Wikipedia talk:Qualified adminship voting

OK, here's some details about the proposal. For some background, read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Well, here is the motivation behind this proposal.

• Problem: many users feel that the standards at WP:RFA are excessively high, and that some reasons given for votes are excessive
• Solution: reduce the threshold for promotion (slightly, from 80% to 70%), discount votes based on frivolous criteria such as edit counts etc., and require any accusations to be supported by at least one diff.
• Problems found in other solutions:
  • Needlessly complex process
  • Unfair difficulty of making legitimate oppose votes
  • Extend the length of RFA to an unmanageable level

Anyway, that's my take on it. Cynical 18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's do an example runthrough.

Assume that diffs are provided.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dude

Final 3/1/0, ended whenever.
Nominated for vandal fighting/FAs/whatever. -Bob

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. -Dude

---

Support

1. Support. Meets QAV. -Fred
2. Support per above. -Generic user

Oppose
#Strong oppose. This guy opposes WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR... -Samantha

This vote was discounted due to criteria which under QAV may not be used. -Generic user

#Oppose. 2% edit summary usage shows massive unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. -Joe

This vote was discounted due to criteria which under QAV may not be used. -Generic user

1. Oppose. Only 3 edits in Wikipedia space, and all but one to request unprotection of pages he was involved in the dispute over. The one being his acceptance of this. -George

This vote was discounted due to criteria which under QAV may not be used. -Generic user

Overturned by closing bcrat, oppose is valid

#Oppose. 1000 edits EXACTLY, and at least 750 are due to AWB. -Random person

This vote was discounted due to criteria which under QAV may not be used. -Generic user

Neutral

Comments

• This takes away a reason to contribute. If we have set criteria, then it is the criteria speaking (which some may not agree with), not the voters. Michael 15:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have the same concerns. I agree that there are some issues w/RfA, but your proposal takes away the ability to, really, comment on anything about the user. I think some of the voting criteria you propose are removed (Wikipolitics, mostly) then it makes more sense. I do think the threshold for edit count and length of time are good. I would add that an edit summary should have a threshold. And I also agree that any accusations must be accompanied by at least one diff or should be discounted. But I don't want to take away the ability for the community to comment on the person. If I have dealt with an editor numerous times and generally just find them disagreeable, I probably should be able to at least voice that opinion somehow, right? --Wolf530 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Look, a guy with only 250 real edits, who opposes nearly every policy that exists, and is extremely unfamiliar with Wikipedia is now an admin. Even with a questionable overturning of a strikeout, he got 75%, which now means it is required that the request suceed. -Amarkov ^babble 15:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why this won't work

The problem with this proposal is that it's treating symptoms, rather than causes. You want people to stop voting on editcountitis reasons, but all this proposal can do is stop people from mentioning that. If you strike votes that say "not enough talkspace edits", people will simply start voting "oppose" without giving a reason, or say "oppose per <some other guy>". >Radiant< 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)