User:Durin/Admin miscellany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a hodgepodge of various things about RfA and Administrators.

after reviewing through archive 16

Discussions about the number of edits and time on Wikipedia as criteria for adminship existed at least as early as December 2003 ([1]). 2000-3000 was even suggested as a watermark prior to adminship.

There was a de-sysop area at one point ([2]).

This is interesting (and doesn't seem to get much air time at RfA any more): Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship.

Contents

[edit] Acrimonious behavior

  • A nominee felt attacked on RfA in January of 2004 ([3]).
  • User makes mention of poor behavior by some contributors and potential to remove them temporarily from the RfA process ([4], 23 March 2004).
  • One contributor modifying other's accusatory votes ([5]).
  • 2 April 2004 Raul654 felt sockpuppets were overrunning the process ([6]).


[edit] Voting criteria

  • Copyrights as an issue against RfAs was raised as early as February of 2004 ([7]).
  • Being a radical inclusions as an issue against RfAs was raised as early as February of 2004. ([8]).
  • Edit counts has been a criteria for some all along. Debated, sure, but a criteria nonetheless.


[edit] Reform proposals

March 2004:

  • Self-nominations not allowed. ([9])
  • Only admins can nominate. ([10])
  • Set qualifications for suffrage. ([11])
  • Set qualifications for suffrage, all others to comment ([12]).
  • Nominators have to reveal their IP address. ([13])
  • Set qualifications to nominate. ([14])
  • Nominatees must accept nomination prior to being posted. ([15])
  • People rejected with more than 60% of the votes to be reviewed by board of bureaucrats to decide fate. )[16]).


In May of 2004, a user voiced concern that the process was deviating from "no big deal" (User:Hcheney/Support).

Bureaucrat judgement at work April 2004 (judgement)


User:Kingturtle made a very interesting comment regarding concensus and its relevance to people as opposed to articles (29 Feb 2004). Very astute! A real gem of a comment and worthy of some thought ([17]). On 31 March 2004, User:Cecropia made a very similar comment ([18]).

There was an interesting debate regarding admins automatically getting bureaucrat status is they asked for it ([19]). It is interesting because bureaucrat status now, a 1.5 years later, is regarded very differently. There is a much higher bar for people to become bureaucrats, and it is much more selective than adminship. Some may call this an erosion of wiki-philosophy. That might be true. I think it also serves to highlight that the original process was not scalable, and bureaucracy/red-tape crept in. A good thing? Well, there's no noise now about the bureaucrat promotion process being horribly flawed. Just food for thought.

There was a series of polls regarding requirements for adminship in March of 2004 ([20]). An interesting note from this was the idea that "entitlement" should be avoided. I.e., because a user gets to some specified threshold, it does not automatically mean they are entitled to be an admin.

There was another series of polls in April of 2004 ([Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_16#Polls]). Requirements for suffrage was 66% in favor. Bureaucrats left to judge was 75%.

The idea of self nominations not being allowed was floated in March of 2004 ([21]).

[edit] RfA notes

  • First ever oppose vote [22] made by Stevertigo in regards to Ilyanep noting time at Wikipedia of one month as issue.
  • First ever promotion through RfA was for User:Quercusrobur, 4-0-0, on June 14, 2003.
  • First ever close was by User:Eloquence on June 14, 2003.
  • First temporary rejection until user accepts nomination [23], done by User:Eloquence.
  • First time someone was not nominated by themselves was on June 19, 2003 for User:Ktsquare by User:Menchi [24]
  • First time someone prefixed their approval of a nomination with "Support" [25] by User:Menchi. And the voting vs. consensus debate begins?
  • First cliche'd "I thought you already were an admin" [26]
  • First reference to "voting" (see edit summary) [27]
  • First failed nomination by User:G Prime June 27, 2003 at 0-4-0. Had 9 edits at time of nomination.
  • First ever declined nomination by User:Seav [28]
  • First ever request at WP:RFA for non-voluntary de-adminship was July 28, 2003 against User:Jtdirl by User:Pizza Puzzle [29]. Section for de-adminship was added same day by User:Jdforrester. The discussion on this de-adminship was closed on 2 August 2003, with six against and one (the nominator) in favor.
  • First ever vote by an anonymous IP user was on 15 August 2003 [30]
  • First ever accusation of sockpuppetry was on 15 August 2003 [31]
  • On 15 August 2003 User:Stevertigo created Wikipedia:Recently created admins.
  • The second de-sysopping request created quite a bit of controvery which may be read at User talk:172/sysop status. Ultimately, the most active bureaucrat of the time indicated that any handling of desysopings was to be done by Jimbo Wales. This all happened in August of 2003.
  • The first clear case of a pre-emptive RfA removal happened on 15 August 2003 for the RfA for User:RK, done to prevent ill will. This RfA was terminated early by User:Eloquence [32].
  • First ever changed vote was by User:Eloquence from neutral to oppose. [33]
  • First accusation of campaigning (User:Stevertigo for User:RK) made by User:Fantasy on 17 August 2003 [34]. RfA for RK was already closed at this point. Other reponses: [35], [36]
  • First time a nomination was withdrawn by the candidate was on 17 August 2003 [37] by User:Cyan after the vote was 2-0-0. User indicated that support wasn't strong enough, believing a candidate needed at least four support votes. He re-instated the self nomination about 30 minutes later [38] after he was informed there was no minimum votes.
  • First ever revert of vandalism/trolling on WP:RFA was on 17 August 2003 [39]


[edit] Miscellaneous notes

  • User:Angela observes a difference in being an admin on different scale wiki projects [40]
  • User:Eloquence over rode a 1 sup/2 opp vote for User:Tompagenet to become admin [41].
  • On 19 August 2003, User:Fantasy added section headers for each nominee, making it easier to read. This was probably the first step towards individual RfA pages [42].
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/r/User%7EDurin_Admin_miscellany_0f27.html"