminship process seems to be the only such process that is treated as a bare vote.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the modified proposal then. I would say though that we need to handle unregistered users better. Whether Ice1993 was driven away by curt messages and strikethroughs or whether he was never going to be a productive editor is something that we can't ever know, but thus far we're batting 0 for 1 in treating IPs in the RfA space with an optimal level of kindness/respect. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in the boundary cases steward/bureaucrats could extend voting time period. Maybe we could make it more straightforward. For example, if it is in 70-75% range and/or number of support votes = 7 (one less than minimum) than continue voting one more week (or day). Agree with a point about unregistered users. But how to do it? Zanka (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that too, but in most projects, the 'crats will do that anyways even if it's not in policy. I don't want to get too rules heavy. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate rules around voting, but think that these are good guidelines. ~75% support and a minimum of ~8 people voting is good. Both of those numbers can be modified as common sense dictates in a situation. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw this discussion and I think I can weight in and offer the views of how we handle things at Meta :) -- I personally would preferr a clear voting system. Those "between 70 and 80 percent of approval" clauses do only increase unfairness and headaches sometimes. As such I would preferr to see a fixed percentage of approval. Stewards don't really like going and deciding about percentages. If I were asked to decide over such 70/80% I'd probably reject the request and tell the local wiki to formally close it then come back to us. Having a fixed percentaje is also fair for everybody and easy for meta stewards to handle. Please also set a fixed number of required voters for a request to pass (if you're going to set such requirements) for the same reasons. I personally would suggest the system I knew over eswiki which is, for RfAs, as follows: the user can selfnom or be nominated, the request runs for 7 days (15 days over eswiki, but I think it's too much). At the time of the closure the user had to get at least 75% of approval to be promoted. We cast votes, we don't discuss (although discussion is allowed at the talk page of the RfA/comments section). To prevent issues, only users that are one month-old and have made at least 100 edits before the RfA started may cast a vote. It is not probably the best system, but it worked quite well in such a big wiki like eswiki. Hope that it helps. Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who could vote? Any registered or auto-confirmed or with X edits within last Y days or something else? Zanka (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To make it easy, all the registered users can vote. If we want to be more selective, we can make a limit of 500 edit in the 30 (or 60) days preceding the proposal. Restu²⁰ 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No. No X number of edits over Y period. If someone is going to sock, they're going to meet those barriers because they want to sock. Meanwhile setting high barriers disenfranchises legitimate users. Stewards have enough experience and common sense to see socking and discount the votes of people that do it. We don't need to institutionalize artificial barriers to voting. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not even auto-confirmed? Zanka (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason to require auto-confirmed. Like Sven said, if people wanted to sock they could do it anyways. If someone has something valuable to contribute, let them do it. Bureaucrats can always use common sense when closing these requests... Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think at the moment that all the registered users can take part in this discussion; if there is sockpuppeting problems with this decision we will modify the requirement for the partecipation to adminship discussion. Restu²⁰ 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Some people may not like to contribute to this project, but are respected users (or even admins/bcts) elsewhere. We have SUL, so via that it's easily checkable if such vote has or has not enough weight.
  — Danny B. 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd adopt the eswiki policy and therefore suggest that only registered users that have are at least one month old and have made at least 100 namespace edits before the vote started may cast a vote. That'd prevent users just comming here to vote as it happens at other projects. Everybody should be allowed to comment in the talk page/comments section though. Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the RfAs do have supports from people that have no edits outside of the RfA process, but I'm not sure I myself could support a barrier like that at this time. If comes 2013 we're still seeing drive-by cross-project supports, than yes, I might think that such a barrier is reasonable. This is also Sven Manguard 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before, if someone has a valid idea, why would we want to prevent them from saying it? What if the user voting is trusted on the candidate's home wiki, and informs us of bad behaviour there? Let everyone vote, and let bureaucrats use common sense after. I do understand the need for this project to develop as its own, though, and the current RfAs already show a large number of people voting for users on their home wiki with no other rational. If the 100 edits/1 month rule did go through, I think that an uncounted comments section would be a good addition. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigh on 100% of supports at RfA thus far have been in the form of "I like them elsewhere, give them tools here". It's not for me to pass judgement on this practise, but that's where we are at this moment in time. —WFC— 08:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this also. One example: ShinePhantom got 10-11 support votes, 9 of them are Russian users. And second example (about me), I'm the only active user here from the Finnish Wikipedia, and therefore, no votes from there to me. --Stryn (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, is 8 minimum support votes enough? I think so. Marco has been using 10, but 8 seems plenty when used with a support/oppose ratio. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be good if you could finally confirm which percentage and number of support votes do a user need to become an admin so we can process some more requests. Is 8 supports and 75% of approval the final rule, then? Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1. (With the commons sense of the bureaucrats. It seems to be tradition to inform the Polish community about any RfA of a Polish wikipedian, so lots of Polish users start to vote, see at Commons right now.) NNW (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support MarcoAurelio's proposal. Restu²⁰ 20:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This, that and the other (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Zanka's proposal, partially reiterated above by MarcoAurelio Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Zanka (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Zanka´s prposal.--Snaevar (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given the opinions above and the straw poll right above this I think the requirements for adminship are set as follows (Zanka's proposal):

• Nominations remain open for at least a full week
• To pass, the user needs:
  • at least 8 support votes, and
  • at least 75% of support or higher in pro/con voting
• Only registered users can vote. Unregistered users can leave comments in the comments section.

I'll copy them to WD:RfP shortly. Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Em, it took Zanka and Hydriz longer than a week to get eight supports. With these rules and the retroactivity they would have to be de-admined. And there are several users listed at Meta with enough support now but they don't fulfill the one week rule, either. NNW (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I did a typo: should say "remain open for at least a full week" as Zanka's proposal above. Although, until then an RfA can be opened? I guess that we should think about a minimum of one week and a maximum of two weeks... But for now it's "at least one week" as it was the proposal. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make things simple here and at Meta, I suggest that this requirements be set as retroactive so they apply not only for the RfAs opened after this, but also to the RfAs opened before any policy like this existed. Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course. NNW (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is fine--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]