Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Reinstatement of Admin Rights After Their Right to Vanish

WP:ADMIN currently states, "If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat". I personally see nothing wrong with this action however feel it could be made a little more transparent without violating privacy. Any ideas? I reccomend a placeholder RFA page be created where the sysoping crat can avouch for the users identity verification as well as arb com if necessary. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I liked the idea on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard where one could have a placeholder RfA.  hmwith  talk 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You added that last part about your recommendation after I had written that response. Yes, I agree with this idea. It seems like it would help a lot of confusion that apparently seems to be happening.  hmwith  talk 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a really stupid idea to allow people to vanish and then come back as admins without a new RfA. Dislike of the principle aside, I'm not sure why this makes it more transparent; the user rights log can contain "sysopped, user was an admin under old account" just as well as a placeholder RfA page. -Amarkov moo! 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think they vanished for fun? That they got tired of there old username and wanted a new one? If that were the case, i would probably oppose it but when it comes to some of the reasons I have seen people leave, no questions asked I support reinstatement. When an editor is forced to leave because of death threats or other actions that could possibly cause very real personal injury that is a complety different story. I 100% support those people for standing for what the believe in and feel that the community shunning them back to the start because they were forced to leave is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the admin returning after vanishing (which usually means trolling to the extent they could no longer edit or plausible threats of real world violation) should:
  1. Place a link on their userpage to a deleted revision containing their previous name. This allows other admins to know who they are.
  2. Allow users in good standing to contact them off-wiki to learn their identity
If this is not possible, then a list of trusted users who can be contacted to very the fact that this user is (1) a former admin in good standing and (2) has a good reason for not providing the info in the manner I described above. ArbCom should be mailed to provide that info as well. WjBscribe 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But #1 wouldn't go along with the 'right to vanish,' would it? It seems they would come back to the same status, only under a different username. I don't even know if I like the existing policy...still formulating my thoughts. the_undertow talk 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think #1 should be optional personally. I like the idea, but feel that an offer to contact off wiki would work as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Option #1 is the option most users who have done this have in practice taken. It seems to me the best option but assumes you trust your fellow sysop. Perhaps a list of options, with #1 being preferable and the others as alternatives... WjBscribe
I tend to agree it is the best option. However, word gets around quickly. I think it might be a good idea to do it but not be forced to advertise it? If asked, provide the link diff or something like that. Nothing like drawing attention to an obviously deleted link and cirous people start askign questions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If an admin left because their real life identity had become known, and had led to real life harassment, it should certainly not be obligatory to make it possible for every single administrator to know their previous identity. (Are all administrators trustworthy?) Nor should there be any obligation to tell "any user in good standing". ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Admins as being in a position of power attract trolls, especially when they are doing a good job. We should not allow trolls to chase good admins off the site and I think the right to vanish and return with a new identity and sysop powers intact is an excellent one of which I fully approve, SqueakBox 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
in principle. But you have to allow for the possibility that the admin in the future indulges in questionable admin actions. And the users who then find themselves at the nasty end of his admin buttons have a right to ask "who is this, and why does he have the power to block/delete". The point of 'not letting the trolls win' is well taken. I think multiple crat endorsement should suffice. I suggest a "dummy" RFA page is created at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NewUsername (viz., where people will find it) with the promoting crat saying he's been convinced of user's identity, and maybe one or two other crats endorsing that. I think that's not asking too much, and it would help greatly in dispelling the impression that cards are being dealt under the table. dab (𒁳) 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand the arguments here, and it's tragic to lose a good admin to trolls, but I think that this is really counter to the Wiki philosophy of equal participants and transparency. Building up a new reputation as a good editor shouldn't take more than a month or two. And, though it's regrettable, sometimes the community needs to come first. Yes, perhaps I'd feel differently if it were my account that needed to be changed, but I think we should look at the big picture here. --Eyrian 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It would take a lot longer than a month or two to gain admin powers. An RfA before four months is almost doomed to failure, and any attempt to rerun within three months of the first failure is almost doomed to failure as well. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What lack of transparency concerns you? Is your concern crats sysopping people out of process? I.E., they have never had an rfa that achieved consensus. As far as I am concerned, once an RFA has achieved a consensus, it applies to that person no matter what there name is. The consensus was achieved on that person, not that persons username. As long as appropriate identiy verification can be provided, i see nothing out of process here. I will however agree it cannot hurt to imcrease transparency by creating a placeholder RFA with information from the syopping crat or even multiple crats who can confrim the identity. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, once an RFA has achieved a consensus, it applies to that person no matter what there name is - No it doesn't. --Iamunknown 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But that ruling refers to cases of administrators who gave up their sysop powers under controversial circumstances. It's to prevent a situation where an admin blocks someone he's in conflict with, then requests desysopping to avoid an ArbCom case which might lead to desysopping, then, once the case has been dropped, asks for his powers back. I would think that bureaucrats shouldn't resysop (privately or otherwise) anyone who resigned to avoid having the tools forcibly removed. But I'm confident that they wouldn't. ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that someone can't verify the community process that led to someone being an administrator. Being trusted with additional tools should be public, and this violates that. What is important is that users should be able to verify these things for themselves, and not have to rely on the powers that be to assure them from Sinai that all is well. --Eyrian 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks Eyrian, that's more or less the point I've been trying to make. dab (𒁳) 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY -- users without admin powers or insider knowledge should be able to see that the RFA has achieved consensus. dab (𒁳) 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That's odd; I always thought that WP:VERIFY applied to articles, not editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Eyrian, I think the community is coming first here. There's no reason to lose a good admin for 'one or two months' because she was harrassed into leaving Wikipedia. (I also suspect that your two-month estimate is woefully short; are any admins being promoted these days with less than three months of experience? Many RfA denizens are now demanding at least a six-month shrubbery.... In any case, you've also forgotten about the time that the admin in question was away from Wikipedia entirely. An admin who declares her intent to vanish due to harrassment can't very well preserve her anonymity if she pops back on with a new account the next day. Such an admin is likely to be away from the wiki for many weeks or months.)
I don't know where the idea that admins aren't a part of the community comes from, nor why the don't deserve courtesy and assistance when they're harrassed. We don't blame, beat, or desysop victims here—we help them back on their feet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear! ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Power makes you a servant or a tyrant. That is to say, power must come with extra burdens, or it creates authoritarianism. Admins are part of the community; public officers who have additional responsibilities to make up for additional power. Sometimes that means unfortunately heavier burdens. It is sad to lose someone. I understand that. But the community as a whole is more valuable than any member. And this sort of voice-on-high vouching casts a very black shadow indeed. --Eyrian 20:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh bollocks. Admins can (un)protect, (un)delete, and (un)block. Whoopty-shit. You call that 'power'? In exchange for the responsible exercise of trivial powers for the service and benefit of the community, many admins are repaid with on-wiki flaming (amusing) and on-wiki threats (troubling). An unlucky few are subject to off-wiki threats by phone or email, harrassment of their families, phone calls to employers, phone calls to police, lawyer's letters, and publication of personal details by the creepiest, most paranoid, most obnoxious sociopaths that can be scraped off the bottom of the internet.
In addition to being unable to edit Wikipedia for some time (with or without their admin bit) they have their livelihoods, their security, their safety, their friends or their families threatened. They give up the months or years of effort that they have put into both building a reputation on Wikipedia and into Wikipedia itself. They are long-serving, dedicated, respected members of the community. The harrassment has already cost them their Wikipedia reputations and threatened their personal privacy and security; I'd be embarrassed and disgusted to be part of a 'community' that says "Fuck you! We're taking your admin bit, too! As a reward for your efforts, we're kicking you right back to nothing; all your efforts up to now count for squat. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
Power corrupts? Okay, what causes pettiness? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Several administrators have been victimized by depraved levels of real-world harassment and trolling of themselves and in some cases members of their families, typically in retaliation for administrator actions they have taken as part of their duties for the benefit of Wikipedia. Many times we lose the editing and administrator services of these victimized editors permanently. When an admin who has been through this is willing to continue adminship under a new username, this should be allowed to occur. The bureaucrats resysop accounts affected by these circumstances only upon verifying that the user involved was an admin in good standing and has created a new account for a legitimate and necessary reason. In the instances I am aware of, their action was entirely justified. The ordinary demands of transparency, which I respect immensely under virtually any other circumstance, are subordinate to more important goals in these hopefully rare instances, and it is not in the best interests of the community to discuss them further on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? I don't mean to belittle any of the hard-working admins here, but Wikipedia got on fine with one less admin than it has now. I want them to come back, but it is a temporary loss from which the community will recover. Lack of transparency casts a very long shadow indeed. I really don't want to see such an obvious target for accusations of cabalism (and not entirely without merit) continue. --Eyrian 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
that's fair enough but the fact that the bureaucrats have made that decision should be easily accessible, e.g. on a dummy RfA page for the new user. If the community objects to the crats' decision, there can still be a real RfA. The re-adminned user should also be expected to show appreciation for these kind of concerns for credibility and community consensus. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this but I think you should be made to prove you owned the previous account to be re-sysopped or the tools could be give to a newbie who had the idea. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Anything that draws unnecessary attention to these situations perpetuates the negative effects of grave instances of harassment and trolling, and is a disservice to the victimized editors and to the project. Newyorkbrad 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I assume that Andrevan did exactly that – checked Until's credentials and verified his identity – before restoring his admin bit. Obviously such information can't be published on the wiki, because doing so would entirely defeat the purpose of giving this admin a new account name. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that Andrevan did that. It shouldn't be difficult for a bureaucrat to verify that a new user who claims to be a former admin is speaking the truth. If the old account still has email enabled, a bureaucrat could send an email to both accounts, with different wording, requesting a reply. If the former admin's real identity has become known (which is the most likely reason to justify the private resysopping), they can make the request through a work email address, for example. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and the community is always changing. That there was once an consensus to make someone an admin doesn't mean there still is. Anyone utilizing right to vanish should be deemed to have vanished. Should the same person come back, they start with a blank slate record. As such, there is no consensus for the blank slate to be an admin again. And this ignores those who leave and/or resign under controversial circumstances, for example this one from today. At least one former admin who ArbComm has ruled to have left under controversial circumstances has been advised to come back under a new account and regain the community's trust under that account. Conversely, I know of multiple former admins that have come back under a new username and been granted adminship rights as a former admin. I don't like the practice, and I think the 'crats should have a special obligation to determine whether the former admin "left under a cloud", but custom is what custom is. GRBerry
There is no way that returning Oldwindybear's powers to him privately could be compared to returning the powers privately to one who left in good standing because of privacy issues. And there is no way that any sane bureaucrat would consider doing so. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, WP:ADMIN clearly states, "If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat". This is also not the first time this has happened, it has happened several times before. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this would draw too much attention altogether. The person in question can very easily be resysoped if he opens up to his friends here - proving his idendity while keeping that part of the process off the record and then going through a normal RfA after sufficiant time/edits with the support of those friends. I would go down that route rather having the log scream for investigation by the trolls. Agathoclea 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you feel that free resysopping upon identity verification would draw more attention than an RFA after a month with 50 close friends voting on it? That would msot certianly cause extreme controversy, people asking questions and drawing large amounts of attention to an editor who just wants to get back to work? I dont see how the RFA process does anything but draw extreme scrutiny to someone? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
so would I. This is clearly a question of deliberation between 'not letting the trolls win' and accountability to the community. Now, I see no reason why such a victimized admin should not start over as a regular editor. Being an experienced user, and revealing his identity to trusted editors, they should be able to regain admin status after a short period. And, to the 'professional admins' among you, remember that Wikipedia is first and foremost about editing articles. A harassed editor would do well to take some time off from controversial admin work and focus on content. dab (𒁳) 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But also remeber, where would we be without dedicated vandal fighters? Without dedicated people who were on new page patrol? What good are those tasks without administartors to block and delete pages? yes it is about content but i tip my hat to those doing the less desirable jobs of taking out the garbage and cleaing the out the traps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, getting good editors back after they've been driven away is good for the encyclopedia and so what we should strive to do. We elected the crats because we thought we could trust them. So why not with this? — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec x3) Transparency is important, yes, but I think limiting (not eliminating) that transparency for the safety of our users is necessary. If someone has been through a successful RfA, needing to vanish shouldn't change the community's trust. Yes, it prevents users from looking back at what the admin and commentors said during the RfA, but I think that's OK as long as the user has been verified by the reinstating crats and those crats agree to vouch for the admin when asked. If the admin "left under a cloud", presumably he or she was de-sysopped if the cloud was bad enough to preclude re-sysopping the new name. As others have said, drawing attention to the situation perpetuates trolling, and it possibly threatens the admin's new anonymity -- if we put up a "The bureaucrats approve admin X" message as soon as admin Y changes names, the people who drove admin Y to make that change are likely to put two and two together and start harassing admin X. Waiting for a later RfA with a lot of people supporting for unspecified reasons is even more suspicious, and denies the community the services of a good admin for some time. Pinball22 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I would favour making a private report to Jimbo and at least some members of the ArbCom. But I see no reason why all administrators should know who someone is, if the person left and returned secretly because of harassment. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What community trust? By allowing these users to work without having a verifiable RfA, we are completely eliminating that trust. It's the openness of RfA that ensures that admins are made with the trust of the project as a whole. Without that, there is no general trust. --Eyrian 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What you are referring to is proof. Proof and trust are not mutually exclusive and in fact, are often completley seperate. I trust somebody because I do not know the facts myself. I have proof when I know the facts and can verify independantly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I just don't get the fuss. We elect 'crats because we trust them. So, erm, let's trust them. --Dweller 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I am fairly certain a bureaucrat would not sysop an account unless they were certain the account was of a former administrator. --Iamunknown 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember that this whole right-to-vanish-resysop business is an extremely rare event. The way it works is fine. As a (non-admin) member of the Wikipedia community, I have no problem with it. At least one (and likely more) bureaucrat would know the original name of the resysopped admin. ArbCom would likely know. These are all trusted members of our community. I am completely comfortable in delegating responsibility to them on this. If it would help to add a placeholder RfA, with links to the resysopping bureaucrat/ArbCom/Jimbo/whoever, then do it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with it, but how airtight is verification? How do we keep just anyone from saying that they used to be some vanished admin? ←BenB4 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing either a.) email verification or b.) committed identity verification. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
In the case of (Until 1==2 ) I can confirm both of those were used. In most cases a.) should suffice. Given the original account could be reysopped on request, an email using the "email this user" puts the crat in contact with the owner of the previous account. If an email replying to the crat's email confirms the new identity, that covers everything except for hujacked accounts (which we can't check for anyway). WjBscribe 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Internet domains expire and can be acquired by someone else, so, I hope someone checked the dates in the WHOIS record of the domain to be sure it hasn't changed hands. Buy how can you do that? "Email this user" doesn't tell you the address. The recipient could just email back from a longstanding domain. I'm glad committed identity verification was used. ←BenB4 21:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you have a point there. But let's not forget that even though domain expiration varies from registrar to registrar, we're usually talking years and, typically, registrars send multiple warnings. We're not dealing with that kind of timespan here. More importantly, let's not forget that this is still a somewhat rare exception and not a daily occurrence. In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really change a whole lot, in my humble opinion. There's always a certain amount of trust involved. And, frankly, I'm willing to give up a little bit in the accountability (or rather, transparency) department if that means that we can get a trusted and capable administrator back. And while I can appreciate the good points some of my fellow editors are making, I'm afraid that this may be getting blown out of proportion just a wee bit: several crats know about it, as far as I can see all admins do and I'm sure a few users who closely follow things around here can at least make a pretty good, educated guess. Another thing we should not forget here (and I was discussing this on IRC with several people just now) is that at the end of the day, there's another component to this beside the community trust issue. There's the very real possibility that we're putting the victim in an unfortunate position: either start from scratch (I'll refrain from name dropping here) or expose oneself to stalking (and I think most of us have been here long enough to witness how far that can go). And, personally, I think it's really important that we don't lose sight of what essentially boils down to 'doing the right thing'. Yes, that may involve trust but, at least in my opinion, that's a core principle of Wikipedia. We trust and we verify, sure, but there's always trust involved. S up? 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Personally, I don't like the practice. (Note: this does NOT apply to Until. None of my concerns apply to him/her, and his resysopping was valid. My concern is with the rule, not individual cases) There are numerous cases of admins goofing up. A little known fact is that, gasp, they're human. Some admins goof up more than others. Sometimes, this gets them into a great deal of trouble.
Normally, I'd hate to name names, but let's look at Rama's Arrow. (Note: He's since been desysopped, but I'm thinking of a specific point in time) Though a valued editor, and (normally) a capable admin, he royally screwed up, and absolutely deserved to be desysopped. However, that action wasn't seriously considered for quite some time. Before that was seriously considered, he had himself desysopped (which was later re-added by a bureaucrat, since it had been voluntary) and tried to retire. Eventually, he changed his mind, came back, behaved terribly, and got desysopped. But, what if, instead of retiring, he'd simply exercised his right to vanish?
The first time he had himself desysopped, he was able to get it back, because he was in good standing, even though he had some serious controversies surrounding his administrative actions. That he was resysopped is immaterial. Anyone with a problem with him could still see his entire administrative history, so the 'crats made the right decision (pending an arbcom decision). But, if he'd given up his priviledges by right-to-vanish, and then had them restored into a new account, then there'd be no way to compare his next actions to his previous identity. (This is especially true if there isn't even a dummy rfa set up)
In much the same way that users can't escape their block logs, administrators should not be able to escape their administrative history. In general, any editor in a conflict should be able to be equally scrutinized. Heck, even normal editors who request username changes are still traceable to their previous identities if you know where to look. Why should an admin be any different?
Just indulge me in a hypothetical situation here: Say Rama's Arrow had decided to exercise his right to vanish, instead of having himself desysopped and temporarily-retired. (At the time, he was still considered by bureaucrats to be in good standing, and resysoppable) Say he then, two months later, decided to return under a new name, with restored administrative priviledges. Say he then decided to start making questionable decisions on editors related to wp:india. Would it be fair to those involved to not know that they were being blocked by someone who'd previously blocked them? If they were to try to contest the block, would it be fair that, to an uninvolved admin, it appeared that two different admins had had a problem with the same editor, when it was really just the same one? How would you handle something like that?
My problem is that, the only cases where this wouldn't be a concern is with admins who essentially had no major conflicts; but that admins with no major conflicts probably wouldn't need to exercise the right to vanish in the first place. But, seriously, how would you handle a case like that? Bladestorm 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That's why ArbCom is notified in these cases. So they can say, "Hey wait a minute we only didn't desysop that user because he'd resigned". Users resign who their adminship under controversial circumstances cannot be resysopped either under their current account name or a new one. WjBscribe 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's the problem: You say that, "Users who resign their adminship under controversial circumstances cannot be resysopped either under their current account name or a new one." But, that's not true. In this case, RA resigned+retired, but was resysopped by a bureaucrat. At the time, arbcom wasn't seriously considering (or at least, didn't appear to be) desysopping, even though that's what eventually happened. Fact is, even though he'd abused his admin priviledges, since he was still considered in good standing, he was considered resysoppable, and was resysopped by a bureaucrat. So, my question is, what if, instead of self-desysopping and temporarily-retiring, he'd exercised the right to vanish? Irrefutably, the bureaucrats considered him eligible for immediate resysopping, because that did happen. See the problem? Bladestorm 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really; had the same exact course of events happened, except that he had "vanished" rather than retiring, he still would have been desysoped for his actions after returning, just as he was in reality. Remember that the arbitration committee (who are basically responsible for serious sanctions against administrators) will be aware of the prior identity and prior conduct and perfectly able to take it into account. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
...without going through RfA, you mean. —Kurykh 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't get elected without a high level of trust. There can be good reasons for them to keep something private. Obviously, if the ArbCom or Jimbo requests to know who this privately-resysopped user is, the bureaucrat should provide that information. They should probably report it to Jimbo and the ArbCom even without a request.

This is the kind of thing that very rarely happens, and when it does, I think we should respect the decision of the bureaucrat, who is very likely in possession of information not known to us.

Bureaucrats are not idiots, and are not going to grant sysop powers to a new user who sends an email claiming to be a retired admin but who offers no proof.

If someone whose RfA I supported is ever harassed in real life as a result of their Wikipedia activities and leaves because of that, but not because of being in danger of any ArbCom sanctions, I hope that that person will be able to be privately resysopped on request, and I have absolutely no wish to know who it is, unless the user chooses to tell me. I would expect that any decent user, sympathetic to the plight of a stalking victim, would waive their own "right" to know who it is if the user is able to continue at Wikipedia under a new identity.

I think that Jimbo and some members of the ArbCom should be made aware of the previous identity of the newly-resysopped user. That allows for the possibility that the admin may start blocking people they were previously in conflict with. I would expect that the vulnerability of the admin's position would be sufficient incentive not to take advantage of the new identity, assuming that they didn't have enough integrity in the first place.

I don't think anything is gained by prolonging the discussion. In fact, we may be contributing to further harassment by doing so. I'm quite sure that the bureaucrat was in possession of the facts. We don't need to be told any more, particularly if someone's safety is at issue. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about possible misuse of the tools by the "new" admin taking advantage of the fact that we don't know which people he was previously in conflict with should send a private email to the ArbCom. Personally, I'm not worried about that. ElinorD (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I would like it if the bureaucrat who did the resysopping would keep an eye on the rebitten (makes it sound a bit like rabies!) editor to make sure that no previous conflicts are dealt with in a non-transparent matter, but in the interests of a true fresh start any escalation of a previous conflict would be unwise.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an inverse correlation between transparency and privacy. Choose one. If we are going to value privacy, then the current method affords the appropriate amount of transparency. I think that this is the courteous route. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Privacy and transparency are mutually exclusive, which is probably what makes this such an interesting issue. As I look over previous admins' flight from Wikipedia, I find it disconcerting that personal lives have been invaded by those using this website. Although this site is academic, and I would not expect such a result, I've seen what users on MySpace have gone through, and I can certainly see how, although this site is not for social networking, events such as those have occurred. Users' comfort, whether admins or not, should be protected with a clear and viable solution. the_undertow talk 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody's worrying a bit too much. In the event that one of us makes a mistake in resysopping a user that, despite out best efforts, managed to fake the verification to prove that they were someone else, they could be emergency desysopped in less than 15 minutes, in which time they can't do any damage given that they'll have sharp admins reverting them. --Deskana (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree to what Dweller wrote -- trust the bureaucrat -- given the caveat pointed out by Iamunknown -- which is that this shouldn't be a way to duck out of an arbcom case. So as long as the former admin left for reasons of their own, and without any respected users asking for the return of their mop, leave it to the discretion of the bureaucrat. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, honestly anyone should be able to judge whether there was any complaint against a user that caused him/her to 'resign' rather then leaving on their own accord. This is something we can surely trust the crats to do, let's respect the user who is willing to return, rather then try to analyze every detail of whether he/she should be allowed back. Remember whoever it is passed RfA already. Prodego talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree whole heartedly we dont compound the damage done by a troll, if an Admin needs to vanish for safety/security reasons then their return should be made a simple as possible. These people have established the communities trust and they havent lost that trust, all that happened is they have victimised for doing whats is expected of all admins. Gnangarra 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem here?

An admin goes away because he's subjected to harassment, comes back and is resysopped in his new username. I'm sorry but I don't see the problem here and I'm puzzled at the comments on "lack of transparency". Surely what is desired here, by Wikipedia and the admin, is as much obscurity as possible so as to keep unwanted attention off the admin. The bureaucrats are trusted editors. If we were to suspect them of sysopping people who weren't entitled to it then we might as well all give up. Transparency is not always good for Wikipedia, and this applies particularly when there is a strong risk of abuse by trolls and those with an axe to grind. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right! ElinorD (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If the admin leaves just because of stress and not because he made really stupid things, then he should be given back the tools under a new name without a new RfA and perhaps without people knowing the previous user name.
But this raises the danger of bureaucrats playing favorites and sysopping behind the scenes people who should have really gone through an RfA because they left under controversial circumstances (bureaucrats are not infallible, and they have done stupid things in the past). So maybe some more transparency could be necessary, at least for other admins to be able to trace who was the newly sysopped person, perhaps via some deleted edits, etc., I think something like this was suggested above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so, because not all admins are trustworthy. I presume, Oleg, that you are using your real name, so perhaps being outed is not a problem for you. But suppose you leave because threats have been made against your family, and your wife (if you have one) has become terrified, and people are posting your and her names, addresses, workplace details, etc. all over Wikipedia and at other sites, so you leave. This has happened with several administrators and users already. Do you really think that if you came back it should be obligatory to let every single administrator know your previous identity (and therefore also know all your private details, which have been exposed)? I do think that the bureaucrat should tell at least some members of the ArbCom — perhaps the whole ArbCom. And any newly-resysopped admin should be prepared to make a private statement to ArbCom (or to a few members), pledging not to block users with whom he has previously been in dispute — perhaps stating who these users are (if any). Once that is done, good luck, and let's not make it any more difficult for people who have already suffered enough. ElinorD (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a reasonable degree of transparency in this case; if you email a resysopped admin, they should be willing to tell you all about it; and going on at such great length kind of defeats the purpose of discouraging trolling and identity-fishing. MastCell Talk 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't have to tell anyone all about it. It's none of our business. They should be prepared to tell Jimbo, and some ArbCom members, and nobody else. ElinorD (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible to "sysop behind the scenes". See Special:Log/rights. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People, please keep this general, not about specific editors. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont even know which editor we're talking about I thought it was just a general discussion. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It is, or should be, as the issue of people being driven off Wikipedia by real life stalking and trying to come back under a new identity is not at all unusual. But perhaps it's time to let the subject drop, as it's not helpful. We elected our bureaucrats because we trusted them to make decisions. If we want to ensure that a particular admin account has proper approval, a discreet email to Jimbo or the ArbCom is the best way to go about it. Sometimes things are better kept private. ElinorD (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A small amount of secrecy should be allowed, otherwise the right to vanish is absolutely useless. A resysopped admin should be able to just go about their business without a big show being made of it, yes, it is possible to track them down, and assume that that it is the same user, but without a way to prove it, the right to vanish is still upheld. It should not be made blatantly public information when someone excercises the right. Either way, most people will not go to the lengths to find what the new account is, and those that do, can be dealt with in other ways. --HAL2008talk 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Right to vanish is perfectly reasonable. It's quite clear that the Foundation demands it, anyway. But the right to disappear, and then come back under a new name with all previous priveleges, is not the same as the right to vanish. You can't justify it by just saying "RIGHT TO VANISH!" -Amarkov moo! 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Amarkov here. What's the point of laying the groundwork for future troubles and mistrust? And yes, crats are not infallible and they were not elected for performing the task discussed above. If I had known they would be able to grant adminship by fiat, I would probably have thought twice before voting. Better be safe than sorry. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
When an admin attempts to restore their admin status with a new name following a WP:RTV, a determination needs to be made whether or not it was, as ArbCom would say, "under a cloud". This needs to be a consensus supported decision, not an arbitrary "Sure, give 'em a pass" determination from another admin (or even a 'crat). Why should we set ourselves up for claims of plutocracy simply to make it easier on an admin who fears consensus? Why should anyone fear consensus? Even from a populace as...fickle and ill-informed as we...I think I've made my point clear. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone please explain to me the privacy rationale here? The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. If an admin is being harassed to the point where they feel they must invoke the right to vanish, then why would they need, or even want, to come back with administrator priveleges intact? So they can be harassed under a different name? -Amarkov moo! 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I can see two scenarios here. An admin was harassed in real life and decided to vanish. Fine. Then [s]he appeared under a different username as an admin with the log saying that the admin rights are restored. I do not think that many admins exercise their right to vanish, even less has their interest to a specific part of the project. How long it would take for a determine troll to find their previous identity? I think it would be measured in hours. On the other hand I could think of a scenario than an admin "under a cloud" decided to remove their identity and get a new one. No all their misdeeds are gone. We reasonably trust our bureaucrats but it is to much to require them to be aware of all the conflicts on wikipedia. I would suggest at the very least not to do re-sysopping automatically but after the consultations on the arbitrators/bureaucrats mailing lists Alex Bakharev 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that it's truly that easy for a determined troll to find their identity. As long as the bureaucrat doesn't do something stupid to "protect their privacy" (which some do, making it obvious who the person is; email me if you want specifics), I can't think of even a theoretical way to connect the identities short of a slip-up by either the person or someone who they told. So as long as the bureaucrats know what not to do... -Amarkov moo! 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Right to Vanish is an extreme measure. It is not the same as taking a break. It is not the same as walking away. It is an action that requires extensive actions to erase the user's traces. It cannot be invoked lightly or accepted without serious work.
  2. Administrators are "trusted" members of the community. Trust is a commodity easily spent and hard earned. No one can be made trusted, as trust has to be accumulated through a user's actions. No one can be assured that a user is still trusted, because it is not the bureaucrats who trust, but the rank and file.
  3. People voluntarily part with the administrative bit for a lot of reasons, but people about to get the boot or about to go through a very messy procedure will "walk away" from the bit. Those persons are only sometimes subject to an official ArbCom ruling that they "left under a cloud."
  4. No one can know if this user left under a cloud or not. Nor can anyone know that the user has or has no history of conflict. No one can know any of that without the former account name.
  5. In conclusion: You get one or the other. You either get the right to vanish, or you get the administrator's status, but you may not have both. So, either demote the user and let him or her go up for RFA or use the old account name. Yes, it is this simple. Geogre 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes we need to assume good faith both in the bureaucrat and the editor. I can see where a trusted admin editor chose to run for political office was outted as editing wikipedia decided that exercising a right to vanish so as not to draw massive disruptive edits to wikipedia. I also know of a couple of editors who are serving members of a military force and have been deployed to places like Afghanistan who'd want to exercise their right vanish, there was an incident I can remember where one admin editor was in such a situation and that editors family and off-wiki friends were contacted. Without much thought its not hard to create situations where this is necessary, as I said before why punish an admin for doing whats expected of an admin. Gnangarra
Bull. We do not assume good faith when it comes to being told who we trust. That's nonsense of the first water. There is no transitive value of trust. If I trust you, and you trust Mikey, that does not mean I trust Mikey. Right to Vanish is an extreme measure. Administrator's status is nothing but trust, and trust requires, absolutely, openness. I know of a person who has employed right to vanish, who was an admin, who wants to be an admin, and that person started over. That person is building up trust, doing the edits, getting in the time, being trustworthy and helpful. That is the only way to employ right to vanish (where you are erased so that no one gets to even guess, even admins, what's going on...and if you look at the deleted user page, you can see some really alarming garbage there, where the user seems to be winking at those who know the truth) and be an admin. Again: either right to vanish or admin, but not both. Furthermore, if one more person cites "AGF" for another atrocity, I'm going to start being atrocious myself (and citing it, every time). Geogre 03:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your concept of "trust." There is more than one bureaucrat and the actions of that bureacrat is transparent and reversible to the other bureacrats. Certainly the results of their actions are transparent to everyone. This is no different than the transparency of deleting an article or blocking a user. Once an article is deleted, it is not available for non-admins to see and the reasoning an admin gives for a speedy must be taken at face value. That article is no longer "transparent" to the community and the administrators actions can only be seen as a consequence. This is certainly a necessary function and there is certainly a need for these "non-transparent" results. Similarly there are good reasons for having a distinction between casual editors and admins. Similarly, there is a distinction between bureaucrats and admins. Trust does not mean that everything is in the open. Trust is the belief that the person will make the right decision when no one is looking. It's that trust that is given to administrators for article deletion and it's the same trust the bureacrats are given in restoring admin privileges after a right-to-vanish. --Tbeatty 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in our policies that allows for out-of-process sysoping. There is no reason why I should trust an account registered two days ago the tools to block and unblock, to delete and undelete, etc. The crats were not elected to perform this sort of thing. It's especially alarming that the guy was resysoped by a crat promoted amid huge controversy less than a fortnight ago. The action indicates to me a profound lack of judgment. This precedent, while trivial in itself, lays the groundwork for possible future abuse. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy does allow this, I have been around for more than 2 days, this is not a precedent as it has happened before, the reason you should trust me is the quality of my contributions and WP:AGF, the crats are elected to do this sort of thing, his "controversy" is not related to this and bringing it up is basically an ad hominen attack. But that really is the theme of the conversation now isn't it? There is exactly something in our policy that allows for this in process sysopping, it says "If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat privately and producing satisfactory evidence of being the same user, provided you did not originally request desysopping under controversial circumstances" in WP:ADMIN, it is one of our more obscure policies, not everybody has read it.
This is well within predefined rules, and has happened before more than twice. For those who want me to give up my admin bit and bring you a shrubbery, don't hold your breath. Until(1 == 2) 15:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
But how is a bureaucrat going to accurately measure if you left under controversial circumstances? They aren't going to go through every one of your edits to see if there was some controversy where you left before your actions could be criticized, so they will probably only notice if there was some formal complaint made before you vanished. Maybe you did in fact not leave "under a cloud", but the gain we get from sysopping you immediately is not really offset by the chance that someone else who comes back and wants the admin bit did. So just build up trust and go through RfA again, don't ask to be a sysop again immediately. -Amarkov moo! 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I know who this guy is. My gripe is not with him personally, but with the precedent this resysoping has set. The Bcrats have erred before, they will err in the future. They only way to prevent mistakes and to set them right is to hold them accountable to the community. The concept of transparency, like that of civility, has been ridiculously distorted to cover a very broad range of tenuously related topics. And like civility, the fear of transparency may be gamed very easily. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A dummy Rfa to show verification of identity is a fine idea. I don't see why anyone should object to it. To answer the question posed at the top, the problem here is clear: power can be abused. Simply making a public record of a bureaucrat's grant of admin privileges doesn't threaten anyone's privacy or security and it does prevent Cabalish behavior, however hypothetical that behavior is. When granting power to people, it's best to err on the side of openness. -- The_socialist talk? 08:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I object to it, and I don't even support the idea here. If we're going to let admins come back as sysops without revealing who they are, then the user rights log is good enough of a public record. We don't need to require bureaucrats to do more. -Amarkov moo! 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There already is a public record of the bureaucrat's grant of admin privileges; it can be found in any user's log. In the case apparently under discussion here, the logs also contain instructions on how to verify the user's qualifications should you feel it necessary; which is as it should be. MastCell Talk 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
A user log is hardly an effective public record. It's not useful notice to the community, and it certainly doesn't allow for any discussion of the move before it happens. Again, the real question here is "With something this important, why not?" -- The_socialist talk? 11:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A note from the bureaucrat

A short while ago I resysopped RobertG, who posted on WP:BN requesting this as per "Former administrators who resigned their adminship in good standing may be reinstated at the discretion of any bureaucrat," our policy. Nobody objected, as this was a standard, procedural sysopping. This so-called "controversial" request, like that of RobertG's, is actually similarly a trivial sysopping. This user did not leave under "a cloud" and is still in good standing with our project. The only difference was that this user had a privacy concern -- he wished to contribute to our encyclopedia without being connected with his previous identity. I feel transparency in processes is important just as many of you do, and ultimately I found it acceptable to promote with the comment "(Resysopping of previously self-desysopped user who edited under a different account (If you wish to see proof of this, contact him or I by email))" that can be found in the rights log, and a user page link to a deleted contribution (similar to the precedent with Y). Several users did e-mail me and I don't understand why most of those complaining about this above haven't. One user who e-mailed me replied, "Hopefully nobody makes a big deal of it." Andre (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Carry on then. You're doing a good job in my estimation! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If it truly is common practice to give out the old name to anyone who asks, then I don't have a huge objection. But that would rather defeat the point of trying to have privacy, so I must assume that doing so is in fact not common practice. -Amarkov moo! 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's incredibly flawed logic. Andre (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov, generally people aren't looking privacy from other admins and longstanding contributors, they are worried about outside interests - trolls, stalkers etc. obtaining the info. As the long as they are happy that the person who asks them isn't going to start shouting the information from the rooftops, they'll usually be willing to share it. WjBscribe 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This just seems like a case of 'crat envy. No normal editor asks an admin to see proof that the article they speedily deleted on BLP privacy violations was indeed a violation and that is not transparent. Similarly, no admin is entitled to see the personal details related to a 'crat reinstating an admin in good standing based on privacy concerns. This case was above and beyond what's required. But basically, if the'crats said "no, we are not going to let you know who that person was, but it was an admin in good standing." That should be it. Other 'crats might request it and expect an answer, but not the horde of admins and normal editors. The log files say who was made an admin and that is transparent. If you have doubts about the admin, follow them around and check up on them just like normal editors have to do for deletionist admins. --Tbeatty 22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping process, again.

I have a kinda new proposal at User:Amarkov/desysop. I suspect something similar has been discussed where I can't find it, but we really do need a process that doesn't involve arbitration. Discuss (or rant at me) over there please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that we're voting, but oppose, unless you do it in a fashion similar to a community ban except a community "Desysopping". Arbcom should still be able to overrule it though. ~ Wikihermit 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom can overrule anything not named Jimbo, so of course they can. But adminship is an important enough position that removing it should not require the same (incredibly strict) standard of consensus we use to ban people. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship? Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Gah, the links that weren't in my random clicking are the ones that are just like this. In that case, I'm starting a new discussion on it, because we really do need a process that doesn't involve Arbcom. And boy, do I wish there were a good way to rephrase "we really do need a process that doesn't involve Arbcom". -Amarkov moo! 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, it looks like DEADminship. Also, I proposed something like that in the discussion for Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform#Proposal 3 by A.Z.. I wasn't planning on turning it into a proposal (considering the huge amounts of success from WT:Requests for adminship/reform), but I like it. I think it would work. J-stan Talk 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, check category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that such a recall truly is a recall, and requires a consensus to retain adminship. That's the opposite of what should happen, since admins in the course of their duties will pick up people they don't like. -Amarkov moo! 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is that directed to?
I offer the same questions that comes up every time someone proposes a streamlined procedure for desysopping.
  1. Is the ArbCom being overwhelmed by cases that involved the revocation of sysop privileges?
  2. In those cases, is desysopping the only issue/sanction at hand, or are there other issues that would require ArbCom attention anyway?
  3. In cases that require more rapid desysopping than the ArbCom can handle, is there any problem with the emergency desysopping now being performed by stewards?
  4. Is there any reason why we would need to have a process that's not an emergency desysopping handled through a non-ArbCom process?
  5. Is there a pool of dangerous admins that ought to be stripped of their bits that can't be handled through our existing processes?
  6. Is this process likely to be a useful thing, or will it be a battleground for trolling and personal grudges to play out?
In other words, why do we 'need a process that doesn't involve arbitration'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Arbcom can theoretically handle these cases just fine. But I have not met a single (non-troll) person who likes going to arbitration. It's sometimes necessary, but being involved in any arbitration proceeding is stressful. Unless an issue of admin misconduct significantly affects me, I will not cause that stress on myself simply to remove someone's sysop bit. Furthermore, Arbcom is (understandably) reluctant to strip adminship for any reason other than true misconduct. The community may not trust someone to be an admin anymore, but unless they've done something that they can be reasonably sanctioned for, there's no way to even bring up the issue. -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that the community needs to develop a consensus on what an admin can be dysynopped for before we develop a different process to do it. If we are going to make a system that is more liberal on who gets the mop removed, we may want to figure out what qualifies for getting it removed. Captain panda 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, yeah, that's the idea. But if only 25% of the people who comment think someone should be an admin, that's a pretty fair indication that they should not. -Amarkov moo! 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • That's fine with me. I was just saying that we will need to determine what an admin will lose adminship for before we start getting rid of someone's adminship. Captain panda 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As to your last point, I think that's exactly what we want. Your logic that we need a way to sanction people who haven't "done something they can be reasonably sanctioned for" is not very compelling. If the community is losing trust in people for no identifiable reason, the last thing we need is a way for its irrational impulses to exert greater effect. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure how this differs from previous "requests for deadminship" proposals? It's a topic worth discussing, sure, but I'm not sure how much we gain by re-hashing the proposals that've already been gone over. Anybody care to brainstorm some new ideas? Are there situations in which a proposed new mechanism would be both needed and more effective than mechanism(s) already in place? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I support it. There should be some easy way to get rid of those bad admin to make wikipedia a better place. --- A. L. M. 15:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It suffers from the same problem as many proposals for community-based de-adminship: it's troll bait. Trolls will flock to this like mosquitos to a porch light. I think Amarkov's proposed 3-month limit is a good idea, but there needs to be some way to separate out frivolous requests and this-admin-deleted-my-favorite-page-so-they-should-be-desysopped from legitimate concerns. Otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio will rapidly approach zero. Also, if a sufficiently large group of peeved editors can desysop someone, it may make admins less enthusiastic about wading into truly big-time controversies, as they will potentially piss off enough people to be desysopped. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to these problems, but I see it as fundamental to most proposals for de-adminship. That said, I think a slightly higher degree of accountability would be a good thing; RfC is an OK process, but they tend to drag on or get sidetracked. MastCell Talk 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the proposal. But what if the RfDA (request for De-Admin) had to be brought forth by four long-term editors, and supported by some diffs, a bit like RFC. That would probably cut down the frivolous RfDAs. Then a significant majority (like 75 or 80%) would need to support the RfDA for it to be successful. Just an idea. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's very difficult to get a good threshold where somebody can't just get a posse of trolls or start a witch hunt at the drop of a hat, but where serious problem admins can still be dealt with. I saw one proposal where if 100 admins were to sign a petition, the desysopping would go through -- that may be a bit much, but on a project of this scale, we need to think big. Any of the "x users support a motion" models probably need to exclude new users, or the risk of sockpuppetry will be too high. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I fully support this process. I had modified and supported someone else's idea before but this makes a lot more sense. This one is very simple because its just the reverse process of an RFA. I think the different kinds of limits will help prevent Troll bait. In either case, this process is seriously needed. Given that usually consensus is impossible to achieve and approve this kind of stuff, please support this proposal and give constructive input and dont pull it back. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Community desysop processes are already up and running on several large Wikipedias without working as a troll bait. Heck, we even have one functioning here, though it's voluntary. Check out Wikipedia:Adminship_in_other_languages to see how this is done elsewhere. Haukur 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • One thing that sets en.wiki apart from the other Wikipedias, though, is its sheer size (three times larger than the next-largest, de.wiki). These community processes may work well on some of the smaller WPs, but as one of the most popular sites on the Internet, the massive amount of trolling that goes on in and around en.wiki would make any desysopping proposal a disaster. The GNAA, the ED crowd, or Brandt's WR posse would quickly find ways to exploit it for their own personal beefs. Krimpet 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Just as many people participate in RFA over at the German edition as do here. I think the size difference is not so large or important in this context. Haukur 14:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If trolls have as much power as you imply, RfA itself is fatally flawed, and the process should be stopped immediately. Since the process I propose is practically identical (just in the reverse direction), ability to exploit one process means ability to exploit the other. -Amarkov moo! 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There's a huge difference: promising admin candidates undergoing an RfA generally don't attract trolls all that much, as their edits are often fairly uncontroversial up to that point. (Though in the rare cases that they do, trolls can sink an RfA if they want to.) On the other hand, established admins, no matter how good a job they do, are usually going to tick off the trolls somewhere just for doing their job. Said trolls would gladly abuse a desysopping process to its full potential. Krimpet 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
          • There's no evidence to suggest that trolls would be more attacted to desysopping than sysopping. Why cant we give this system a test to see how it goes? Consensus determines everything on this encyclopedia after all, doesnt it? If there are any trolls, the closing admin will know it when people point out who's the troll. The worse an admin, the more opposing votes he/she will attract (trolls included).
            Amarkov, I'm with you on this but you'll have the least resistance in getting this through if you copy the best de-sysop process in the other language wikis available. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Oh ok, any admins who wants to go through this process, please raise your hand so you can be the first example... The idea is to get consensus as this being a method of desysopping accounts, so we should just get consensus, not make someone look like a dummy by putting them up for de-adminship this way. And I hardly think this should be closed by an administrator, I think it should be closed by at the very least, a 'crat, or someone higher who can actually perform a desysop. An admin closing these would be just as controversial, if not more than, 'crats decisions on RFA's. This method if implemented should also be able to be undone by ArbCom. — Moe ε 14:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find many admins to volunteer to go through the process just for the sake of trying the process. You might find a administrator open to recall that would be willing to try this process when a recall attempt happens - but if I remember correctly, we've only had one or two recalls in the year that the concept has been discussed, so the odds of you potential volunteer actually being recalled in the relevant timeframe are quite low. GRBerry 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The community as a whole needs a process by which admins can be desysopped by consensus, for the sake of transparency and openness. And, in response to Moe, no, ArbCom should not be allowed to undo it. ArbCom, like everyone else, are servants of the community and responsible to the community. All final decisions are made by the community. This is a basic principle of the wiki system; the day the community can be overruled by arbitrators' edict is the day I leave for good. WaltonOne 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, that day is now. In the reverse of what we are talking about, ArbCom can overrule the community's desire for a person to be an admin, and cause a forced desysopping. ArbCom can overrule anything the community wishes, even for a person to go through RfA to become an admin after a desysopping. And the notion that "all final decisions are made by the community" is and always has been false. I don't see anyone leaving rapidly because of it, though. -- Renesis (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The system is not broken this is a solution looking for a problem. Arbcom is a perfectly viable solution for when an admin really needs desysoping. That last thing we need is a bunch of admins afraid to be unpopular because of a lynch mob running around. Arbcom keeps the process objective and policy based even when emotions are running high. Until(1 == 2) 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • If you're so unpopular that you can't get 25% support for retaining adminship, the community does not trust you at all. If the community does not trust you, you shouldn't be an admin, whether or not there's an objective policy violation involved. And Arbcom does not always "keep the process objective and policy based", although admittedly they do a better job than some. -128.12.68.95 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on Rfas

There is a tally of votes on top of each Rfa, but who updates them? --Hirohisat Talk 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They are manually updated by, eh, whoever wants to update them, typically those who are commenting on the particular RfA. —Kurykh 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to have them they should be accurate. A bot should update the tallies. ~ Wikihermit 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
...Not this again. Geez, tallies aren't an all-or-nothing kind of thing. —Kurykh 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, no... that's a pointless bot. The people !vote are supposed to update them. Cbrown1023 talk 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
People don't because they click [edit] under discussion, and the tally isn't in that edit section. Maybe move it down? ~ Wikihermit 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that no-one ever updates them any more. This is a long discussed topic actually. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't actually a 'problem', per se. A tally gives a rough idea of how an RfA is going; it's not meant to serve any other purpose beyond that (and the precise numbers don't matter anyway. If someone updates the tally every six or eight or twelve hours, that's more than enough. This definitely doesn't need a bot to 'fix', as it's not broken. We want to discourage a fixation on numbers, not emphasize them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not remove it entirely then? Each vote or "!vote" is counted using #. ~ Wikihermit 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The counters do serve one useful purpose, they let editors who intend nominating for RfA accumulate wikispace edits. Gnangarra 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a useful purpose. That is a statement frought with the signs of editcountisitus. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't tell me you didn't grasp the sarcasm in Gnangarra's comment. —Kurykh 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding </sarcasm> tag. ~ Wikihermit 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ack. Does that mean everything since what Gnangarra said was sarcastic, since the tag was open that whole time? This is confusing... – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In answer to the first question, EVula (talk · contribs) updates them. We're all too lazy. Giggy UCP 08:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I update it sometimes normaly when the tally is way, maby we should put a comment on the voting section to remind uses to update the tally. --Chris g 08:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately don't update it, because it isn't that useful anyway, and there's an accurate tally on WP:BN. (It was me who added the section edit links on RfA; it wasn't conciously part of a plan to stop people updating the tallys, but now I think about it, either it was just an oversight or I have a really devious subconcious that wants to help make RfA less of a vote...) --ais523 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No sarcasism this time, the benefit to having a count lets one quickly assertain via popups whats being happening to an RfA while they've been off line, it accuracy is generally within 1 or 2 comments most of the time (personal observation edit conflicts cause the biggest discrepancies). Theres no need for a bot to waste resources monitor all the rfa and fixing the counts. Gnangarra 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I always update the tally, and I think we should have a bot to do so. The precise numbers do matter; otherwise we're basically saying that a number of people's opinions don't matter, which is highly elitist. Everyone's opinion should be given the same weight, otherwise we risk ending up with a class of elite users. The tally is an essential part of RfA, and everyone should update it when they vote. WaltonOne 10:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That is from a utopian perspective. Thats not just going to happen; everyone is not just going to change their ways and always update the tally. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Try updating the tally after a couple of edit conflicts, sometimes its hard just to get a comment in. Gnangarra 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not just add a comment reminding users to update the tally when voting? --Chris g 10:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We should aim to have one of these discussions in every archive. I might start an "RfA is not a vote!!!" thread, and see if we can have one of them in every archive too. Maybe we could even go all out, and try and have two? --Deskana (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I too cynical or something or should that last comment have sarcastic tags wrapped around it...? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No it really shouldn't, since it was so amazingly clear that it was not sarcasm...</end>(sorry, can't resist...) Deskana has a reasonably good point, as this type of thread is popping around everywhere, and nothing much is changing... --Dark Falls talk 11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I was never amazing with HTML :-p --Deskana (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not very fluent in reading sarcasm. cant tell what is what. :) But you are right, these posts are popping up everywhere. RFA discussion seems to continuously circulate and never get anywhere... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've watched these discussions for a long time, and they do go around in circles. We should start making predictions. Or do something constructive :-p actually this one impressed me, the issues have been condensed. When this topic has been brought up in the past it's taken much longer for the bot suggestion to be brought up. --Deskana (banana) 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I never update the counter. Why? Because RFA is not a vote (well, actually it is, but it shouldn't be). The counters just make it more of a vote. We shouldn't have the # , the counters, or the bot that tells the crats to promote because the box is a pretty green! RFA sadly is a vote, and this must be changed. RFA should be about consensus and trust. All our current system has given us is sockpuppets who pass unanimously, yet good editors are turned down who are actually trying to help the project. That shows that RFA is flawed. We have a great system going. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dang, I was wrong. It wasn't the "RfA is not a vote!" discussion that was held next, it was the "Lets put the percentages table on the page!" one. Still, circular discussions. --Deskana (banana) 11:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rate of desysopping

While I was researching the Wikipedia archives for an article to be published in the Wikipedia Signpost next week, I took a moment to consider the larger implications of the recent controversy involving Oldwindybear. On WP:DESYSOP and Wikipedia:Former administrators, a rough count shows that Wikipedia has had about 1360 admins in its entire history (including those who are no longer admins for whatever reason), and about 34 users have been permanently desysopped, either voluntarily or (as with OWB) by resigning under a cloud of controversy.

If you divide 34 by 1360, it comes to exactly 2.5%. In other words, one out of every 40 users who has ever become an admin has been forced to give up the mop.

That's a lot.

At the current rate of about 8 promotions per week, it takes five weeks - just a little more than one month - to promote 40 new admins. Statistically, we can expect one of the admins promoted in the next month to be desysopped in the future.

Is there something we're doing wrong? Am I asking the right questions?

Personally, I tend to lean toward inclusionism when "voting" at RFA. I review the user's statements at the RFA (unless I am already familiar with that user previously), and if he or she seems competent, I usually provide my stamp of approval. I assume that somebody always checks to make sure there are no troubling items in the block log. I spend enough time doing criminal background checks at WP:SSP that I can't be bothered to do a criminal background check on someone who is already trusted by many of his or her peers.

I did not comment on OWB's RFA, but I probably would have supported it. It would not have occurred to me to search for a year-old sock puppet case.

Everyone agrees that high edit counts and solid contributions to admin pages such as WP:AIV may teach a user how to use the sysop tools, but they cannot teach him how to use the tools wisely. Part of the RFA process involves an analysis of the user's character: Is he cooperative or combative? Does he learn from his mistakes? Does he think carefully before making a potentially controversial move? We ask these questions, but perhaps we are not giving them the priority they deserve.

I don't know if there is an answer to this. But if there can be a crisis of faith in the Wikipedia infrastructure, this is it. How can we be losing one out of every 40 admins to controversial resignations and desysoppings? Is there anything we can do to change this destructive trend? Shalom Hello 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I was thinking we need some way to know if, you know, someone has ever been suspected of being a sockpuppet of the person nominating them for adminship! The OWB thing was pretty sad, the community was really asleep at the wheel for that RFA. I guess we could add a question, "Have you ever been accused of being a sockpuppet or puppeteer by a non-new user?" Not that everyone would answer honestly, but I think some would. But as for the overall failure rate, I dunno, 2.5% might not be that bad, considering we just go by how someone has acted online for 3-12 months in nearly all cases. We don't check real world backgrounds, references, job history, etc. I think where I work we have at least 1 in 40 people we hire turn out to be problems and leave within a year under a cloud... and we do all of those checks. It's impossible to truly know how someone will end up acting if given a position. Some people are unstable, some people change, some people are good at giving a false impression of their qualifications. In real life as in Wikipedia. --W.marsh 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Along the lines of what W.marsh suggests, it may also be the case that some number greater than 1/40 actually seek admin status for a purpose other than that which is expressly admitted to in the RfA. For example, some may subscribe to the viewpoint that *all* self-noms represent evidence of "power hunger" and are therefore inappropriate. Now, I don't personally subscribe to that view, but if it were true, you should expect a much greater than 1/40 failure rate. Indeed, from that perspective, one might conclude that the rate is remarkably low, and that many people actually become "reformed" after assuming this responsibility. dr.ef.tymac 04:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If adminship is no big deal, then being desysopped is no big deal. There is nothing else to say. GizzaDiscuss © 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you here. If it's no big deal, then perhaps you should not ask people to do illegal admin actions and do these illegal actions yourself. It was also nice to see you on the sockpuppet page moralising about meatpuppets when you asked the banned Hkelkar to sock for you because you too scared to revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Haven't had to say this recently, but... could you please explain what you are talking about, and why you are talking about it? -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, as I apparently missed the whole thing that you are ranting about, Blnguyen. Could you provide diffs and/or archive links for context? --Iamunknown 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen, dood. I think you just broke the flow while trying to make a point. the_undertow talk 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen is indeed making a point and is getting emotional over a recently closed arbitration case, in which he was one of the arbitrators. I don't mean to sound insulting but you should know better than to start complaining about me on this page. This is WT:RFA. I was merely stating my opinion about Shalom's findings. It is only very mildly related to that arbitration case, where one admin was desysopped. Everyone apart from you (even though you weren't an "involved" party) seems to have moved on. If you wish to discuss this further you are very much welcome to on my or your usertalk page. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
An inquiry into your conduct and a well placed questioning of your motives is hardly emotional on blnguyen's part. Many other users would ask the same questions, but you seem to have driven them off (Dangerous-Boy, Nick, Ambroodey). There are too many rogue admins and abusers of power and trust, the fact that one out of 40 is desysopped is quite adequate, as about 97% of admins are deserving of the tools.Bakaman 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't drive Ambroodey and Nick off. Dangerous-Boy is on a Wiki-break. Blnguyen can of course question whether I deserve my tools just like you can and just like I can question whether he should have the tools. Doing it here is not the most appropriate place obviously. He can start another arbitration case if you believe I should be desysopped. He could have proposed my desysopping in the previous case. GizzaDiscuss © 10:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I dunno Shalom, one admin a month doesn't seem like that big a deal to me... Giggy UCP 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In other words, one out of every 40 users who has ever become an admin has been forced to give up the mop. / That's a lot. To me, it seems very low. How do you suppose it compares with the failure rate for spouses, sports coaches, generals, teachers, diplomats, monks, Tour-de-France cyclists [I'm supporting this one] or of course janitors? -- Hoary 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite. There have been 42 Presidents of the United States; at least one has 'resigned under a cloud', as we are wont to say. Given that electing a President involves months or years of public review, thousands of investigative journalists, and millions of voters, I'd say our failure rate stacks up rather well. If anything, I suspect that RfA current throws out too many babies with the bathwater. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Oldwindybear resigned under cloud of controversy, as there was insurmountable evidence that he was using sockpuppets. --Deskana (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the 34 or so who've been desysopped for various reasons. I don't think the rate is quite as high as you think it is, and one reason that we don't have enough admins (cue groans). Also, people do stupid things under stressful circumstances (and certainly in my case). But I can assure you that (I read this argument somewhere on this page, may be in a different section above) when we apply for adminship, aside from those who're out to destroy Wikipedia, we don't expect ourselves to behave as we do that led us to be desysopped. When I was first nominated for adminship I did not know or care who Daniel Brandt is/was. I never expected to get involved in the whole mess (which thank god is long over). I did not expect to have to do something that is seen as highly inappropriate (socking, and in my case I wouldn't even say it was malicious). I did not expect to have details of me on the net for the only reason being that I reverted an edit. Obviously everyone had different circumstances that led to their deadminship but when we applied for adminship, none of us probably expected to have to do what we did. – Chacor 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Chacor's statement has made up my mind. Unless someone thinks we are promoting too easily (I think the standards of most are a bit high), I don't think there's anything we can do about it. James086Talk | Email 12:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
A more thorough review of Oldwindybear's history would have revealed someone we never should have promoted... but it's funny, a guy with multiple sockpuppets in violation of policy can sail through, a guy who annoyed an RFA regular 6 months ago and said something questionable about image policy at one point is probably doomed. It's not that we need more strict standards, it's just that we need better standards. --W.marsh 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It's clear only in hindsight. It's easy for you to say it should have been obvious a week after the incident, but I rifled through almost a year's worth of his contributions, found nothing terribly suspicious, only records of impeccable interactions with people on the military history wikiproject. As proof, my support vote cited a diff. Bear in mind that Proabivouac, the guy who blew the whistle on the whole thing, was the support vote right before mine. And I don't think you can find a more thorough editor. The thing is, I'm sure I put in more effort than about 90% of RFA participants in studying the candidate, and still I was had. Borisblue 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be insulting, I blame myself as much as anyone since it's all of our responsibility to check. What baffles me though is someone who did know about the sockpuppet thing (right?) still voted support and didn't mention the issue. I guess there's more than meets the eye here. --W.marsh 14:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
To me i ask the question, how many editors really do have sock puppets? I bet it is a much more prevalent problem than we realize. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I often ask myself the same question. Who exactly are we working with here on Wikipedia? Most people will be trustworthy, but I wouldn't put it past even the greatest of Wikipedians to have a slightly darker side to their nature - and that darker side would come through in the form of a sock-puppet. Will we ever be able to devise a system where sock-puppets are discovered more efficiently? Because what we have currently, in my opinion, is inadequate. Lradrama 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is common sense. We are selfish people, we want what we want and we want it now. The anonynimity provides many of us this avenue through the use of sockpuppets. Now, having it in place and using it maliciousley are two different things. I am sure most of us, at least once, have thought of the benefits of having a second respected account. It is those who actually follow through that concern me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite a common occurance. Too many people left Wikipedia:Wikiproject Formula One because they were upset by the actions of this user who ran abusive sock-puppets. (See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davnel03). He was allowed to live, and one or two editors left Wikipedia. It is very sad, and a much bigger problem than we can all imagine. Lradrama 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Outdent {edit conflict x5] I've got 3 doppelgangers, do they count? But seriously, I don't think many would admit to it, especially not admin candidates (unless they were legitimate alternate accounts). A quicker way of telling might be to add a "semi-checkuser" function to bureaucrats or maybe admins where there's a new special page and it tells you who else has been on that IP. So you enter "James086" into the box, click go and everyone who has edited from the same IP's as me in the past week/month will turn up, but without displaying the raw IP addresses. That way privacy (as in personally identifiable information) remains secret but there are more people who would be able to check. I'm not suggesting we implement it, just an idea. James086Talk | Email 14:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, doppelgangers don't really count in my opinion, because they are just built to ensure no-one tries to impersonate you. They're fine. You have a good idea, by the way. Lradrama 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(ECx3)I suppose there could be a system where real life details would be required to be registered with the Foundation for all usernames and routine and random use of checkuser... but I think that would not be a good idea. What works? Diligence! There's no need for paranoia, but pay attention to your fellow editors. Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You do not get worked up over things. I like that quality in people. The reason why some sockpuppeteer categories were formed was because folk kept a close eye on them. Simple but effective answer there I thank you. Lradrama 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent, plus ec like 5 times)I didn't participate in the OWB RFA. As I've said somewhere else, although I can't recall where now, I'm not sure I wouldn't have supported as well, based mostly on extreme civility during the RFA itself, time served, and the high regard people that I respect had for him. I don't know how many diffs you looked at, Borisblue, but OWB could certainly be civil, and productive, and friendly. But the problems were right there if enough contributions were reviewed. I only started looking thru his contributions after he blew up at New England, so it's hard to guess what I would have seen looking at his contributions without that filter, but when I started looking at his article talk page history, the behavior that ultimately concerned me was right there.

My point being, I guess, that if lots of people, not just a couple, had gone thru his contributions in depth, then anything you missed would have been picked up by others. Just thinking out loud here: If a candidate has even 10,000 edits, and 20 people split them up, maybe by date, and look thru (say) 500 each, you could have a fresh set of eyeballs on every single contribution pretty quickly. You can run thru 500 diffs fairly quickly. Isolated mistakes? No problem, there have been enough eyeballs on it that you will know it was, indeed, isolated. Pattern of poor behavior? Someone's gonna see it.

While I'm here, some random thoughts on what I see above:

  • 2.5% really isn't bad.
  • OWB didn't do any lasting damage as an admin
  • My standards for RFA (if I had bothered to participate, I mean) are probably much lower than average, based on edit count, time served, number of articles written, familiarity with every nook and crany of WP, etc. One big reason for having an edit count is so there is a history to judge the candidate; but we all actually have to look at that entire history when we have it. --barneca (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my view, 1/40 is too high a failure rate. It's not terrible, but it needs to be better. And I don't think this number tells the whole story- out of the sysops who in my opinion shouldn't be, both past and present, I'd guess about half of them have so far ended up getting the tools taken away. The barrier to desysopping is still too high- people keep insisting that Arbcom (or Jimbo) is the only way we can ever do this with no stronger argument than "that's what we've always done." Clearly, we're sysopping inappropriate candidates at a faster rate than ever before, simply due to the project growing. Our standards are both too strong and too weak- people get opposed for silly reasons, yet people who've already demonstrated inappropriate behavior for a sysop easily pass RFA as long as they have enough wiki-friends willing to vote on friendship instead of suitability for the position. Friday (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1/40 is a bit misleading, as it doesn't consider when the new admin is desysopped. If 1/40 lost their bit in the first month, that would be terrible. But when it also included admins who run into a problem months or years following their AfD, that's different. It also doesn't evaluate why the admin was desysopped/gave up their rights. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really just about doing due dilligence when you vote. There are several open RFA's open right now with near unanymous support which I have not voted on because I have not done my due dilligence and checked out the extended history of these editors. They all look fine, and like most people, I could go in and say "yeah, support you per the above respected editors", and in doing so I could run up my edit count with some low hanging fruit AND look to be actively engaged in the RFA process. Anyone can vote on these things. Anyone. We really should count our lucky stars this does not happen more often than it does.

Is there a better system though? Not really sure. You can't force people to actually make an effort and learn about the people they lend their support to. Moreover, restricting participation in the RFA discussion to select editors who have met certain standards of behavior and a history of quality contributions would create a divisive and clique-ish atmosphere; you would not have a broad view of community trust. I think that knowing the ability to deadmin someone exists and is used lets me rest at night. If someone like OWB departs from the norms of responsible behavior, the community can prevent that admin from doing further damage. I just wish that those participating in the RFA's would step back, learn from this, and try to spend some real time on learning as much about candidates before supporting or opposing. Supporting blindly (as we learned with OWB) can be far more damaging than blindly opposing someone on what many might consider an absurd or empty-headed basis. We, as a community, do not look rediculous when an RFA for a good editor fails. The reverse does not hold true when an RFA for an irresponsible editor passes. Hiberniantears 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to RfA, I would see how users work about expressing their opinions over nominees. Those who show consideration and prove they've read through the edit count and looked at the contribs should be allowed to resume. Those who just say per-nom or per above comment should be quizzed and then restrained if they are just doing it just to get a good image. Lradrama 15:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
For my own part, I think I do tend to actively review candidates contributions before commenting. Yet, with OWB I supported based on previous personal interaction. Every RFA starts with If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/candidate before commenting. The implcation is, if you feel you are familiar with the nominee a more cursory (or indeed none at all) inspection of edits will do before commenting. Perhaps we need to remove the If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, bit leaving the (preferable?) please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/candidate before commenting. Pedro |  Chat  15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should put that on. Good idea. It'll be a miracle if it dramatically changed proceedings, but it's a start. I'm all for it. Lradrama 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot think of a single body of people who hold special powers that has a corruption rate below 1/40. I think we are just butting up against the human condition. 1/40th of the people will fool you into thinking they are better than they are, but they cannot do it forever. If we can figure out how to solve this, the governments of the world will be very interested in our solution. Until(1 == 2) 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Tracking system? One possible problem, there is (apparently) no formal "tracking system" for reviews of a contributor's edit history. What I mean is this: suppose I wanted to personally review the last 500 edits of a particular candidate, but only if the edits in question have not yet been reviewed by another WP contributor (human being) whose judgment I trust, or even just *any* person at all. Under the current system, it seems difficult-to-impossible to guarantee that at least one human being has reviewed every single edit within the last N months, because there's no practical way to "divvy up the review work".

Even those who do their "due diligence" may be spending time poring over edits that someone else has already had a look at and found to be acceptable. I'd be much more inclined to apply more "scrutiny" if I had some kind of assurance against this. Time is scarce enough as it is. dr.ef.tymac 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting idea. Somebody could write a javascript program that keeps the different clients syched with a common page. It is possible, but beyond my limited JS abilities. Until(1 == 2) 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if people informally review contributions, the review could be noted on the RfA Talk page for that candidate. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
True. Even though it goes against assuming good faith, one might be wise going forward simply to fire "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/<USER NAME>" into the old search bar, just to make sure we're not missing anything... Hiberniantears 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That probably doesn't need to be noted. I for one will be doing that from now on. And I don't think candidates should be offended by people poking into their histories. Heck, it should be encouraged! Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some bored group of people could form an RfA inquisitionaudit project, hehe I can't see how that could possibly go wrong. Until(1 == 2) 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Only if we get uniforms... or at least snazzy capes. Hiberniantears 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You never expect the RfA Inquisition! --barneca (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
lol. It's RfA Auditors. Sheesh! (and yes, I understood the reference)Yeah, keeping things informal is better, IMHO. It's easy to try to come up with new rules and bureaucracy. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Not huge bureaucratic system is needed. Two posibilities:
  • my math is rusty, but I think even if you chose a purely random block of 500 edits, 20 people choosing randomly should cover a pretty good percentage of total edits with no organization at all. The problem would come if all 20 people decided to look thru the last 500 edits, which might be what happens now.
  • you could always have a place set aside on the RfA page where user A comes in and says "I've checked edits from 1/1/05-2/13/05." Someone else might have checked 6/30/06-7/31/06, so they put that fact in. If it's chronological, then you can easily see what's been reviewed and what hasn't. if you have time, you come in, pick an unchecked period, look thru it, and check it off.
But really, the random selection thing might be best, based on KISS. --barneca (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent, and not shockingly e/c) Just wanted to poke my head in here and contribute to the discussion at hand and offer some opinions. First of all, let me say that I'm quite impressed with this thread and the insightful observations of all the users. I've been a pretty heavy user for the past 2 months, and have started to contribute to areas away from the mainspace. One place that I have frequented (but not usually voted at) is RfA, to get an idea of the process and the commentary. I followed the OWB case from the beginning, and not to beat a dead horse or anything, but here's how it looked from the outside. I haven't established the same strong connections with other Wikipedians as more experienced users, and so when there was incredibly suspicious behavior that was first mentioned of OWB and SS (at a different RfA), I didn't say anything. This brings me to a more general point. When you're relatively new to the RfA game, and you stumble upon a 66/0/0 current tally, would you even think of spending hours digging through the user's history to put up an oppose vote? I personally have found consensus to be intimidating, and I'm a pretty opinionated person. I've noticed with RfAs there tends to be a pattern. First a number of people will support, and often after the first (decently well reasoned) oppose vote comes up, there is a pile on (at least for the ones that get no consensus/fail). And this pile on isn't unreasoned users, but who really wants to be the first to go against someone. I think at RfA we run the risk of tyranny of the majority, even if it isn't a !vote. I fully support a revision to RfA policy which would somehow standardize the process of going through the user's history, and not have to depend on the insight and intuition of regular users. Shouldn't everyone's history be subject to a thorough going over, more than just a cursory Kate's tool search? I think the approach to build consensus could remain the same, but it would help to have more information readily at hand, and not depend on other users to be the ones to do the digging. It's like the Kitty Genovese murder: diffusion of responsibility. No one called the police because they assumed someone else would do it. Well the way to avoid this problem is to somehow say "YOU, yes you standing there, go through this history" and give individuals the responsibility directly. I am sad that I didn't have the courage to stand up and voice my suspicions about OWB, or the courage of my convictions to aid in the presentation of the case, but of course am exceedingly grateful to the 2 users who stuck their neck out like that. It takes a lot of guts. But let's make the process friendlier so that potential whistleblowers aren't left trembling in the corner, and everyone gets a thorough going over. Just my 2 cents. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A volunteer review committee?

I propose a wikiproject or something that consists of groups of editors who will take shifts to rigorously run through an admin candidate's contributions. Assuming 1 serious admin candidate applies to RFA a day, if we have say 35 people each running through contribs once a week we can devote 5 editors to run a background check on each candidate. This way we can divvy up the due diligence in an organized manner; editor A can do the first 500 edits, editor B the next 500 etc. This group of volunteers should help ensure that another OWB-nom cannot pass as easily. Borisblue 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. RfA is turning into airport security (a humorous parody: [1] Sorry, I had to do that.). Are you sure that we need to add another layer of intimidation to the process? —Kurykh 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with a group of users volunteering to check contribs more thoroughly? I'm not saying that it is mandatory for a candidate to submit to scrutiny, but rather that some users would make it a point to check his contribs, and then report what they find to the RFA page. The process will be informal, and it would have a page simply for coordination - e.g. Borisblue will check her first 500 edits, Kurykh will ch--Boricuaeddie 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)eck the second 500 etc. Borisblue 20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's probably a good idea, considering what happened with oldwindybear. Andre (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of those who thinks that every time a rule is imposed it implies that those under the rule are not reasonable enough to take care of themselves. In this case, I would leave it up to each participant to do their own research. With OWB, it seems that raw data would not have provided much. However, seeing these two interact over the course of time is what would lead one to the conclusion of possible sock-puppetry. Am I coming off as paranoid? :) the_undertow talk 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying- there were TONS of evidence in the contribs. What I proposed is slightly increased coordination: a page where people can mark off which contribs have already been checked. For instance, if I see that an admin candidate's 500 most recent edits have already been checked, I can devote my time to checking the next 500. Thus it is less likely that patterns of bad behavior would go unnoticed. Borisblue 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is tons of evidence. That is how a snowball works. When a criminal is suspected of a crime, out come the bodies - meaning the evidence is a result of an inquiring mind making the initial assertion. Looking at the raw data, talk pages, and thousands of OWB contributions, there is no red flag that screams 'he is obviously using a sock-puppet!' the_undertow talk 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we're all acting on a hindsight bias here, coupled with the availability heuristic. Seriously, if there is a severe problem, then, yes, fix it, but we're blowing the entire thing out of proportion. —Kurykh 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A 97.5% success rate is not too bad. People keep suggesting ways to fix something that's not broke. Banno 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's wrong with having a 100% success rate? --Boricuaeddie 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Because there is no such thing. —Kurykh 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec'd x 4) Did I miss something? Did anyone die because OWB was sysopped then de-sysopped? If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/candidate before commenting. is stuck at the top of every RFA (though see my proposed change above). RFA is about trust for commentors and the view taken on individual comments by the closing 'crat. Trying to add more beaucracy to the process is not a good idea. Think what happens next- We'll have a Wikipedia:Request to be on the reviewing committee of RFA candidates page... Pedro |  Chat  20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, nobody died, but look at what it has caused. A bunch of people taking off time from building an encyclopedia to clean up the mess created by the incidents and creating lengthy threads to discuss the matter. --Boricuaeddie 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not wrong there! Good point. Pedro |  Chat  20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
...As will any incident that happens on RfA. I'm for the status quo, unless there is a real need for change, and this is not one of them. —Kurykh 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The thing is, do you personally have the time to check through 4000 or more edits of a candidate you're voting for? What I'm suggesting is simply a marker board- so for instance I see that all the user's talk edits have been checked already, so I can scrutinize his Wikipedia-space edits instead. Borisblue 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No. I have time to check the last couple of thousand using sensible judgement at when to look at a diff. If someone hasn't time to check a reasonable ammount of contribution history (whatever reasonable is would be up to to the editor) simply don't enter the discussion (or vote or !vote). Pedro |  Chat 
(2 e/c)Based on my concerns outlined above, I think this would be an excellent idea. Volunteer-based, but incredibly clearly laid out who's responsible for checking what. We should leave the guess work out of the process. We could outline concerns in specific categories too (and the volunteers would offer diffs) for civility, AGF, sockpuppetry, hasty trigger finger, etc etc. Standardization isn't necessarily bureaucratization! Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC
  • (ecx2) As I said earlier, post it to the Talk page of the RFA below the Wannabekate stats. That way anyone interested will know where to look. Better yet post "I'm going to be looking at the 500 edits from May 12, 2007 through June 4, 2007" before looking and later add "complete", and sign. That way there is a record of who did the search/read through, and it should avoid duplicated effort. I don't see why it should be formal. Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What problem are we trying to fix? All users who vote should go through contributions of a candidate, not just pull out wannabekate and pretend it has remotely anything to do with whether a candidate should be trusted or not. This is in italics on every RFA page! OWB's social deviance has not had much of an effect on this project. Let's not glorify his actions or give him a significant place in Wikipedia history. In other words, let's not implement this proposed process. GracenotesT § 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem we are trying to fix: say 6 editors want to check 500 edits each of an RFA candidate. It is likely that they would ALL simply check the 500 most recent edits, thus leaving everything beyond that unscrutinized. If there was a markerboard where the users could say 'I checked these contribs, they're clean' the labor of those 6 editors would be far better put to use. Maybe my initial post made it out to be a more formal process than I intended. Borisblue 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But this, by far, is not the biggest problem. It turns out that people could and should have detected OWB's sockpuppetry before the RfA passed, but as we learned the last two times, this is by far not always the case. Runcorn's contributions showed nothing that would indicate misconduct, because it appears that he was just deliberately being a model Wikipedian until he passed RfA. That's the important problem we have, that's where our efforts need to go, and it can't be solved by just looking at all contributions. -Amarkov moo! 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There was a sizable amount of evidence in OWB's contribs that I did not uncover after 30 minutes of checking his contribs. He edited his sockpuppet's user page for goodness sake! I think OWB's rfa is evidence that !voters aren't checking contribs very effectively. A markerboard, say on the talk page of an RFA, where editors who have done a thorough check of a portion of the candidate's edits can make it known, so other contrib checkers can scrutinize the rest of the contribs instead of going through the same stuff multiple times. Borisblue 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If we are going to institutionalize mistrust: Why would you submit yourself to trusting that markerboard and the editors who would check things off on it? If we are truly going to become paranoid about every RfA candidate, we must also become paranoid about every RfA checker. Why not, instead, examine the contributions yourself and draw your own conclusions, as they are the only ones you can trust. --Iamunknown 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There isn't that much evidence in OWB's contribs if you aren't looking for it. The only people who would know are those who are familiar with a candidate. Some RfA voters do not vote for a candidate they have not interacted with—a reasonable resolution, imho. If this were true of all voters, there would be no need to collaboratively create a dirty laundry list against a candidate. Not voting for unfamiliar candidates is not feasible, but hopefully a list need not be created anyway. GracenotesT § 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I personally do not comment at RfAs for candidates I am unfamiliar with, unless I have sufficient time and motivation to examine their contributions. --Iamunknown 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait, wait. What the heck is RfA if it's not a volunteer review committee? Is the idea of actually examining the candidate's contributions so unprecedented? What are the non-"reviewers" basing their votes on? (Yes, I know the answer is "edit counts", but it shouldn't be.)
    I don't know if it would fix the de-adminship rate -- or if it needs fixing -- but I think that if more people cast their votes based on contributions, instead of pointless numbers, we'd fix the other problem mentioned here of throwing babies out with the bathwater. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If we change anything as a result of OWB, I'd suggest that we apply some more gentle scrutiny to the nominator. In this case, Stillstudying's history was significantly more red-flag-raising than OWB's. MastCell Talk 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the OWB incident should inspire participants to be more cautious, but does not merit red tape of any kind, IMO. the_undertow talk 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We've got a failure rate of 1 in 40? We should be offering up our system as a model to others! If a company found that they only ever had to fire 1 in 40 managers they hired, they'd be ecstatic, and generally they go through far more trouble than taking a general poll of all current employees as to whether the person would make a decent boss. I don't know how anyone else is looking at that data, but to me, it doesn't indicate to me that RfA is broken—quite the opposite, it says to me that it's working great. We simply can't develop a system which will never promote a bad admin (unless we decide never to promote another admin, period, which of course would cause severe problems in itself). A system that's right 97.5% of the time is about as good as it gets. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Remember, this figure only consider obvious and serious abuses that goes through ArbCom or justifies immediate action. The actual rate may be higher than what you think right now. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Very Quick Summary: for busy people who are in a hurry

This is a long discussion thread. Here is a very quick summary if you are too busy to read it all. If parts of the summary look wrong or incomplete, fix it. Just be concise and organized about it.

Problem: It can take a long time to check edit histories for RfA candidates. Also, there's possible guesswork and duplication of effort because there's no obvious way to distinguish what has (and has not) been checked yet by someone else.

Solutions: There appear to be a few main theories on how best to handle this "problem".

  • Organize volunteers: divide the labor and coordinate between groups who promise to check.
    • Rationale: helps remove guesswork and increases thoroughness
    • Pitfalls: Are people gonna do this?; Oppresive?; Who watches the watchers? Who trusts the checkers?
    • Rebuttals: RfA already is this.
  • Technical solution: impose some kind of "edit-check tracking" system that works just like article histories.
    • Rationale: helps reduce reliance on claims of "yeah, I already checked that"
    • Pitfalls: Who is gonna code this? Still not as good as first-hand checking.
    • Rebuttals: More airport security.
  • Get a grip: there is no problem, nobody died.
    • Rationale: checking edit histories is just one part. the system has enough checks and balances. some people may be model WP-ers just for the sake of passing RfA and raising hell afterward.
    • Pitfalls:
    • Rebuttals:
  • Be Informed: Dont vote or !vote on an RfA unless you're personally familiar with the candidate or have sufficient time to examine their contributions and interactions with other editors.
    • Rationale: similar to that of "Get a Grip"
    • Pitfalls:
    • Rebuttals:


Fin. dr.ef.tymac 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • A decent summary; I think expanding Be Informed. to say, "Don't vote/!vote/comment on an RfA unless you are personally familiar with the candidate or have sufficient time to examine their contributions and interactions with other editors", would be good. --Iamunknown 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Status Table for RfA good to have here

I inserted this table here: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. This table should be on the RfA page somewhere as it gives an overfiew of whats going on. If there's one page this table should be in, this page is it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this (next edit) because I makes the first RfA on the list look...well...odd. There's already such a table at WP:BN (linked to from [[WP:RFA}}), amongst many other places. Giggy UCP 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm placing it back in a more appropriate place, and centered, so it doesn't stuff up RfA's. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This will soon be taken out; this implementation needs to be discussed first: many members of the RFA community have expressed their dislike of the idea, saying it makes RFA more of a vote, what with that table being avote-counter. While I think its a good idea, the community must talk on this before the table is added to the page. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It got removed, which I sort of expected. I think it's a useful indication of which RfAs are active etc, and an indication of who has voted Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea Matt (may I call you that? - calling you "TheFearow" seems a little unwieldy), I just hope the community agrees too. Support this idea. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I prefer matt, but I use TheFearow in my signature because I don't want to be confused with User:Matt. And thanks for the support. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No. Its too much of a vote already. Spartaz Humbug! 11:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What's so bad about a list of RfA's with a useful support percentage. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Table would provide a quick overview, helping highlight things such as RFAs close to the borderline success/no consensus that maybe I should take a closer look at and give my opinion. Also, RFAs with low number of votes, maybe needing more input. And the end dates are helpful. I don't have a problem with the table there. --Aude (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times already. The table is already available for anyone who desires to look at it. People can add it to their userpages if they wish. The table contains links to each request, so that someone who views the table can visit all active requests from there, they may not even need to visit this page (so it can't be said that it's less convenient not having it here). For newcomers or occasional visitors to RfA, displaying the table before they even see any of the open requests will only encourage the perception that requests are votes, and may well prejudice people visiting a request (in the sense that they will visit a request not with an open mind but with figures in their head).
Exactly the same arguments apply to the tallies at the top of requests by the way. --bainer (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If RFA is not a vote, why do we have the stupid table? If RFA is not a vote, why would you put it on the RFA page? The would be highly hipocritical, except for the fact that RFA is a vote since it has become one, and instead of trying to make it less of a vote, people try to make it more of one. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Showing the current tally does not make something a vote. Something becomes a vote when the tally is interpreted as a vote. Raw data being shown to people does not make something a "vote". Until(1 == 2) 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
A Master spoke to his student, and said:"If you pay attention to the number of supports and opposes, you are calling it a vote. If you do not pay attention to the number of supports and opposes, you are ignoring consensus. Now, quickly, decide whether to promote!"
I don't understand why RfA must be one or the other. Much like the nature of light, or a Zen koan, RfA is a vote and not a vote at the same time. If you believe it is, or should be, one thing, you will not convince someone who feels the other way to agree with you. The best you can do is join me in the middle.
If you find the table useful, watchlist it. If you don't, don't. No need to start a fight, no need to put it here. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well put. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok then well, if you like the main RfA page, watchlist that too, lets remove it. This is a very relevant table and it belongs in this page, does it now? It gives an overview of all the activity that is already going on on the page - whats wrong with that? I linked it now. What is the problem in linking this report? If its inviting "votes", you need to create policies that delete simple "vote" votes (e.g. see below my section on Deleting frivolous votes). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
But, Until(1 == 2), the table does indeed make judgments on the outcome of requests, by tallying comments made and then by colouring in the table either green, yellow or red based on arbitrary ratios implying success or failure. The table is very much an interpretation of requests - an interpretation of them as votes. --bainer (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The colors represent the tallies, not the success status of the RfA. It is you who are associating the colors that represent the tally scores with the outcome of the RfA, the table makes no such assertion. Until(1 == 2) 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are the colours supposed to indicate then? --bainer (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The colors represent the value of the tally. As in a count which people put their opinions in which section. To assume this has anything to do with the outcome of the RfA is just a, well, it's an assumption. The table makes no such claim. The colors are based off of addition of where people put their opinion, to read anything else into it is applying your own creativity to an objective measurement. Until(1 == 2) 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you, R. I've been removing the table from the page. I do tolerate its existence in the spirit of letting babies have their bottles, but only if it does not appear on this page, and is instead only out there for people who actively seek it. --bainer (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MFD on Tangobot's Report Table

I've started an MFD on Tangobot's report table here. Feel free to comment. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC) ...and it was just speedily closed. Well then. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MfD is not there to change process (as it seems that there was an underlying desire to change how RfA works). Also, MfD cannot delete a page which is generated afresh every day by a bot - I'd have thought that as much would be obvious. The clue is to stop the bot by, who'd have guessed it, speaking to its owner! Martinp23 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It's seems rather clear to me that MfD can delete a page which is generated by a bot -- you just delete the page, and then block the bot if it continually recreates it. (In the same way one would block a human for continually recreating it.) I agree however that talking to the bot owner first is a good idea; MfD would be a reasonable avenue if the dispute could not be resolved in that fashion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I use the RfA Report to help me with my bureaucrat duties (actually the one at User:Dragons flight/RFA summary, which lists those ending soonest at the top, which I prefer) and I think trying to delete it is WP:POINT. As I've said several times about this issue, RfA is not a vote but numbers and tallies are still meaningful information. Andre (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that this is a useful tool. It doesn't only report how well a candidacy is going, we have to remember that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC

R and I have started an RfC available here. (Discussion transclusion removed by Andre (talk))

Feel free to join in. —« ANIMUM » 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Join in what? RfA reform drama? :| GracenotesT § 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You had the good foresight to start the discussion on a separate page. Therefore I have removed your transclusion, as it was merely cluttering up this page. Andre (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete frivolous votes

Are we going to be nice and let votes like this stay in an RfA? How come there's no policy that says stuff like this should not be allowed on an RfA page? I'm not going debate with anyone if they say "no, we are angels, they're our children, we have to let them vote". Whatever you guys wanna do. Just to balance out that vote, I had to do my own oppose on all the RfA's that other guy flooded his support vote with. Thats all I could do to keep it as fair and balanced as possible. I dont understand why we allow voting processes to be polluted with sock puppets and invalid votes like this. If the job of the admin is to cut out the crap, why dont we make their job easier by deleting it and cutting it out already? Whats the purpose of these votes anyway? Do you allow 5 year old kids, convicted felons (translates to sock puppets) or people in insane asylums to vote for the president? Why here then? Where are there no policies that disable these votes? (Yes yes its not a vote you know what I meant, ok so dont go on to me about that). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you not to "balance out the votes." You say you know that RfA is not a vote, but evidently you don't understand what this really means -- that RfA opinions are read and evaluated by bureaucrats. If someone systematically supports all RfAs contrary to the community consensus, those comments will be treated accordingly. Your "balancing" comments will be flat-out ignored in most cases. Andre (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My balancing out act is not of importance in this section. I dont care if anyone ignores it or not. I'm talking about people who vote like that other guy did and people who are sock puppets. Why are their votes even allowed to stay on the page? I propose deletion of any "votes" which:
  1. Dont give any focused rationale (this is not hard to judge; that easily qualifies for this category)
  2. Sock puppets and SPA's.
Why are policies like this not implemented? I gave the example of convicted felons and 5 year old kids not allowed to vote for the president. Why are they allowed to rule on Wikipedia then? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think such cases are sufficiently rare as not to merit special attention. One such comment out of 50 is not too bad. Considering that RfA is not a pure vote, such posts are unlikely to ever make a difference. Comments of the type above can be considered disruption/WP:POINT and may be justifiably discounted by closing admins. I'd rather let those comments remain than set a precedent for deleting/ignoring comments. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Closing b'crats, you mean. —Kurykh 06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So whats your response to my example that 5 year old kids and convicted felons are not allowed to effect the vote process for the president in any way but sock puppets and other people are allowed to do so on Wikipedia? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Convicted felons and five year old kids are forbidden based on their status, socks and SPA's are based on their editing patterns. And sock votes are immediately removed anyway, partly negating your point. —Kurykh 06:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been unable to delete sock votes/comments before on AfD's. Is there a policy for this? I dont think so? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec 2x)How is that differnt than a vote saying it is no bid deal? Isent that waht Jimbo said himself? How do you want to say that somebody should be ignored because they feel that adminship is no bid deal? I strongly disagree with anything that discounts a good faith opinion of any wikipedia editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please dont minimize this discussion now by suggesting that "adminship is no big deal". Its obviously a big deal when there's only 1200 admins. Jimbo said it another context i.e. they're given a few extra tools than normal editors, but otherwise its clearly a very big deal otherwise tell Jimbo that I demand to be an admin right now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) All that you need to at AfD is note that the editor X seems to be a sock of editor Y, that editor Z has only edited this and N other cruft-related AfDs, etc. and the admin will normally take such notices into account. There isn't a policy about it; just due notice and clueful admins. ^_^ --Iamunknown 06:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the problem in simply deleting their votes from the page so the disruption doesnt occur? I've been in multiple AfD's where sock disruption was rampant, but no, we had to be angels and let their comments stay (striking out doesnt equal deletion). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do show us examples of this disruption. --Kurykh 06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, disruption isn't too difficult to find, just look at this particularly egregious example! (linky) I don't think, however, that they were so disruptive as to necessitate removal, even though at one point I was labeled, along with all the other established editors, a SPA. The current system we have is fine, imo. --Iamunknown 06:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant on RfA. Anyone can find sock disruption on the XfDs and elsewhere. --Kurykh 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many reasons not to delete votes. For record-keeping, for tracking sockpuppets and bad faith editors, and most importantly because of a core policy, assume good faith. A simple comment like "This user has 3 edits" will do fine, and that way you're not accusing someone else of being a bad faith editor. Andre (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy or a government, and Wikipedia:Suffrage does not equal suffrage. However, if you insist on using your flawed analogy, how's this: our equivalents of convicted felons are not suspected sockpuppets (who, if in fact confirmed by checkuser, would have their comments stricken (and never removed, but stricken)), but rather banned users that aren't allowed to edit at all, and our 5 year old kids are anonymous editors and brand new user accounts (whose comments are generally left unstricken, but may be moved to the "Discussion" section, turned into bullets rather than numbered items, or simply left with explanatory subcomments). Andre (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Response to original statement: Your "balancing" votes are just as frivolous and smack of WP:POINT themselves. Removing these "votes" is flat out vandalism. The bureaucrats are not stupid. They know when to discount !votes. – Chacor 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
NO, Matt's edits were NOT vandalism. However much I may disagree with him, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." --Iamunknown 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I might not have made myself clear. Removing votes is vandalism, but I'm not saying his "balancing" votes are vandalism. Also, important phrase to note: "improve the encyclopedia". That means article writing. – Chacor 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
They are not vandalism, but removing good faith comments is almost always a bad idea. Andre (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
According to a policy which, sometimes, I feel like blanking, RFA !votes, however ridiculous or stupid you tihnk they are, cannot be ignored, struck or removed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean they cannot be ignored? They're ignored all the time. Where does it say that? Andre (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Technically (actually technically) ignored. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(←, edit conflict) It seems entirely unnecessary to me for the same reasons as listed above. Additionally, in your pointless attempt to "balance the !votes", you add an oppose to what could otherwise be an unopposed nomination. Not that it, in itself, means anything, but it is an accomplishment. You simply fail to understand that the bureaucrats know how to conclude RfAs and one bogus !vote out of 30-some in an unopposed nomination isn't going to change anything. Lara♥Love 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(ECx1million) If 50 supports cite great praise, and 60 opposes cite 'self-noms as power hungry,' consensus as weighing the 'importance' of the argument (self-nom is not that important as it is implicity allowed as a way to attain admin status), I assume the crat will find a consensus to promote. Secondly, is this really my Saturday night? :P the_undertow talk 07:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Matt, I'm confused. Do you or don't you oppose my RfA, or are you making a point? MarašmusïneTalk 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A poor response to a poor action that shouldn't have occurred in the first place. Two wrong doesn't make a right here. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, by responding Matt brought A.Z.'s crusade against adminiship much more attention than if he had just ignored the WP:POINTy !votes in the first place (as eveyone else, including the closing 'crat, is likely to do). Rockpocket 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What would have been more mature was if Matt discussed A.Z.'s reasoning on his usertalk page. That way the end result may be A.Z. understanding that perhaps everyone should not an admin. Good faith wasn't assumed and WP:POINT was violated. GizzaDiscuss © 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry POINTy votes. This isn't a vote, and POINTy votes don't influence the consensus much. --Deskana (banana) 12:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand the commotion here. If you guys think AZ's vote can stay, so can mine. I dont see any problem. Everyone has a right to vote in any way they like (according to current policies) and as you guys are telling me, the closing crat will dismiss our votes, right? So yea, let it stay. Dont tell me to remove my vote while letting A.Z. go free. If my vote was a POINT violation, why was A.Z's not? Its not a disruption in any case, everyone has the right to vote, and as I said, thats all I could do to balance out his vote. Please apply policies consistently. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is flawed. There's no inconsitent policy application. A.Z. made a comment that was misguided, but wasn't disruptive in the slightest, so POINT can't possibly apply. You, however, made one that is possibly disruptive, so POINT could apply. People seem to forget that POINT says "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", not "Don't make a point". No disruption at all == absolutely no way of a point violation. --Deskana (banana) 14:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Suppose I voted on all the RfA's regularly with "Oppose: No one should be admin", what would your reaction be? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone should be an administrator" is basically a way of saying "adminship should be no big deal", and, frankly, that's not only not frivolous, that's a widely held belief, including by many administrators. They don't usually say that "everyone" should be an administrator, but there are plenty of experienced, respected editors who say things like "everyone who has been here more than X months with more than Y edits without vandalism should automatically get the admin buttons." Vandalism does get deleted, but this isn't vandalism. There is a similar but opposite belief called "we don't need any more administrators/bureaucrats" which also shows up occasinally. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the de facto 75% threshold for presumptive promotion, a single oppose !vote "cancels out" three supports, not one. These WP:POINT-implicating opppses also sully the record of deserving nominees in a way that an isolated ill-thought support does not. Therefore, my current inclination is to deprecate here but otherwise ignore A.Z.'s !votes, but to strike out or delete Matt57's. Newyorkbrad 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO: That is vote tampering. Even bureaucrats do not decide that votes are "frivolous" during the course of an RfA. Only those not entitled to vote (such as anons and socks) can have votes removed, and in the latter case, it must be done by a bureaucrat or not at all. -- Cecropia 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Historically, that's clearly not true. Lots of people have removed troll !votes from various RfA's with little or no objection. On the other hand, good-faith !votes should not be removed or stricken (I've restored a fair number), so I will read your comment as a request to AGF to this user, and comply accordingly. Newyorkbrad 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Give me some examples. -- Cecropia 15:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't kept notes, but one example I recall was around this past April when a disaffected user opposed every pending RfA with comments along the lines of "oppose because Wikipedia is a waste of time" and the votes were stricken. More controversially, last September a user who routinely opposed every RfA without giving a reason was blocked for disrupting the process, although personally I thought that was an overreaction. Newyorkbrad 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The April incident (actually late March) was on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ais523 and others around that time; a note was left stating what had happened. --ais523 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about these things, the crats are not stupid. It is their job to determine if a !vote is frivolous. Simply post why you think a !vote should be given greater or lesser weight below the !vote, and the crat will take it into consideration. That is why we don't have a bot closing RfAs. Until(1 == 2) 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems rather focused on process over substance. Wherever Matt and A.Z. have put their comments, they boil down to this: A.Z. believes everyone should be an admin - the crats can give this due weight in considering whether or not there is a consensus to promote. Matt57 believes A.Z.'s view is incorrect (though he makes no further on the merit of those candidates) - the crats can factor this is as well. The decision of whose vote should be struck/ignored/depracated misses the point, each has contributed something to the discussion that can be given due weight... WjBscribe 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about instead we have b'crats delete frivolous RFAs like the mikegodwin one. It isn't like he won't get the tools anyway, even if it fails...so what is the point other than to waste community time? pschemp | talk 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • ...To be honest, the opposes on Mike Godwin's RfA somehow doesn't seem right either. It should be taken up directly with the crats at the noticeboard. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, AZ's "all people should be admins" !vote is disagreeable to many, disruptive to some even. But Matt, your WP:POINT !votes are actually more disruptive, seeing as how you're just adding it to "cancel it out" (0 - 0 oes equal 0 though, I'll give you that). Plus, we're seeing suport votes becuase of that oppose, in a nice endless cycle. Whatever your opinion on RfA "votes" are, we can at least agree that voting differently solely because of the way someone else voted is disruptive to the whole system. I'm probably overreacting, but after looking at waht has transpired from this I find it accurate. Everyone has their own voting philosophies. Basing your vote on others isn't needed. Wizardman 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be deleting !votes; we need to keep them for the record no matter how frivolous they are. The 'crats will decide which !votes are legitimate and whether consensus was formed in the end. And I agree- Matt's oppose was a bit more disruptive than AZ's. Generally (not that this is a guideline), supports don't need a thought-out explanation but opposes do. I don't think that Matt's oppose was legitimate because it had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the candidate. But like I say above, that's up to the 'crats... Sr13 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As noted by Husond in my RfA, Matt57, you aren't balancing anything by opposing. If we take 75% as the pass ratio, 1 oppose cancels out 3 supports. You're making it worse for everyone by doing this. The 'crat can ignore the vote by A.Z., you don't have to help out. Giggy UCP 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I hope the bureaucrats chosen by the community can be intelligent enough to completely, totally, unquestionably disregard the idiotic votes (not !votes, but votes) of A.Z, Matt57, and Kurt Weber. I am not saying that these people are stupid, but that their voting patterns are. I, for one, do believe (maybe not 100%, but at least a good 95%) that b'crats have the sense to say, "You know, this person saying, 'I'm going to object simply because someone else supported'... that's just stupid." -- Kicking222 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That IS why we choose them. Giggy UCP 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We elect 'crats so they can make judgments on these things. Leave it to them. Sr13 02:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It struck me how this seems much ado about nothing. Since an editor can edit the entire RfA page, isn't it just appropriate to indent a comment or rejoinder to such a controversial entry, giving the rationale for why that editor's input should be downweighted? E.g., after "Support: everyone should be an admin.", indent the comment: "This may be reiterating in effect that adminship is No Big Deal, although it fails to explicitly note how this user has gained the community's trust." And after "Oppose: no one should be an admin." indent the comment: "This is inconsistent with the current operating model of Wikipedia". Or whatever the commenter's reply may be. In both cases, and in those of any other such unusual !votes, 1) the commenter is free to come up with their own input to the RfA discussion, 2) there is no silly pointy inconsistencies in the final !tallies (however they are used, or not).

Seriously, isn't the Emperor feeling a little drafty? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat and I will never become one, but I have trouble understanding what the big problem is. I trust that the bureaucrats know not to take such votes seriously. Shalom Hello 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)