Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Promotion standards for bureaucrats

Somewhere we have a page on this, but I can't find it.

I'd like to remind everyone that the promotion standards for bureaucrats are:

  • Loosely defined
  • Higher numerically than the standards for admins
  • Require a stronger conesnsus. That is, plausible objections are taken very seriously particularly when voiced by more than one user.

This is important because "oppose" voters should be aware that such votes are taken very seriously. Voters should consider any bureaucratship nomination to be a close vote, where their vote may well make the difference. Please vote with this in mind.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the 'best' we have is Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22#Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat. -Splash 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Better Title for Bureaucrats?

See Time for a change?

Are we getting a little full of overselves around here, or what? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think Lambies is the way to go. Acetic'Acid 15:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Baaaaaaaa, -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The drawback to Lambies is that people might be tempted to beat them with a Shepherd's crook or chase them with dogs. As if they're not already... *RUNS AWAY QUICKLY* --Unfocused 16:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine. How about Lambies on Steroids? Acetic'Acid 16:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Don't much care for the steroids, but can I have my bureaucrats served with a side of rice and nice cranberry sauce? Dragons flight 18:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

How 'bout Grand Poobah? android79 17:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

How about Big Kahuna? — JIP | Talk 09:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

How about calling them Bats? To me, at least, bats are such beautiful creatures, and, of course, it is just a shortened form, SqueakBox 18:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bats sound more like a cute nickname, rather than an official name change. Acetic'Acid 20:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The very name admin, with its super-user connotations in computer parlance, implies a bigger deal than it really is, I think. I tentatively propose that admins be renamed wardens (they're given a few extra features in order to help maintain order), and bureaucrats be renamed to the slightly stronger guardians or sentries. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the name change of admin, or something that conotes that b-crats do more to protect the wiki. I do strongly want a name change on b-crats. (see, I even say that without thinking) Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think that, if there's a change, it should be one that's recognisable outside the wikicommunity. If a newbie is faced with comments from an admin, they're likely to take notice. If they're faced with comments from a bat? Thir first question is likely to be "what's a bat?" So, even if we think wikipedia should be completely egalitarian, some title that indicates a chain of command would be useful. For that reason, I'd like to suggest "Managers". Grutness...wha? 00:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


I agree with Grutness on the recognisability, and with Howabout1 on the need for an egalitarian framework of names. I've thought about it some more and think that:
  • Administrator (user rights)
would be ideal. It would:
  1. Acknowledge the actual responsibilities of the position, rather than being Wikipedia-specific language usage
  2. Make it clear that this group is really just a specialized group of administrators, rather than a class of its own. Implying, perhaps, that there may be other such groups with other isolated responsibilities in some particular area in the future, if necessary.
  3. Eliminate the spectacle of editors making comments on talk pages to the effect of "besides, he's a Bureaucrat" with the attendant implication of hierarchy, by virtue of posing semantic difficulty sufficient to hinder offhand remarks.
  4. Remove the unnecessary negative connotations of "bureaucrat"
An alternative would be "Administrator (user rights and name changes)," though that strikes me as too wordy.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps just "user rights administrator"? — Dan | Talk 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggested on the other page the term "Judge," which is a fairly accurate description of what Bureaucrats do. Andre (talk) 01:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the bit where we started off a few years ago: Adminship is no big deal. A bureaucrat has no greater authority than an admin has no greater authority than an editor. If any of them are doing things for themselves instead of for the community, that's a problem. Yes, calling someone a moderator will help them scare off vandals, but in the long run I'd rather have a few more vandals and a few less misconceptions. I'd prefer janitors and mop-cleaners. --fvw* 01:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Superintendent? ...or is that too "powerful"? It's a synonym of janitor. K1Bond007 03:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Senior Janitor? Master of the Custodial Arts? Janitor with Keys to the Executive Washroom? Aquillion 04:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How about adjudicators? Grutness...wha? 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I like it, actually. Andre (talk) 03:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems to me that this suggests the function of an arbitrator. — Dan | Talk 03:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps "magistrates"? --Alan Au 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that it is the name alone stopping any user reasonable enough to be a suitable bureaucrat from accepting the post. I like the lack of glamour, myself, and with name changes now added to the duties the paper-pushing connotations are perhaps more apt, though a Wikipedia bureaucrat ought to have more perception and understanding of the community than your garden-variety bureaucrat usually exhibits!

Why the name change, really? Not for the bureaucrats or prospective bureaucrats themselves: I really think that the name ought not to matter. If someone can propose a name that makes their function clearer I won't object. "Admin (user rights)" isn't bad, if a bit cumbersome.

Side note: I propose this section be merged with the section in Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Choosing this page to respond on myself because it's more visible and I liked the tenor of this thread better. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with all of mindspillages points. Keep the name frumpish, it goes along with the work. →Raul654 04:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I like the title "Bureaucrat". It has a nice tongue-in-cheek flavor. After all, Wikipedia is actually one of the least bureaucratic organizations I've been around. Besides, you aren't going to come up with a title that meaningfully combines the tasks of promoting admins and changing usernames. "Adjudicator" would have worked before the new duty was added, but not anymore. Isomorphic 05:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
If we need a change, what about Administrator+ or Administrator* with the Admin+, Admin*, A+' and/or A* (e.g. RfA+ or RfA*) abbreviations working. It sums up the job in that its basically just a couple of responsibilites in addition to plain administrators. Of the two I prefer + over * as the latter indicates there is a catch (e.g. "All items half price*" *between 1am and 6am only). Thryduulf 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
All right. On a more serious note (though I still like Lambies), how about Chief? Or Commissioner? Or Secretary of Admissions? Acetic'Acid 12:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Raul654, they should be called frumpish, though Frumps may sound better. Func( t, c, @, ) 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
how abut simplistic... overseers...Gavin the Chosen 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the historic reference: "General Secretary". --Carnildo 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was always a big fan of President for Life. Acetic'Acid 19:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
How about "Administrator Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary"? Ground Zero | t 19:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest "Administrative Officials", "executives", "superintendents", "overseers", "principals", "paramounts" or "preponderants". Take your pick :)

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Firmly suppressing my preference for Holy Roman Emperor, how about Consul? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as Wikipedia is not Holy, Roman, nor an Empire - I think Holy Roman Emperor would be ideal!-Satori (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, you can't do that. Because I'm the Holy Roman Emperor, and no-one else can use that title. Ground Zero | t 21:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Lord High Everything Else - I freely license my right to the title. Septentrionalis 21:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Resurrecting the anagram-ish theme, there's "Ubercrats". We could then rename admins as "untercrats" and the rest of us "userlings". -Splash

Er, speaking as a potential "untercrat" and an inveterate mistyper and transposer of letters, I can't raise any enthusiasm for this... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
My preference is for Supreme Leader and Dictator-for-Life; barring that, First Tiger or El Presidente. :-) — Dan | Talk 22:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest calling bureaucrats "uncles", in honour of Ed. (I'm not making fun, just saying that he's the only one with an useful name. Admins would, of course, have to all be renamed smoddies. Normal users can be Kims, as he seems to like being one. :-) [[smoddy]] 22:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I applaud Smoddy's willingness to have his user name changed as inappropriate :} Septentrionalis 23:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
It does mean I actually can change my user name... The pains of having too many edits. [[smoddy]] 23:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I have more edits! Anyway, I prefer this scheme: Admin>>Ñolmo ('pursuer of wisdom') and Bureaucrat>>Iñgōlemo ('wise person'). Iñgōlemo talk 23:22, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Pedants and Advanced Pedants? android79 23:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC) The way I see it, 'Bureaucrats' is the only name that fits.

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Self-nomination

I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. Problem is, I already did, back on April Fool's day, which was a frivolous nomination, but which has now been archived as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JIP. I'd like to nominate myself for real, but am not sure whether to replace the old request page's content or start a new one instead. — JIP | Talk 09:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Start your new nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JIP 2, people will want to look at your original request in order to help them come to a decision. Good luck. Rje 12:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

New bureaucrats

I'd just like to say congratulations to Rdsmith4 and Nichalp. Though my own nomination failed, at least I inspired two great editors to step up to the plate. Andre (talk) 19:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Please fill out the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll. Andre (talk) 19:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

More like a discussion?

Obviously a support vote doesn't need much reason, you are basically agreeing the user is not an idiot. But, oppose and neutral votes should lead to discussion, which in the case of a *real* oppose vote (not a ridiculous "not enough edits", etc), could improve the user. What would everyone think about simply adjusting the RFA headers for oppose and neutral, to indicate they should be a *discussion*? Obviously comments is already a discussion. And, what would the headers say? --Phroziac (talk) 21:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that support votes don't need much reason. In my opinion, no including a reason implicitly means "I agree with previous supporters' comments". That said, it is more helpful to include a comment for an oppose vote because they're more often challenged. I do think it's rather poor Wikiquiette to oppose a candidate without any comment, but I'm not sure the rules should require it.
On another point, "Not enough edits" is usually an editor's way of saying "not enough experience", which is a very valid reason to oppose. Just because edit count doesn't tell the whole story doesn't mean that it's useless. Carbonite | Talk 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I think you both should read Raul's 10th law. Stating why you support someone is generally hard because you aren't supporting for any specific reason, but a lack of reasons not to. →Raul654 23:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
That was actually in the back of my mind, though it was useful to re-read the exact text. Still, a short note such as "Active on RC patrol" or "Handled difficult conflict with User X" can very helpful. Carbonite | Talk 23:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Or even just "longstanding good editor". Active participation for a long while with no problems is enough reason to make someone an admin, absent any other issues, isn't it? There's no need for people to dig for other reasons when that's really what they want to say. Of course, if there's some controversy related to the nominee, then it might make sense for support voters to comment on why they don't think that should be a problem. Aquillion 01:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I read that, Raul, and I agree. I never can think of a good reason to put with my support votes. --Phroziac (talk) 01:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well, true, but I was actually referring to the more rediculous claims. Like, less then (rediculous number) posts. --Phroziac (talk) 01:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do we need more admins?

I think we should decide on what admin:user ratio is ideal. This is so we know whether we have too many admins, or too little. Sometimes when I feel I'm in the gray area regarding an admin candidate, I would like to know whether wikipedia has too many admins or too few, so I would know how 'strict' i have to be regarding votes. Borisblue 03:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this! It lets me point you to Wikipedia:Redundancy is good. Andre (talk) 03:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A page which, it should be pointed out, you just wrote. →Raul654 03:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Er, yes. That's why I thanked him. Are you angry at me because I started a bureaucrat consensus poll? Andre (talk) 03:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm think you jumped the gun and started a poll rather than starting a discussion on this page (which, in all likelihood, would have gotten you better-thought-out responses than the poll would have) →Raul654 07:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, too much admin is impossible :). Pages are vandalised incessantly and at times, some admins are away. Since multiple users join each day, many admins are still needed.

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Admin is like an "advanced editing licence", so ideally 100% of our contributors should be admins*. At this moment in time there's a large disparity. Admins are temporarily considered to be wikigods, which is terribly undesirable (guilded cage and all that). I want to go back to being treated like a normal wikipedian please!
*Actually, since people are constantly joining us, some % must still be admins-in-training, so a realistic figure is probably (random guess) 95% or so.
Kim Bruning 03:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Kim. Admins are people that we (the community) feel we can trust not to misbehave (or, not to misbehave too much). Trust is not a finite quantity that we can "use up". Admins don't have any formal role in governance, they are not somehow "better" than other users. Guettarda 03:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's another concurrence with Kim. I have a friend of mine who is a sporadic Wikipedia editor (he has all of 110 edits) who I would nonetheless completely trust with admin rights. The question we should ask is not "why should this editor be an admin?" but rather "why shouldn't this editor be an admin?" Kelly Martin 22:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
My opinion is that yes we do. As the project grows, the need for janitors--vandal fighters, junk deletors, copyvio hunters, and so forth--grows with the project. I've observed that a lot of people doing regular vandal-fighting on RC patrol have a fairly quick burnout rate, and they need to be replaced as fast as they burn out. New admins are often the most zealous RC patrollers; we need them. So my opinion is we need a regular crop of new admins. Sometime look at that list of 500 active admins, and reflect on how many of those names once were prominent in vandal-fighting and are now gone. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I think more admins should be good, since as mentioned earlier, people leave the project and an increasing amount are joining. We need more admins to counter-act the problems we are having against vandalism. Plus, the new admins can help in other tasks such as clearing backlogs at various procedual pages, such as WP:IFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
^Well said, I concur.

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  • I think we have too few admins. Some of those with admin ability don't use it much to work against vandalism or get involved in hot disputes. Not that they have to. Examine a nominated editor's edit history, see if they play well with others and if they push a POV...also see if they are involved in RC patrol, Vfd, Ifd and have survived a few edit wars and how they dealt with it.--MONGO 03:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A ratio would be impossible, considering the wide variation between what a "user" means so that we could never really know that number (some are just registered names with one edit, or thousands). But I think you can be sure we never have too few admins. Just take a look at VFD, and WP:CP and WP:VIP, and WP:IFD and WP:RFPP, etc. It's a never-ending task. I would just vote based on merit always, always imagining that admins are needed. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


Well, we have ongoing backlog at IFD and the copyvio page. From time to time there is backlog at VFD. RC is generally well staffed but more eyes never hurt. So yes, we most assuredly do need more admins. There are also social implications of delaying adminship further or refusing it altogether more often. For various reasons, including the growing proportion of anon edits and the difficulty of measuring the number of active nonadmin accounts in a meaningful way, I don't think the admin-to-user ratio is a useful yardstick. Better to compare the number of admins to the number of edits made each month. I don't like the rising adminship standards and wish that people would support admins with fewer edits. I also wish people would refrain from opposing adminship nominations for retaliatory reasons and onetime incidents. Most of the people who were made admins when all you needed was 500 edits, 3 months with the project, and a demonstrable willingness to get along with others are still admins today and have not caused problems. Much of the rise in minimum standards occured prior to the AC being available to deal with matters of misuse of admin abilities. Now the AC deals with such cases routinely, yet the minimum standards have not returned to their previous levels. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


Allright, thanks for the input. I'm lowering standards for my 'support' vote appopriately. Borisblue 04:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. Wikipedia's size is growing exponentially, and the number of admins should follow suit. As Wikipedia becomes more visible, more vandals will come to try to disrupt things because they think that it is "cool" or something like that. Ideally, if we're going to talk about ratios, there should be a 1:1 admin-to-vandal ratio, but that's going to be very hard to measure... --Titoxd 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

From Special:Statistics, the number of active wikipedians (those making at least 5 edits in a given month) is growing in a fairly exponential fashion at +10% a month, or equivalently, doubling every 6.7 months. So to keep a steady ratio we would need to expand the admin pool by 10% a month as well. Since we have ~500 active admins at the moment, we would need to promote 50 more this month. Dragons flight 04:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
PS. For the curious, the active:admin ratio is 21:1. Dragons flight 05:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't we lower the standards then? I mean, right on this page it states 1000 edits, 3 months, which seems a bit high given what you are telling me.Borisblue 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. From WP:1000, there are 1700+ editors with greater than 1500 edits, presumably some significant chunk of them could be promoted. Really though, there are no standards, there is only the matter of what individual voters choose to care about. Dragons flight 05:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There are plenty of users that have good editing track records, no major problems, and we simply haven't noticed them. Yeah it would be great for them all to edit at the prominent locations, but good article creation and some experience in the Wikipedia namespace should be enough to go along with a good track record. So we need to find and nominate more great candidates, not lower standards. - Taxman Talk 21:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
The standards Borisblue quotes are entirely unofficial, and are simply intented to describe general patterns; if the standards of the community change, the number will be changed (and not vice versa). For my part, I think that we certainly need to continue expanding the pool of admins, but we can afford to be quite selective. I have seen no evidence that our current admins are unable to keep up with the influx of vandalism and junk, but these will grow as the wiki grows. In fact, the current rate of promotion is just fine by me, and I trust that the community will continue to find and nominate the most qualified users. — Dan | Talk 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I concur with the above stmt. User:Nichalp/sg 11:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly different note; Is it just me or has there been an influx of nominations recently? we have 19 at the moment! It is very encouraging that most seem like pretty decent candidates as well. I have also noticed that requirements for adminship seem to be rising a bit as well, although maybe its just my imagination. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Nominations often tend to come in bunches, though I've never figured out why. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the influx as well; I think it may have something to do with the merging of self-noms and noms. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
My theory is that nominations come in bunches because people are reminded to nominate/self-nominate when they see wp:rfa on RC. Thus, more nominations lead to yet more nominations in a sort of chain reaction. Meelar (talk) 23:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that as the Wikipedia community grows in size, it's simply to be expected that the number of admin nominations being processed at any given time is likely to grow as well. --Michael Snow 21:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes - especially with the recent WoW surge Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on. Something is deeply broken if a single vandal is dictating behavior for the entire community. PS. Help fix it. Dragons flight 21:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Actually it was sort of a half-joke. I thought mediawiki had a ton on developers on it though.... no? I could help out there, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Not really, the developer pool is quite small, but the link is really more to a discussion of what to do. Many of the changes suggested are technically trivial to implement, but not everyone agrees on what should be done. Dragons flight 21:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I notice there are a lot of nominations lately. Having enough admins is good, because it lets us be picky about candidates. If there is some doubt, or if they do not clearly have enough experience, vote oppose. However, if the candidate is obviously good, there is no reason not to vote for them. Note that not all admins spend all day fixing things. I'm one, and I don't feel obliged to clean up after WoW when I prefer to spend my time adding content (I'm not paid for this after all) So, while I make occasional good use of my admin powers, blocking the odd vandal here or deleting some nonsense there, I am not a dedicated member of the mopping-up squad. Now, 5,000 good editors doing the occasional admin work are at least as good as 50 full-time admins. Bottom line, be picky, but keep nominating trusted users! dab (ᛏ) 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

DoKuDan nomination

For those wondering why I removed the RFA nomination of DoKuDan (talk • contribs), it was a fake nomination (a copy of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jitse Niesen with a few edits). I have blocked the user indefinitely. Admins can view the fake nomination at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DoKuDan. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination?

If you nominate someone else for adminship, and they accept, do you always have the power to withdraw the nomination before it has run its course, thus declining adminship from the candidate, or will an established consensus prevent that? I suppose people who nominate themselves can always withdraw their nominations no matter how many people support them. — JIP | Talk 04:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I notice this too... people are taking the " Nominations which will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will" line into heart I see :). I don't know if there's anything wrong with it as the passage seems to allow it Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
But what about nominations that will clearly pass? Can the nominator remove them too? I don't think they can, but I want to be sure. — JIP | Talk 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I would say no. A nominator can start a vote but not withdraw it (unless it is badly failing or the candidate chooses to refuse the nomination). In strange cases, I guess a nominator could change his vote to neutral or oppose. Never seen that happen though. Dragons flight 04:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... /me looks concerned... android79 05:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
The question was, of course, purely academic. — JIP | Talk 05:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew that. Looks like I forgot to add ":-)" to my above comment, oops. Just ignore me... android79 11:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
No. A nominator merely introduces a prospective admin to the community for the purpose of allowing others to express their opinions. The nominator is not a sponsor and this is not a private club. If the nominator decides for some reason that they no longer wish the person to be an admin, they should vote "oppose" like anyone else and state their objections. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. I just wanted to be sure. But what about the removed nomination for User:Acetic Acid? — JIP | Talk 09:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that a nomination simply gets the voting started. If a nominator changes his mind, he can remove his vote – traditionally the nominator gives the number one vote. But if others have already started voting in support, he can't cancel the process that he has started. I imagine it would only happen either if the nominator is a bit eccentric, or if the candidate has done something pretty awful – in which case it's likely that many other "support" voters would change their votes to neutral or oppose at the same time. If it's not mentioned in the policy, that's probably because it hasn't occurred to anyone so far that it could happen. Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If Redwolf24 didn't pull the nomination, I would have rejected it. I never accepted the nomination, so I think he did the right thing. Acetic'Acid 00:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

More about self-nominations

User:Salvag recently voted support in his/her own self-nomination for adminship. However, User:Ulayiti did not do so in his, and copying his behaviour, neither did I in mine. What is the policy, is voting support in one's own self-nomination recommended, voluntary or discouraged? — JIP | Talk 06:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I would like to know the answer to this as well. --Ixfd64 06:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
I was just about to post a question about this here myself... It's not generally done (I haven't seen anyone vote for themselves before, and I've been hanging around at RfA for quite a while), but there's not actually anything in the instructions that would prohibit it. It actually says, 'All Wikipedians with an account are welcome to vote.' That seems to imply that even the user themselves could vote, but I don't think this has ever been discussed. I took a quick look at the archives of this talk page and couldn't find anything about this issue. I think we should establish consensus on the matter and include it in the instructions, since this will just create more confusion if it's not addressed. Anyone else in favour of a straw poll? - [[User:Ulayiti|User:Ulayiti/sig]] 12:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of a strawpoll per se...isn't the user voting for themself by the mere act of accepting the nomination? Straw polls aside, ultimately the decision is not made based on a poll alone—it's based on the decision of the bureaucrats... Tomer TALK 12:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think a poll is really necessary. Since the votes are not simply tabulated, they'll never be case where one vote puts the candidate over the top. In practice, the vast majority of RfAs are overwhelmingly supported or opposed. In really close votes, bureaucrats may choose to disregard the candidate's own vote. Carbonite | Talk 12:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you ask my opinion, the candidate's own vote doesn't count, as it is implicit in accepting the nomination. Therefore I support a policy of disallowing voting for oneself. The nominator should vote support, though, if he is not the candidate himself. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
This isn't an election, bureaucrats gauge the consenus and make their decision based on that. Obviously they realise a self nominater wants to be an admin, regardless of whether they vote for themselves or not. However I think it would be a bit odd to vote on your own nomination. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, in real world elections, the candidates vote, presumably for themself... and their vote is counted along with everyone else'. The relevant point here tho, is that the bureaucrats look for consensus, not simple votecounts. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Tomer TALK 12:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
That actually varies. In an official governmental election, candidates can (and usually do) vote for themselves, but in smaller, private elections, voting for oneself is generally forbidden. I suppose the criterion is having far more voters than candidates. If all, or almost all, voters are also candidates, allowing voting for oneself will cause an (almost) completely homogenous distribution of votes, making picking a winner impossible. — JIP | Talk 12:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"...in smaller, private elections, voting for oneself is generally forbidden." Not under the rules in Robert's Rules of Order, or The Standard Code, or indeed, any other manual of parliamentary procedure I am aware of. Of course, Wikipedia is different because we (theoretically) don't vote, we have a conversation which does or does not show consensus. Jonathunder 16:00, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
I was not talking about official political elections, but instead about informal elections in a private community such as a fanbase. Hence the term "private". — JIP | Talk 19:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, self-noms on RfA do not usually vote for themselves. A recent candidate, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK did vote for himself, insisted on his 'right' to do so and took quite a bit of heat for it. Since it's not a simple vote count, it doesn't really matter anyway. -Splash 12:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship is not simply an election, so I don't find the "you can vote for yourself" argument persuasive. The real issue being considered is whether the community trusts the candidate. We assess this by assuming that comments here are generally representative of the opinions of those familiar with the candidate.

The opinions of candidates about themselves are not terribly relevant to whether the community trusts them. It's worth noting that candidates who have insisted on "voting" for themselves have invariably failed — rightfully so, because it shows a lack of understanding about how things work on Wikipedia and disqualifies them for the level of trust that is required. --Michael Snow 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How can it be 'lack of understanding about how things work on Wikipedia' when the instructions say nothing about it? If we have 'secret rules' like that on RfA, it's only going to add to the impression of having an exclusive cabal in charge. Sure it's not an election in the conventional sense, but I think this is insufficiently explained in the instructions. - ulayiti (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
How many people read and follow every one of the instructions provided? (I've added it there, anyway.) The key word in my comment is insisted. The problem is not with people unfamiliar with this page and its customs, it's with people who aren't able to take guidance when someone says, "We don't do that kind of thing around here." --Michael Snow 17:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

considering administrator application

Several people have suggested that I apply for an administrator position.

I am considering an application as well, and I need to know what kind of criteria is expected. As of time of writing, I have almost 3000 edits, and I have been here since late 2002. I've occasionally made bad edits on accident, but I always try to catch those. I have never been in a conflict with another user.

So I am wondering - is there any other criteria that I should fulfull? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --Ixfd64 06:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

I have no incontrovertable advice to offer you, but never having been in conflict w/ another editor isn't all it's cracked up to be... I think a lot of people who vote on RFA's look at how you handle conflict w/ other editors, rather than whether or not you've managed to edit only non-controversial pages. There are, of course, notable exceptions, but I think most voters/commentators are interested more in how you handle yourself in a conflict, than whether or not you manage to steer clear of controversy... I, for example, have way more than 2x as many edits as you (not that it's a competition, don't get me wrong), yet find myself in controversies all the time, simply because of the contentious nature of the articles that draw my attention. (And would never have the chutzpa to nominate myself for RFA...) Tomer TALK 12:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I have never had a single conflict, I also didnt have any oppostion to being an admin (other than boothy). Voters look at all sorts of things, experience and familiarity with policy are probably most important. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically for admins I don't care too much whether you try to avoid conflict or not - its an easy way to get a sweeping nomination though. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Judging AfDs?

How is it decided when AfDs are judged and which admin judges which AfD?

  • There is no set structure. Either that, or there's a secret admin cabal page for AfD that I'm not aware of. Cue the spooky music! android79 18:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I expect that when we become admins, a bureaucrat or an older admin will give us a brief rundown of how all this "being an admin" works. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


Withdrawals

Hi there, I've just been reading the last Archive, which contains some remarks on the withdrawal of nominations. Am I correct in understanding that there is no set procedure in place to withdraw them in the interests of humane pile-up prevention? Is it generally Bureaucrats who do them?—encephalonέγκέφαλος  23:04:36, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

For ordinary closures it is, obviously, only open to the 'crats to do the deed one way or the other. Recently, for early closures, there's been a couple of 'ordinary' editors removing pile-ups; the 'crats don't seem to have needed to step in much (although they have occasionally). I guess if no-one opposes a non-crat's early closure and removal of an RfA then that's fine. If anyone does oppose it, it should obviously be left to the 'crats to decide the timing and manner of closure. That's just my reading of the recent happenings on RfA though; we don't have a policy for it that I'm aware of and I imagine some editors would disagree with my summary. -Splash 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. That's what I thought too.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  11:19:17, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

What the heck?

I was deleated from the list. Who did that? --Admiral Roo 19:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Your self-nom wasn't deleted. You added your nomination to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter instead of transcluding it on the main RFAr page. Since you added what you thought was deleted to the right place the second time, it's all good now. :-) android79 21:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand it now. Thank you. --Admiral Roo 03:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on oppose votes?

I nominated User:Zappaz, and as I expected, the vote has generated very nasty comments by some opposing editors, that IMO are way over the top, some of which are acussations bordering on personal attacks. Is refactoring permitted in these cases? And if so, who should do the refactoring? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Problems nominating

All I see is an unsatisfied link Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leonard G. even though entering a template entry that is identical to the opters (having previously made the same error as Admiral Roo and corrected it). (I cleared caches as instructed.) This should be easier to use - see my user talk page (add a new topic) - can there be something similar here? Leonard G. 03:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

# Follow the red link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName and add the following: ===[[User:UserName|]]=== '''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName|action=edit}} Vote here] (0/0/0) ending {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} [[00 Month]] [[2005]] (UTC)''' {{User|USERNAME}} - Your nomination/description of the user --~~~~ {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}} # Preview your nomination to check it; replace [[00 Month]] with the date from your signature but make the date seven days later. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I left a message on Leonards talk page about that. --Admiral Roo 04:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I did not see your name here Leonard. I should have looked before I left the above message here. Sorry. --Admiral Roo 04:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. How many ppl have trouble understanding how to put up a nomination like me and Leonard? If a good number of ppl do have trouble, perhaps a better discription should be used. --Admiral Roo 04:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a puzzle test - If you can get your own nomination up you are somewhat pre-qualified ;-) Leonard G. 04:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Leonard, I tried to help you by fixing your nomination code, but I think I just made things worse. (cringe)  :( --Admiral Roo 04:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
You could always play around with it in your personal sandbox first so you can get the hang of things. That's what I did before I nominated Asbestos. That way, your mistakes aren't visible to the public. :) Acetic'Acid 05:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Inactive admins

Would it be a good idea to de-sysop the inactive admins? As it may be a minor security risk if someone worked out their password, it inflates the real number of admins, and if they did return they would not be up-to-date on policy etc. so probably wouldn't be good admins anyway. Also, some seem to have very low edit counts and i doubt would be accepted as admins anyway.

Maybe we could de-sysop users who dont make any edits for 12 months or something? just a thought. Martin 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me.-gadfium 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
We've talked about that before and I don't recall any major opposition, but it still never got done. I think it makes sense also and 12mo with no edits is more than reasonable. We can discuss what other standards we may accept, such as what about 1 edit in 12 mos or 5 edits. Now is as good a time as any to make a decision on it. - Taxman Talk 09:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
5 edits in 12 months sounds good, it could be something for our new bureaucrats to do. Martin 11:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be exactly zero edits in some period of time. If someone is inactive then it means he/she is not doing any edits at all, at least that's how I understand it.  Grue  12:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucrats can't de-sysop. Only m:stewards can. As to the number of edits, I'd say 0 with a requirement that the admin is emailed first to check if they have any reason not to be de-sysoped. Note that, extenuating circumstances given, they can be immediately re-sysoped by a bureaucrat if they so request. [[smoddy]] 12:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
What if there are only non-productive edits (i.e. fiddling with the layout of the admin's user page)? -- BD2412 talk 16:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this subject may be found here. I favor a suggestion put forward last November (I believe by Kim Bruning): that the software automatically remove the sysop flag after an account is unused for a certain period of time. If a returning user desires to be a sysop again, he may simply ask a bureaucrat to restore the flag. There's no need for inactive users to go through the RFA process a second time - we already know they're trusted by the community; it would be redundant. — Dan | Talk 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, in the mean time we could ask a steward to do the job, there aren't that many inactive >1 year admins so it wouldnt take long. Martin 18:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I proposed this once before and still support it. Adminship need not be granted for a lifetime. Dormant accounts do pose a security risk since if they suddenly became active we would have absolutely no way to find out whether it was the original owner or not. Site policy has evolved considerably and is continuing to do so. Admins who have been gone for a while, particularly those who weren't that active to begin with, may be unfamiliar with how things work here today. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, also it seems odd bureaucrats can't de-admin users, is this for technical reasons? if not then it would seem logical that bureaucrats are given the means to de-admin people seeing as they are able make users admins in the first place. Martin 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it's for policy reasons. "De-adminning" is rare and so there was not seen to be any reason to make it available to bureaucrats. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: User:KRS voluntary renounced her adminship last September as she had other non-wiki commitments. User:Nichalp/sg 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I got this response from Angela, bascially stating that we need wider support to do this, especially since there was opposition last time. Personally I think some of the opposition was ill thought out, but so maybe was the way the proposal was worded/started. So there needs to be a specific, but flexible proposal put together and then publicize it a few places. Then we need to ask at meta requests for permissions to get a non involved steward to do the permissions changes. Do we think it needs to be more than here and WP:AN? I also apologize I won't likely be able to put the proposal together. - Taxman Talk 18:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Q from Adam1213

How do I do step 2? - please send me a message. sorry for putting this here I could not find anywhere else

Save the page. Follow the red link to the nomination subpage and paste in the the following text (replacing UserName as before):

UserName

Vote here (0/0/0) ending 10:51 [Ending date] (UTC)

UserName (talk • contribs) – [Your nomination/description of the user] Adam1213 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC) {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions

I've done it for you, you need to fill in the questions etc. now. Martin 11:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Cedar-Guardian

Why isn't Cedar-Guardian an admin yet? Is it because he didn't sign to accept his nomination? — JIP | Talk 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to accept a self-nom. Howabout1 Talk to me! 19:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's just that a 'crat didn't come along and do it yet. They're human, too, allegedly, so I suppose they're not always at the computer. -Splash 19:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe they are, and they just want to see them sweat a bit ;) ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This may or may not have anything to do with the lag, but I for one would not want to close an RFA in which only 14 opinions are expressed. Most have upwards of 20-40, and this one stikes me as possibly inconclusive. Dmcdevit·t 20:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
14 isn't that bad you should see mine.Geni 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The reason, as Splash guessed, is that I didn't happen to be around and (apparently) no other bureaucrat noticed that it was past due. Though fifteen votes is my approximate minimum for determining consensus, I made an exception in this case because several of the support votes were quite enthusiastic (particularly David Cannon's) and the single valid objection was very mild. — Dan | Talk 00:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. My timings did not match his adminiship ending timing. User:Nichalp/sg 15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA Template

Should we change the template for RFA candidates so it no longer says "vote here", as has recently been pointed out on Nandesuka's current request, we do not "vote", we aim for consensus? --TimPope 10:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets stick with a wording that reflect reality.Geni 10:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I sort of agree with Geni. While it is true that we do not vote, Discuss the candidacy here! is wordy and misleading. Perhaps Contribute or State Your Position would be better? Acetic'Acid 01:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Notvote here. -Splash 01:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Geni and Acetic Acid; the appellation is harmless, and any person's "vote" may be weighed on the basis of its reasoning (or lack thereof) or its source. All the alternatives are too wordy. — Dan | Talk 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
We do, in fact, vote. Its just that the majority must be higher. Though straw polls are discouraged in most of Wikipedia, its what we use at RfA, so keep it. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT damn you dan ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Splash has the right idea. Do not vote here. Acetic'Acid 01:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL

I was thinking about nominating User:GraemeL for adminship. He was very helpful in dealing with an anonymous user who wrote his own CV in several intentionally mistitled Wikipedia articles and vandalised my user talk page. Looking at his user and user talk pages, he seems very professional. WP:KT says he has over 1600 edits, over various namespaces. Problem is, he's only been on Wikipedia for less than one month. Is there much point in nominating him yet? — JIP | Talk 13:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Wait two months or so. Andre (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

I highly recommend that this RfA be removed early. It's an overwhleming rejection and is now generating a good deal of ill will. I'd remove it myself, but I voted and would rather have an uninvolved admin (or preferably a bureaucrat) remove it. Carbonite | Talk 16:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think he'll kick up a fuss if an admin does it though, so it's probably safer if it's a bureaucrat. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_adminship_Archive_29_fb2f.html"