Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 25

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

Older talk

  • /Archive 1: June-August 2003
  • /Archive 2: August-December 2003
  • /Archive 3: Discussion in December 2003 about time people should wait before making request and a note
  • /Archive 4: Some January 2004 discussion
  • /Archive 5: Discussion on January 8, 2004 about distributing the task of making other admins
  • /Archive 6: (Greenmountainboy's claim about being attacked on this page (January 8-9, 2004))
  • /Archive 7: Complaint against tannin (January 24-25, 2004)
  • /Archive 8: Abuse of de-sysop area (January 30-31, 2004)
  • /Archive 9: Discussion on January 31, 2004 about how to deal with misuse of admin privileges
  • /Archive 10: Recent discussion archived in advance (February 2004)
  • /Archive 11: Policy on Anons and this page (February 9, 2004)
  • /Archive 12: Discussion on 19-25 February 2004 about who can vote and how bureaucrats should be appointed
  • /Archive 13: Discussion of what consensus is needed for a request (February-March 2004)
  • /Archive 14: Polls on making all admins bureaucrats, and on possible minimum requirements for adminship (February-March 2004)
  • /Archive 15: Discussion of nominators, self-nominations, and nominating procedures (March 2004)
  • /Archive 16: Possible minimum requirements for voting, discussion and poll about bureaucrats exercising individual judgment in determining consensus (March-April 2004)
  • /Archive 17: TOC tallies, relative merits of a firm 80% threshold compared to "bureaucrat" judgement, creeping upwards of requirements for support of adminship, possible periodic renewal of adminship, issues regarding specific nominations (March 4-May 20 2004. No discussion May 20-June 1)
  • /Archive 18: Questions about adminship, Lst27, JediMaster16, this page needs an image...
  • /Archive 19: Discussion and poll about early removal of nominations, possible timelags between re-nominations (July 2004)
  • /Archive 20: Sockpuppets and qualifications for voting (August 2004)
  • /Archive 21: Edit counting, subpages, boilerplate questions and more (September 2004)
  • /Archive 22: Promotions to bureaucrat (October 2004)
  • /Archive 23: Adminiship standards; de-admining inactive admins; limit on concurrent nominations (October/November 2004)
  • /Archive 24: Candidate acceptance of nominatopm; change in mediawiki users; number of bureaucrats (November-December 2004)

Pages that reflect RfA

These are edit links to pages that need to be changed as people are added or removed from RfA. Cecropia does an excellent job updating the first four, and I started doing the other one. If anyone sees a good way to integrate this list into the actual page, I think it would be an improvement. If you know of any other pages that belong in this list, please add them.

HTH. --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC) & 05:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Link dates?

When I self-nominated, I linked the date of my voting deadline, so that the Wiki software would reformat it to the user's preferences, as is common elsewhere in the 'pedia. I am considering doing the same to everyone else's nominations, and changing the instructions. Does anyone have an objection to that? --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything wrong with that. Just don't bite anyone's head of if they forget to. :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Andre (talk) 20:18, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Notice revert

Netaholic left the summary "rv banner message. as discussed before, its poor form, and too much like an endorsement". For one, I have seen no such discussion here in the last two months at least. Can you point to one, Netaholic that supports that view conclusively? For another, the notice simply asked to spend some time looking at this one cae because there wasn't enough votes to determine consensus. That is certainly not an endorsement. A revert on that basis is a little hasty and just makes the whole process look bad. How about discussing before reverting? There was no imminient danger that could not have waited until a few other editors chimed in to agree or disagree with your position. - Taxman 17:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it earlier, but I would go along with Netaholic's position that to place a banner specifically for one person could be considered an endorsement of some sort. Either one asks people to consider *all* nominees, or none. Given that we would expect anyone visiting the page to review all nominees then, qed, one needs no banner. Abstentions are a valid form of expressing an opinion imho. --Vamp:Willow 17:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An expressed opinion of abstention is signing in the neutral category, rather than not signing at all. Not signing is more likely to be apathy or indecision. Assuming that page visitors review all nominees is incorrect, from what I've seen. The banner should be put back. --Ben Brockert 18:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I put the banner back. As anyone knows who follows RfA, I rarely comment on candidacies one way or the other, and if I do, I will either do it straightforwardly or at the end of the nomination for close candidacies. Geni had six votes total when I posted the banner, and, as Taxman noted, the notice asks editors to consider the nomination. Last I looked, there are seven more votes, five positive and two negative.

It's a bureaucrat's job, IMO, to encourage the community to express consensus, rather than make him/her promote/remove on speculation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to VampWillow, the notice does not ask to consider one candidate above the others. The banner clearly states that there are fewer than 24 hours to go, so requires special attention. I've done this in the past and will in the future. If it would make everyone feel better, I'll change the banner to mention "support" and "oppose", but I think it stands on its own. I'd rather let voters just look at what the banner points to, and decide.
In response to User:Cecropia I've just read your comments on the link noted below. You listed notices .. important current matters, such as:
    • Early removal of a nomination (but just for 24 hours so editors know why the nomination disappeared.
    • Important notices concerning a particular nomination, such as time extension (removed when the extension ends).
    • Notice of a poll significantly affecting policy
The current example would not appear to meet any of those conditions. --Vamp:Willow 19:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This notice is placed for the purpose of avoiding an extension, which is what I would have done if there were insufficient votes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is by no means a reasonable conclusion to draw. There are no written grounds for which a candidacy can be extended, except where "consensus is unclear" (i.e. too close to call). Lack of votes is a clear indication that community consensus is effectively "we don't know this person well enough to say"... especially since Geni was a self-nomination. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
I could agree with that general sentiment, but at a time of low interest on the board, it is better to encourage community involvement. The burst of votes in this last day, pro and con, demonstrates this. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If "there are too few votes to determine consensus", that means that, in the end, you do not promote. Adminship is an affirmative action, and the candidate should be well known. Certainly people are visiting this page and voting for other candidates, so if Geni (or anyone else) is not getting votes, then that means that few people are aware of that person and they are not ready yet. To advertise (that's what it is) by using a banner is falsely promoting that person above all others. I doubt Cecropia sees this as such, but it is unfair to other candidates who are well known in the community. This sort of thing has come up before -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is unfair to people who become admins based on being well-known, if something is done to encourage the development of consensus on candidates who are less well-known. --Michael Snow 01:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please do not preach to me the standards for promotion, Netoholic, and as the expression goes in a court of equity, you do not "come in with clean hands." You are opposed to this candidate and are now appear to be trying to manipulate the process. As it is, the banner has provoked interest and it appears the candidacy will fail, but it if it does it will fail on the basis of the expressed interest of the voters as opposed to a bureaucratic decision, or your decision. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know how others would interpret your words above, but ad hominem-style attacks do not help this discussion. I would have removed such a notice even if were promoting my own candidacy. You seem proud that your notice got attention and that it appears this candidate will fail... how do you think User:Geni feels about that? Surely they would have rather you not put up a banner that resulted in that outcome. My point is, putting the banner is interference in a process, and noone can say whether that interference is good, or bad. In the future, I'd suggest avoiding getting involved. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
I did not describe you personally, I described your demonstrated behavior. The nomination may or may not fail. How Geni feels about that is immaterial to the integrity of the process. Are you now arguing that the notice wrongfully constituted a disendorsement after you complained that it seemed like an endorsement?
I see your point that a banner may seem like interference in the process, but I simply disagree. When there are a lot of candidates people watch the board fairly closely and noone is ignord. When there are few a candidacy may not be noticed. This is about determining consensus. The notice was straightforward and impartial. It didn't even say "insuffient to promote," it said "insufficient too few votes to determine consensus." As a bureaucrat I have an interest in finding out what the community wants rather than what I think the community wants if that latter result is easily avoided. IMO, a little prodding is better than a formal extension, which would have been the alternative. For your part, you were the first opponent of the nomination, not in a position to promote or remove, and then fight a notice asking for community input. Now which situation is interference in the process? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banner

Previously this page did not use banners noting that voting time on a candidate was near the end. One has since been used; this is a change in practice, and from the above discussion, there seems some difference of opinion over it. So what do people think: Should we do this in the future? Never? Always? Sometimes, and if so, under what specific circumstances? -- Infrogmation 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infrogmation, it has been used before, but only in cases like this, where there was insufficint community involvement for consensus. However, I will post a poll (thought we could avoid that, but hey, most people like to vote). Give me a few minutes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banners noting expiring nominations

I placed the banner below in order to encourage voters to consider the nomination of a candidate who had only six votes total, insufficient to determine consensus. Netoholic took exception and removed the banner twice. I removed the banner myself when I saw that there were more than a dozen votes, so it had served its purpose. I'm showing the banner here so we can see exactly what it said, and whether anyone considers that this is not neutral. A banner like it would have been posted anyway in the event the nomination would have to be extended. You may also want to read the discussions above. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Please take a little time to consider [[Candidate]]'s nomination.
 With less than 24 hours to go, there are too few votes to determine consensus.


Short-time banners may be posted by bureaucrats

As the ones charged with determining consensus, bureaucrats should post banners like the above if they feel consensus is not being reached within approximately 24 hours of the end of the nomination.

  1. Taxman 21:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) Though not one voting in the relevant election.
  2. gadfium (talk) 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Acegikmo1 22:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fine, and if the banner doesn't help they can extend the time. &0xfeff; --fvw* 22:46, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
  5. I think this is just part of the job of determining consensus, and hence something bureaucrats are well within their rights to do. Shane King 22:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Of course. →Raul654 23:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Why not? older≠wiser 23:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  8. I recommend the use of banners for situations where "turnout" is the reason for lack of consensus, but not for those where the problem is that the nomination is fundamentally controversial but close to some quantitative threshold for promotion. Experience shows that in the latter situation, advertising the controversy will not do much to resolve the uncertainty. --Michael Snow 01:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. The primary job of bureaucrats is to determine consensus regarding adminship, so I see this as no big deal for them. However, I think that if anyone was able to post a banner, we'd soon see "banner wars." Keep this in the hands of the bureaucrats, since it pertains to their job anyway. --Slowking Man 02:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  10. As the above have said. --Whosyourjudas\talk 05:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. Whatever makes the elections go more smoothly, I support it. jni 07:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Xtra 08:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Of course. Bureaucrats can promote a user and therefore must be able to do this. Anárion 08:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. I don't see it doing any good, but I don't see it doing any harm either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Certainly, although I'm with Michael Snow - I would prefer to see Bureaucrats use these to encourage more people to examine a candidate with few votes, rather than to encourage them to pile onto a controversial vote. —Stormie 02:11, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Short-time banners may be posted by anyone

Same as above, but may be posted by anyone within 24 hours of the end of the nomination, and the wording must not advocate for or against the candidate.

  1. Andre (talk) 21:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Michael Ward 22:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. So long as the person does not vote on the relevant nomination, and remains disinterested in the matter. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. As long as it's neutral and we have a definition of the required "consensus", it doesn't matter who posts it. --Ben Brockert 23:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk 03:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  6. NPOV restrictions apply, of course. (See comments.) A. D. Hair 04:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

No short-time banners

Don't have a banner until the nomination is finished, and the bureaucrats will determine what to do from that point (promote/reject/extend).

  1. support - if not enough people comment/vote on the matter at hand then it is *after* the usual time allotment that options may need to be considered, not during. --Vamp:Willow 21:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. If the threshold is about a dozen votes (which is still a lot more attention than some current admins received), then any potential admin should be able have either impressed or annoyed enough people where they can get 12 voters. Let's face it, lack of votes doesn't happen often, and who decides what the threshold for banner usage is? Is Cecropia or anyone else going to police this and guarantee that the banner is made for every eligible vote exactly 24 hours before it ends? I also feel a banner is silly, because it's only visible to someone visiting this page. P.S. Polls are evil when done like this too early. Rather than gathering consensus or achieving compromise, they serve only to polarize the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 04:26, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
    This is not about banners, it is about consensus. The banner is only a tool to encourage people to think about the nomination to achieve consensus. It doesn't need to be policed. If no bureaucrat notices that a nomination is lacking in those last 24 hours, s/he will have to notice when promotion time comes, and it may require an extension. My feeling is this: I would rather encourage another 4 or 6 or 10 more Wikipedians to think about a candidacy than leave it to a single bureaucrat to figure it out. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. I don't get it. If someone has 8 votes for and 0 votes against, there is consensus there. There's enough people patrolling this page every day (or every other day, etc.) that if there was any significant basis for opposition, it would surely be discovered soon enough. Secondly, I'm opposed to banners on a fundamental basis - it's an unduly influencing factor on someone's vote. ugen64 02:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. I don't see the need for a banner. Can't people looking at the page see a lack of consensus for themselves without being told about it? Angela. 02:46, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. No point. Dori | Talk 02:57, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I had to think quite a bit about this. While I applaud the notion of methodologies that increase voter participation, this is not an appropriate measure. While it does attract attention (and hence potential voter turnout) to an ongoing election, it does so in a manner that is not equal to all candidates. If one candidate gets approved with a 30/3/1 approval and doesn't get a banner, and another gets approved with 30/9/1 but had a banner added 24 hours earlier when the vote was 20/8/1, what does that say about the mandate of those two candidates? A better methodology would treat all candidates equally. At one point the heading of a candidate included the tally and expiry so that they would show up in the TOC. This was problematic for other reasons, but at least it treated all candidates in a roughly equal fashion. If a banner is desired, it should treat all candidates at least as equally as the TOC tally did. Perhaps a template editable only by bureaucrats that is updated in a regular manner so that all candidates equally. - UtherSRG 03:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
    Uther, I see your point that the wording suggests a short-time banner for any difficult-to-decide nomination, and in fact we have the tool of extensions if consensus is unclear at the end of voting, but this was brought up specifically for those cases (see the banner "too few votes") where there are simply not enough votes to decide. The instant case was (5,1,0) when I posted the banner. That is 83%. That is theoretically enough to promote, but by me it means the candidate hasn't really been vetted.
    Now to your other points: You give the example of a candidate with 20/8/1 who improbably gets another 10 positives and only 1 negative after a banner is posted. OK. In the first place, 20/8/1 is 71+ percent, so this isn't a doubtful consensus, it is non-consensus, so the banner wouldn't be posted. The final result you present of 30/9/1 is only 77%, so that is still a judgment call for a bureaucrat. So this doesn't seem like a reasonable example. In the case that provoked this argument, the candidate actually had a smaller percentage of the vote after the banner as before, but there was a much larger body of votes, and some reasoned discussion, and consensus was much better demonstrated, IMHO.
    And your point about the 30/3/1 candidate vs. the 30/9/1 candidate and their "mandate." What mandate? There are no tiers of admins here. No senior vs. junior. No admins with an asterisk. The 30/3/1 guy has the same rights, responsibilities and duties as the 30/9/1 guy and will perform well or not. One doesn't have a higher rank or serve longer, or have the ability to overall overrule a "lesser" admin. I think the RfA has gone pretty smoothly in recent months; is there really a problem here? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. A banner may kind of 'compel' some people to vote. For example, if I see such a banner, I may be 'tempted' to vote (oppose or support), even if I don't know much about the candidate. utcursch 05:34, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • My own opinion is that it's better to nudge voters a little to complete the nomination in its alloted time, rather than have extensions. I can't be too much in sympathy with the idea that voter's lack of awareness should be protected rather than their interest promoted. If they are visiting RfA they are already interested in the process, but may not realize a particular nomination is about to expire. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that most of us are quite capable of noting expiry dates and the difference between them and the current date. What would be the next consideration; whether it should be an exact 24 hours, the next day by users' local time, some other figure? --Vamp:Willow 21:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the heart of the issue is determining whether consensus is absent as a nomination is coming to a close, not another rockbound rule. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's been my, ahem, experience that the 7 day limit is not absolute, anyhow... ugen64 04:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I really like the current banner, Cecropia. It's good to see someone with a sense of humor. --Ben Brockert 02:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there's a need for these banners, personally, but I think restricting such edits to bureaucrats is very unwiki. Has such bureaucracy (a fitting name) really come to be the accepted norm? A. D. Hair (t&m) 08:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • While the idea of these banners is a noble idea, the problem is that the criteria used to determine their use is too subjective. Either a different criteria than consensus needs to be used (best idea) or a consensus needs to be reached on what exactly constitutes a consensus (rather impossible idea). Mo0[talk] 07:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit issue

Just added a vote to PMC's request for adminship. It shows in the subpage but isnt showing on the main page. Can anyone shed light on this? Thanks. FT2 21:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  1. Purge the page with the link near the top. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Figured it was a cache issue, didn't know how. Thanks :) FT2 22:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Geni's promotion

Even after Cecropia's vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni, the vote stood at 17/5/1. Discarding the neutral, that is still just 77%. I disagree that this vote met clear enough consensus to promote, especially since it was a self-nomination and the promoting bureaucrat (Cecropia) also voted to support and posted a banner which drew attention to the vote in the day preceding it. I'd like to open this subject up for comment here. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

  • I concur. I don't think there was consensus here. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Having examined the issue of a user I did not know about until after the nomination was posted, I "voted" at the very end to explain my reasoning in promotion. Without my vote it was over 75% which is still above the low end of ordinary Bureaucrat discretion. I deferred my decision for more than 12 hours to give another bureaucrat (at least two of whom were aware of the nomination and controversy) a chance to act. When I ran for bureaucrat I specifically said that I would make tough decisions rather than let nominations "hang" and take the heat if need be. The banner I posted was non-prejudicial and had nothing to do with any knowledge (pro or con) of the particular candidate. The appropriateness of such a banner has been overwhelmingly affirmed on this very page above.
I feel this is yet another Wikitempest in a Wikiteapot, but everything is open for discussion here so I have no objection to one, but if we're going to discuss this matter, I will assert two points: I was well within my rights and duties as bureaucrat to decide on the promotion. I could leave it go at that as User:Raul654 did when he made such a decision on a more controversial promotion (and I supported him in it), but I don't mind explaining my decisions within reason, as it promotes confidence in the process. My second point in discussion would be to open the question of Netoholic's interest in:
  • taking such a special interest in this nomination;
  • removing my appropriate banners twice on his opinion that they were against policy, even after being challenged on it;
  • trying to interpret consensus by his personal standards; and
  • now trying to keep this matter open after the decision has been made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will make an additional comment on Netoholic's note that this was a self-nomination. Editors feel different ways about self-noms—the recent ArbCom election (a very important responsibiity) was all self-noms. On the one hand, self-noms do not have the cachet of being recommended by a known user, but on the other hand are expressing a positive interest in the position and duties of an administrator, something lacking in a number of "sponsored" nominations. At any rate, I expect that voters have already taken into account that self-noms are just that when they cast their votes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Node's votes

Is anyone else bothered by User:Node_ue opposing every self nomination? It just seems wrong to me. If you don't like self nominations, then move for them to be disallowed. Self nom is "being bold". Many self nominators could ask another editor to nominate them, but why should it be necessary? --Ben Brockert 04:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Users are allowed to vote however they please. Enough said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Exactly so. Someone can vote against someone because they don't like their username. And the bureaucrats are allowed to consider the reasoning behind votes in close circumstances. More than enough said? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. It sounds like Node's votes will be given less weight because you do not find his objections substantive. Or do I misunderstand your meaning? Michael Ward 06:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what it means. To put it bluntly, if you oppose for a stupid reason (doing stupid things is Node's specialty), a bureaucrat is fully within his powers give your objection no heed. That was the result of the bureaucrat poll (which defined the position). →Raul654 06:41, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
        • That bit about Node doing stupid things as a specialty was particularly unhelpful. I actually think you really hurt his feelings over that one, and so it was totally unwarranted. I'm surprised at you Raul! You are usually pretty good about these things :( Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I distinctly recall a case in which this rule was ignored... ahem... ::looks around with blank look on face:: ugen64 06:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • This sort of thing can easily be handled. Just vote in favor to balance his vote out. I recall doing the same thing with an equally silly idea some time ago, and I haven't seen said person objecting on those grounds recently. Ambi 08:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Say, Ambizzle, you wouldn't be referring to MOI, would you? For if you are I shall inform you that I have NOT discarded my standards, I've only not been as interested in RfA lately. Psht! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 09:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Ambi's right. Opposing all self-nominations is just as silly as having arbitrary cutoffs like you have, blankfaze. Maybe it's time you realise that numbers of edits are not always a reliable indicator of suitability for adminship. - Mark 00:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure about that - I think it's a good judge of character. I have even been asked to nominate other people before, and that is fine, but I cannot in good conscience support the nomination of somebody who has nominated themselves. For me it sets off a red flag, "I might have ulterior motives for wanting to become an admin", but that alone isn't enough for me to oppose. However, it also says to me "I need this now. I cannot wait for somebody else to nominate me, possibly because nobody would anyways." Of course sometimes there are good reasons for that. But then it also says to me, "I personally believe I should be a sysop, and I'm going to shout it to the world rather than keeping it inside until somebody else says it first", which to me just says something about that person's character and I don't believe they would make a good sysop. But that's just what I think. I would, however, appreciate it if bureaucrats could respect my opinion rather than saying "Hmm, that Mark guy, his opinion sounds silly to me, so I'll just ignore it". In many cases, I am the sole person opposed to that person's RfA, and unless a very small number of people voted, that shouldn't cause a problem. --Node 23:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • To reiterate (yet again) your vote is not deprecated, ignored, reduced, discounted. But if a decision has to be made, the reasoning given behind votes pro and con for a specific candidate will be considered on their merits, while a vote without comment, or a vote pro forma can't be examined in any depth. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • No, they aren't. Not always. But in conjunction with other standards they provide a base for judging suitability. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • "Voting in favor to balance his vote out" doesn't work. The votes are more by percentage than majority; adding one useless vote against a person and one useless vote for them would change a 9:2 vote, 81.8%, to 10:3, 76.9%. But more than that, I don't want to vote for someone just because someone else voted against them. --Ben Brockert < 01:20, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • Node has voted oppose in Anárion's RFA without stating a reason. I have two follow-up questions based on the responses above: (a) are votes without explanations also discounted as unsubstantive, and if so does this differ by support/oppose? (b) are votes by certain users given less (or more) weight than votes by others based upon their reputations? Michael Ward 07:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, that is rather idiotic odd. People that vote "support" or "oppose" for a questionable reason without giving their reason apparently are more credible than people who vote "oppose", but actually outline their reasoning. ugen64 04:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat (albeit a fairly inactive one....sorry Cecropia, you're usually too efficient for me to notice a need to promote!) and someone who's been around a while, I hope my opinion will be welcome (and be warned, I feel a lengthy thought on its way). Node has the right to oppose on principle all self-nominations, but as Raul said (a bit too rudely, I agree with Ta bu), bureaucrats have the right to treat the vote as having less of an impact. The reason is related to my response to Michael Ward's questions. What is too often forgotten here is that voting is evil (see also m:Polls are evil), and we really need to avoid using it where we can. What wikis depend upon is the idea of consensus -- a mutually agreed-upon end. RFA's goal (in an ideal sense) is to find consensus -- supporters should take opposers' ideas seriously, and vice versa. Gradually, a consensus should form that yes, a person's good qualities outweigh concerns and make them a suitable admin, or no, their personal issues are too great to entrust them with these powers. So when someone doesn't give an explained objection, or gives a generally unreasonable objection, their contribution to consensus building is not so good, and their vote shouldn't weigh as heavily when a bureaucrat (ideally a trusted judge of community opinion) arrives to decide if consensus has reasonably been achieved. When I vote to support, I always try to explain why -- the only times I don't are when someone is obviously being promoted, or when I am less certain in my support (and am therefore fine with my support vote being treated as less weighty). When I vote to oppose, I always explain why because I'm opposing the consensus that was beginning to build (obviously at least one person thought there would be consensus to make the nominee an admin, if not many more) and I need to help steer that consensus. Yes, this page has become structured as a voting booth, but I still believe we need to do what we can to restrict how slavishly we follow a "count the votes" model here. As far as Node's votes, if Node believes all self-nominations are bad, I, as a bureaucrat, need a good explanation of why from Node -- otherwise, while I will certainly "count his vote", if the vote seems close, his vote won't be taken as a serious objection to the candidate in the way that someone voting "Was rude to me twice and broke the revert rule on this page" would be. I would not, however, discount a vote "simply because it was Node's" -- the only votes discounted because of their origin are anonymous votes (or obvious sock puppet votes), and honestly if an anon said something that wasn't a personal attack or sheer rudeness I'd read it and consider it. Even if I don't like a user, or I think of them as a troll, I don't think I have the right as a bureaucrat to dismiss them from consideration.

In conclusion, the ultimate rule to follow (in my opinion) is always to explain your vote and help build consensus about a candidate, in order to make this place more harmonious and less factionalized. That's my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 08:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that Jwrosenzweig's comment is extremely insightful, and clears up a lot of my outstanding questions and concerns about the RfA process. Andre (talk) 08:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very helpful. I think it would be very useful to provide a synopsis of this response on the project page. The current write-up under 'Rules' doesn't communicate these thoughts very well, making it sound more like a traditional vote. Michael Ward 17:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this an example of what's argued against on Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? If Node wants self-nomination to be removed, he should try to change the policy, not vote against all self-nominations blindly. -℘yrop (talk) 18:59, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Voting against an RfA isn't disrupting Wikipedia. And I don't want self-nomination to be removed, at least not actively. I think it's a bad idea, but I simply would like to register my opinion in some RfA votes that I don't think the adminship was a good idea for the reasons I explained above. At a later time, I can refer back to it and say "I voted against that person's adminship" for whatever reason. --Node 23:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that opposing every single self-nomination in order to show everybody how much you dislike the system is pretty much pointless. I'm sorry, but it's what I think. We all have the right to vote how we please (as long as the rules are being followed), but I believe common sense should be stronger sometimes.
Wait, wait, wait. This isn't to show other people anything. It's to keep a record that I opposed specific nominations for a specific reason. My vote is a vote is a vote, no matter what my justification. --Node 23:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, in response to BLANKFAZE's first comment, that is true indeed, but if you come to think of it, every user on Wikipedia is allowed to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean we'll just sit down and let Wikipedia get engulfed into chaos.--Kaonashi 20:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey

I was looking for a way of saying this without having to create a topic here, but I can't think of many different ways of doing that. Anyway, I just want to thank all of you who supported me with my nomination. Really, I appreciate it.

That's all. May you have a Merry Christmas. =]

--Kaonashi/Mackeriv 23:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Weighting RfA Votes

I hardly think I can add anything to Jwrosenzweig's lucid and excellent discussion, but since the original question was in response to my comment, I will anyway. ;-)
I will not discard or devalue anyone's vote, including Node's, as long they meet the requirement that they be from signed-in editors. People vote for and against for all kinds of reasons, good and bad, and I don't feel it's up to the bureaucrat to pick and choose which votes to count. However, when the final result in is the area where a bureaucrat is expected to use discretion, the entire body of votes and their underlying reasoning need to be considered. So to put a positive spin on it, shouldn't a bureaucrat in those circumstances give more weight to a voter who writes: "Candidate UltimateTroll has persistently vandalized user pages of Wikipedians he dislikes" and gives examples that the 'crat finds are accurate than one who simply writes: "He's a self-nom" or "fewer than 5,000 edits doesn't meet my standards"? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think any bureaucrat that admits wieghing one person's vote more than another, for reasons they may not personally agree with, should be subject to "re-election". In essence, you are also saying that a vote of "Oppose" with no explanation is more valuable than one that says "Oppose, not enough edits". Do you also weigh "Keep" votes using similar standards? What if one user votes "Support - s/he patrols RC, handles conflict well" and one vote "Support. Down with edit-counting", "Support, I like their user name" or the like. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
If you read what I said, I am not valuing one vote above another. The standard for promotion (as I've said innumerable times) is consensus. The number of votes is a guideline. When the votes fall in the range or under a circumstance where a bureaucrat is expected to make a decision rather than simply push (or not) a button, the number of votes then becomes secondary to actually evaluating the comments and charges that voters have made, pro and con, and the candidate him/herself. This is what I did, and explained in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni. Obviously, comments like "down with edit counts" and "doesn't meet my personal standards" and not very useful when push comes to shove. In that case, the most constructive comments must be looked at and evaluated, and the exact numbers are immaterial.
I clearly said above "I will not discard or devalue anyone's vote, including Node's, as long they meet the requirement that they be from signed-in editors." I also did not say I discount votes for reasons of personal agreement, so kindly do not put words in mouth. In you have doubt as to the "essence" of what I'm saying, ask me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As has already been noted, adminship requests are not a vote, so "weighting votes" is beside the point. I know that Cecropia uses the 75-80% range as the "judgement required region," but even that isn't set in stone. If I remember correctly, plenty of editors felt that the range should be higher, lower, or wider. Numbers are not the point; the point is to determine whether Wikipedia will benefit by a user becoming an admin. Isomorphic 08:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the guidelines for self-nominations

Yep. Please review my edit, here's the diff for your convenience, and please also read my argument in the discussion section for self-nominator Edward. Feel free to revert or improve the guidelines.--Bishonen | Talk 18:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to your changes; I think they refer to a shift in sentiment on self-noms. I think self-noms have both a plus and a minus relative to sponsored nominations: the plus is that they show a positive interest in the position, something which has not always been present in sponsored nominations; the minus is that voters don't have the advantage of seeing the nominee associated with another Wikipedian whom they may be familiar with, good or bad. But on balance I think self-noms should be considered on their merits as should sponsored noms. Just my personal 2c. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also have no objection to the changes, but... The diff you supplied is for a RfC page that appears totally irrelevant. Is that an accident? Or is there some connection I'm not seeing? Tuf-Kat 21:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
You're kidding. No, you're not. I'm very sorry, that would have been quite a connection. Not that it's not an interesting and gruesome RfC, but I didn't at all mean to link to it, thanks very much for pointing it out. I've fixed it now, I hope. (Tested it.)--Bishonen | Talk 22:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I tend to feel that the "many hundreds" bit may be outdated I have a hard time imagining a self nom getting through with under a thousand edits. Geni 23:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, be bold, change it to reflect current practice.--Bishonen | Talk 00:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As usual, I like Bishonen's work. And "many hundreds" is really not that bad of a way to say "quite a lot" here; saying a specific number like a thousand makes it sound too much like that's some magic threshold. --Michael Snow 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote Threshold

I noticed that the threshold for approving a RfA was edited from 80% to 72-80%. I don't disagree with this edit, but I was wondering how the range was chosen. Given the petty or trivial reasons that some users list for opposition, wouldn't a 2/3rds majority be more fair. With the current range, a few people in opposition can outvote many in support. Carrp 17:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoever made that edit does not know what (s)he is talking about. When the beauracrat poll was taken, a large number the poll options that got by far and away the most votes were 75%+ or 80%+. So above 80% is safe. Below it is beauracrat's discretion. →Raul654 18:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Carrp 18:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote here link

A couple of times now, the "Vote here" link in the nomination template has been removed. I consider it a very helpful aid, and use it often. Please don't remove it. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Why do you use it, when the edit section link works? The link has disadvantages in both form and function. It's ugly, and it is another place that Username has to be replaced. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Some people have section editing disabled in preferences, so the "Vote here" link is necessary, I'm afraid. --Michael Snow 17:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving instructions from template space

The instructions were recently copied from Template:RfAInstructions to the page, and the template was put up for deletion. I asked there, and I'll ask here: How are the attribution requirements of the GFDL satisfied when something like this is deleted? Does the page history of the template need to be merged into the page history of the page it's merged into? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Minor formatting change

If nobody objects, I'd like to add ---- at the end of Candidate questions - I think it would greatly improve the readability of RFA. Any objections? -- Ferkelparade π 08:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it's such a trivial change that I'll just go ahead and add it :P -- Ferkelparade π 08:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since the questions aren't included in every nom, putting it there isn't the best way to get it on the page. Previously, people would add a horizontal rule between each nomination, accomplishing the same thing. I'm going to remove it from the template, and add it to the page and instructions. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:48, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

A Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy?

Can we have a moratorium on those tedious votes that crop up frequently in the following format?

Oppose, because User:SomeGuy supports, and I User:SomeGuy is my arch-nemesis.

Except in cases of supposed sockpuppetry, these votes are completely irrational, only serve to cause pointless bickering, and are completely unnecessary. If anything, as User:Ta bu shi da yu suggested, they could be posted in the comments section rather than the vote section. I know that some of these people think that they're being really funny by putting these things here, and some people are pushing agendas, but this is just not the place for either of those. I don't know if we need to go as far as to put something in the admin voting policy, but at the very least can we all just agree that the joke/rhetoric is very tired and needs to be laid to rest? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually placing it into policy will only result in these votes turning into a simple "Oppose", and any attempt to point out that "User:StalkingTroll has been following User:BlockingAdmin around and harassing him for weeks" will quickly degenerate. A better solution would be for the tallying bureaucrat to just quietly ignore such obviously bad-faith votes. —Korath (Talk) 19:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
"A Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy" makes as much sense as "A Friend of My Friend is My Friend". Maybe the bureaucrats should also discount votes like "so-and-so's support is good enough for me". Gzornenplatz 19:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
"Better solution" isn't remotely the same as "good solution", obviously. And I would hope that people could come up with better reasons to support a candidate, as well. —Korath (Talk) 19:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
The problem I see with placing this in voting policy is that there might be situations where a vote like "Cannot support nomination by User:ObviousSockpuppet" might actually make sense. If anything is added to the policy, it should be that bureaucrats can discount such votes on their discretion - and yes, I agree with Gzornenplatz that that should go for support votes as well as oppose votes. One should assume it would be common sense to only vote for or against candidates one has some personal knowledge of... -- Ferkelparade π 20:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucrats should count all the votes (except for proven sockpuppets). There is also a 72-80% band, or whatever, where they are allowed to exercise their judgment. No doubt the "I'm opposing because my enemy's supporting" and "I'm supporting because my friend's supporting" are comments that a bureaucrat in that position bears in mind, jguk 21:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The comments are optional, and not relevant in determining the votes for, against and neutral with regards a RfA. I don't think that RfA policy has to be changed. I was not aware of RfA policy that you had to have a so-called "legitimate" reason to support/oppose/neutral. i agree that reasons given may irritate some users, but that is totally irrelevant. I may vote against every new RfA because I think there are too many admins. That is not a reason to ignore my vote. I think that trying to squeeze out oppose votes, politicking the process itself is very dangerous. Almost as dangerous as the lack of explicit de-sysop policy. --Mrfixter 01:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Too many admins" is more legitimate, I think. And Mrfixter, the principle at RFA for years (well, over 18 mos., at least) has been consensus. Comments are necessary to help determine consensus. While RFA has come to be handled as a "straight vote" most of the time, the numbers offered are merely a rough approximation of what the community considers to be "consensus". In borderline cases, the bureaucrats are empowered (and always have been) to use the good judgment that the community believes them to have (otherwise they wouldn't have been promoted). We try not to exercise said judgment and when we do, we do it carefully. Or rather, those that do, do it carefully, since I haven't promoted anybody in several months (sorry Cecropia!). Jwrosenzweig 01:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I welcome you to start writing a de-sysop policy. I think it would be a very interesting process. I do agree with DDG that party line voting on RfA is annoying. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of bureaucrats having discretion in deciding what consensus means. What is being talked about is an attempt by some to de-legitimize perfectly legitimate votes. As is stated You may add a short comment to your vote - surely the may is important? If a vote is close, sure that bureaucrat has discretion in deciding what "consensus" means, but not in disregarding votes, apart from proved sockpuppet votes. Direct me to explicit policy if I am mistaken...
Thanks for welcoming me to start writing de-sysop policy. I don't really know how to start a policy, wanna help? It can't be any worse than this. --Mrfixter 01:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'll help, but not tonight. That's a start, at least, with some good links; for further reference you can look into the history of RfA when there actually was a requests for de-adminship section. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, OK so it's pretty clear that we shouldn't change the actual policy to stop these FoE votes, and that they should be counted as votes; that's probably the right thing to do- I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic, as it was really irritating me. Maybe the best course of action for the rest of us is just to leave the votes as they are and not respond to them. Right now, after each FoE vote, there are two or three trailing comments from people who get mad at them; maybe we should all just try to avoid commenting on them, as part of a Do not feed the trolls policy. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:53, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think not responding to them is a good idea. Or if you want to respond, respond in the comments section, if only on grounds of neatness. --Mrfixter 19:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"To nominate someone (including yourself)"

I maintain that oneself is, in fact, someone, and as such does not need to be specified. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fancruft. silsor 06:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, nice remark. I, however, maintain that the purpose of including the "yourself" part was to specify that "anyone, even yourself, can be nominated".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • While that's logically true, the clarification is useful. Kind of like prescription medication that reads "can be taken with or without food." Andre (talk) 16:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was just clarifying... You don't need to vote about it.  :-) - Omegatron 17:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA redirect

I think it is high time to move the shortcut to something else. RFA is too confusing of a redirect because of Requests for arbritration. Personally, it's easier to type adminship over arbritration, so the redirect should have been given to arbritration. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

problem is that there are a lot of places that link through WP:RFA[1]Geni 12:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

jguk's new admin criterion

Just announcing my new admin criterion. The criterion is that the candidate must have helped get an article up to featured article status. Some of the reasoning is on the page I've linked to, but could be developed further, jguk 14:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um... we kind of need more janitors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you choose not to support (ie. vote neutral or abstain) any candidate that doesn't meet your standards, I don't have a problem with that. However, I strongly disagree if you actually vote to oppose a candidate based on the fact that they haven't developed an article into a FAC. It's especially serious because one oppose vote can cancel out three or four support votes if the level of support must be 70-80%. Carrp | Talk 16:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You might want to make use of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, where others have documented their criteria. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Will do, Netoholic. I disagree with Carrp that it's serious in a bad way. I am stating quite clear what criterion I base my vote on and candidates for admin can, if they so choose, look to meet that criterion before becoming candidates. I note my reasons for it on my subpage, and as we have well over 300 admins and one admin per 400-500 users, I think we can afford to be picky, jguk 19:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the policy itself, but I do believe that it would be more appropriate to vote "neutral" rather than "oppose". It's fair to withold your support for any reason, but I don't think it's fair to oppose a candidate due to a personal policy. Carrp | Talk 19:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I will consider it, though I do note that those who have a personal policy of X edits or Y months often do oppose a candidate due to a personal policy. Kind regards, jguk 20:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And those who do so and don't have the now fairly standard 1000 edits/3 months criteria are widely criticized for it. Snowspinner 20:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Everyone's bound to have different criteria for support, but I feel a little concerned about this one for the simple reason that -despite becoming an administrator myself with a vote of 44-0 (with one neutral), and having now over 15,000 edits, I have yet to take part in any one featured article. Surely it's far more important to write 100 very good articles than help in a process of getting one to excellent status. Grutness|hello? 01:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jguk, I must also ask you to reconsider your guidelines. While helping to bring an article up to FA status is a big plus when considering if someone should be an admin or not, it should not be the only consideration, and failing to have done so should not count against candidates if they have otherwise shown that they grok Wikipedia. If you must, I would also encourage you to vote neutral rather than oppose if someone does not meet this guideline. I also have to disagree with your assessment that we have plenty of admins. Notices about various backlogs on WP:AN are new enough that they haven't been archived yet, and my own gut feeling is that we could probably use at least twice as many people with rollback and blocking abilities on RC patrol and vandalism hunting at any given time. - RedWordSmith 02:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't even consider being involved in creating an FA to be that big a plus when considering RFA noms, as I'd prefer not to distract heavy content contributors with the 'keys to the janitor's closet'. Despite having been here for over a year, and an admin for about 9 months, I only just recently helped get San Jose, California featured, and others had done all the 'heavy lifting' before I got there--I just worked on addressing the two main objections: 1) 'Too many redlinks', so I knocked out a quick couple dozen stubs, and 2) 'Too many long lists', so some I summarized and moved the detail to a sub-page, one I broke into shorter categorized lists, and one or two I put just enuf words in between the links to turn it into prose. The vast majority of my 15,000+ edits are various 'housekeeping' tasks, including Vfd participation and reverting vandalism (even before I got the 'rollback' link). That's the sort of editors I would most want to see become admins. Also, I think the number of admins is misleading, as not all admins actively do the housekeeping the admin tools facilitate. I also agree with the similar points raised by jpgordon and Alai below, and Grutness, above. And, yes, I think we need more people doing RC and newpages patrol, altho', while having the rollback link is handy on RC, and blocking is good to be able to do on occasion, either can be done by non-admins. Niteowlneils 05:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if I understand it correctly, the bureaucrat creating the administrator has some leeway, no? In that case, a wise bureaucrat would simply look at jguk's vote and disregard it for having no particular relevance to the process. Becoming an admin is not, after all, a popularity contest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps having helped with a FA should be a criteria in some sort of Wikipedian promotion/award scheme (don't ask me which, now, or what sort of as-yet-non-existent variety, mind you), why should it be connected with becoming a sysop? That's not intended to be a 'reward for performance' per se, and nor do the associated duties require puissance with the ol' purple prose -- rather one needs people prepared to do essentially routine tasks, and one needs to be confidence they're unlikely to abuse the extra 'features' to which they're given access. Alai 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Like what, a respective editor's status? That considerations of their merit should be weighted before we ban them from editing? -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in a couple of FAs, I'd just like to say that I really fail to see what that has to do woth being a sysop. I'm a 'heavy content editor' in the sense that I work on a smallish number of articles to some depth, which involves a lot of background reading, and end up with little enough time to do janatorial duties, to my shame. Filiocht 12:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Too many sysops... Not enough sysops... Mini-sysops?

I appreciate this isn't something it'd necessarily be possible to do right away due to technical issues, even if everyone thinks it's brilliant idea (hah!), but just to float the idea: if some people think there are too many sysops, and other people think there's the lack of sysops to perform specific sysop-only tasks, would it be a good idea to split up the permissions (to a greater or lesser extent) and create 'mini-sysops' able to do those specific required tasks, without necessarily having the full generality of the Mighty Admin Powers -- such as they are? For example, if there's concern about the use of blocking powers, give those out less freely, if there's a need for people able to implement page-move/page-deletion votes more speedily, give those out more readily. Alai 03:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It all seems like a violation of the "should not be a big deal" principle. The system seems to be working currently, no need to introduce more complexity. Rhobite 04:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
blocking isn't a problem since it will be noticed.Geni 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I remember hearing at one point that MediaWiki was going to be getting fine grained security permissions. Anyone know what happened here? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mediwiki 1.4, which we are currently using, does support fine grained permissions. However, this was implimented for the benefit of other sites using mediawiki. There are, as yet, no plans to grainulate powers on wikipedia (except perhaps to give the arbcom and/or stewards the ability to check for socks instead of a developer doing it); when it was suggested, a large number of people (myself included) vehemently opposed it. →Raul654 16:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't introducing fresh criteria for becoming a sysop, and simultaneously dealing with complaints that there aren't enough, already straining the 'no big deal' principle, however? Anyhoo, just a thought. Alai 04:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that mini-sysops are possible, but I'm not sure we should introduce that complexity. I mean, I could see a possibility that (say) 2/3 would make a mini, and 80% a full, but if the objections preventing someone from being a full are substantive, then maybe they shouldn't have any sysop abilities.
I would prefer full or nothing, and if a sysop abuses things like blocks and deletes, they should have to stand for another vote, as recently happened. Just my 2c. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there will be additional levels of permission available in MW 1.5, but I agree with Cecropia: we have enough bureaucracy as it is; no need for further levels of complexity. — Dan | Talk 04:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Alai, you have a point. I think the post-your-criteria meme is detrimental to the RFA process, but most people seem to be OK with it. In my opinion RFA should be more of a common sense thing and less of a checklist. Agree with Cecropia though, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to move away from the all or nothing model. Admins understand that abuse of power will result in losing all of their privileges. Rhobite 05:24, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
The only feature I can see that would be useful to a "mini-sysop" would be the rollback feature. I wouldn't mind so much of allowing users who part take in RC patrol to have the rollback feature. It's kind of the idea that you give a small power, for not that big of a required responsibility. I would support for the implementation of an "RC" level user. Giving the rollback feature is still a responsibility -- a responsibility that they do not abuse the power. Giving it to all users is a bad idea because edit wars would be rollback wars and that would be problematic for the system. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to provide some data: meta:Administrators of various Wikipedias list the ratio of admins to users for various wikipedia, raning from ~50 users/admin (Swedish wiki) to ~1000 users/admin (spanish wiki), with 420 users/admin on the english wiki. Some smaller wikis may even have ratios of 7 users/admin. Just for the info. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Having followed this and a lot of other cooperative internet projects for some time, I chiefly agree with Cecropia and Rhobite. I see no need for implementing Alai's idea right now. If Wikipedia has problems in need of fixing, which I imho think, then this surely isn't one of them. Cheers! --Johan Magnus 08:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isn't saying that there are too many sysops a bit like saying there are too many trusted users? Filiocht 09:29, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

An overal comment is that the problem is not so much the number of admins but the number of admins who carry out admin duties. I'm not sure how this number can be increasedGeni 04:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be more explicit that the status is for the purpose of carrying out said duties... (The one 'meme' there can be little arguing over is the 'what duties would you help out with'.) Perhaps a de-sysopping procedure would underline the intended relationship between the two. Alai 05:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's no harm in having a veteran contributor with rarely-used sysop rights, is there? Remember there are no sysop duties here. Sysops are not required to actively exercise their powers. Rhobite 05:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, I'm suggesting perhaps there's an argument they should be. I don't know though, I'm really just trying to explore the design space here. Are there too few admins; too many; not enough chore-performing by the existing cadre? (Based largely on the comments here, not on direct personal experience.) Alai 05:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are a number of posible causes of harm. Every increase in the number of admins increases the posibility of someone getting hold of one of the passwords (imagain a deletion bot thrown at the images section). It gives a false impression of the real number of active admins. Admin powers are more likely to be used incorrectly since the user has less reason to keep an eye on procedure and rule changes. It makes it more difficult for users to know who to contact. It means that adminship becomes more of a status thing rather than clearly being a janitorial roleGeni 05:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is no real way to ensure that someone will actually use their sysop powers in a janitorial way once actually promoted. It's just guesswork, based on their previous contributions, and they can't be held to it, unless of course my re-election proposal mentioned at Wikipedia:Super-user is adopted. Rad Racer | Talk 18:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

I'd like to ask for any feedback on the process I've outlined on this page. I understand that this is a controversial issue, but I also see that we have no consensus-based way of removing sysop status. Indeed, it seems that the only method that has been done in the past is via the dispute resolution process. Certainly, gaining adminship should be "no big deal", and removing it should be, but it should not be impossible.

I am concerned that as certain admins come to understand that there is no easy way of removing their access, those which have a disposition toward conflict and policy violation do not have a "compensating control". The process I've outlined mirrors very closely the process for gaining adminship, requiring a consensus for support of the request. I've also proposed a petition system (requiring at least ten signers) to prevent gross abuse of the de-adminship process. I welcome comments and suggestions on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

There is no "requests for de-adminship" process, so this is all irrelevant. You want to create such a link, then there must first be community approval of such a process, which there currently is none. Bumm13 04:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sure there is. It's documented in the above link. Please visit it's talk page to follow-up this conversation. Remember, WP:RFA wasn't a process that was ever "ratified" by the community... the community "ratifies" it after each successfull nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:24, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RFA

Note: I've moved this discussion from my talk page, so anyone interested can read and comment. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would have left Tony's nomination up a while longer. It was right on the borderline, as I figure it. Promotion in that instance seems questionable. Everyking 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it did seem pretty close to the nominal 80%. The reasons given for opposing and the manner in which I addressed them, and my consequent success in persuading 20% of the opposers that they were mistaken, suggest that David's comments on my nomination were well chosen, however. I will take due notice of all comments on my RFA, though. This was a rather more controversial candidacy than we've seen in a while--most are either straight accepts or rejects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was about to start a section on this, and I see it's already here. I don't have anything against Tony personally (my reasons for voting Oppose were stated) but I have no problem with him being an Admin if community consensus supports it... I do not think such consensus exists at this point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia responds: I wrote the following in responsae to Everyking's message above, which pretty much summarizes why I believe consensus was reached:

I see your point on this nomination. However, it was clearly at 80% and had been for some hours. While some of the objections were substantive it seemed that the strong positive vote took those into account, as well as the fact that several "opposes" changed their minds to support ot neutral.
I didn't feel justified in letting this go, considering that it was at 80% on a large base of 60 votes, Post-facto votes one way or the other would have made this more controversial, IMO. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why ek and dante believe this promotion shouldn't have been made—whether they feel I missed something not reflected in the voting. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally I counted 78% positive, but that's not the real issue. My concern was that it seemed clear to me that there wasn't a consensus. The "80%" is just meant to be a guideline with discretion left to the bureaucrat. Unfortunately this highlights a larger concern. As long as there is at least one bureaucrat who feels that the individual should be made an Admin, they will be. There is no system in place for either challenging the promotion or for asking for review of the bureaucrat's actions. Make no mistake, I'm not chastising you for your actions, Cecropia, you did what you felt was appropriate. Just because *I* don't feel there was a consensus does not mean that you don't, or that in fact, there wasn't one. I don't even really have a *strong* objection to Tony's adminship. I just worry that what we're seeing here is a minor shadow of larger potential problems. I wouldn't recommend a review of this issue personally unless it served as a template for resolving future issues. If asked my opinion during said review, I'd recommend Tony keep his adminship and you *not* be admonished... but I must say that I'd like the procedure to exist. Again, while I personally don't feel consensus was reached, I don't feel that you did anything wrong. I'm just not sure that we're going about things the best way possible. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
The vote was 48-12. That's exactly 80%. It would be harder to justify why 80% wasn't a consensus in this case, then to not promote him. My first reaction is that those who opposed the nomination should have made a better case as to why he was not a suitable candidate, so as to have influenced the 48 who voted "for" to either reconsider their votes or abstain. IOW, why weren't the objections of the 12 sufficient to influence the 48? I don't know what the potential problems are that you envision, but there is always the potential of an RfC, as there is with anyone.
Having said all that, I'm considering having a page attached to the RfA where, during the final 24 hours or so, before a promotion is decided upon, those who feel there are special circumstances that a bureaucrat should consider can post their concerns, with diffs, references, whatever. I don't want to encourage a "kitchen sink" page where people simply vent with the usual "he's a troll," "he would abuse his position," etc., but where voters could post issues that they believe should be considered in a close promotion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
48 + 12 + 1 = 61
48 / 61 = 78.7% (I recalled this incorrectly above, it should be rounded to 79%, not 78%)
Of course, like I said, it's not about the specific number, as it is stated that 80% is a guideline. My point about potential problems is that we don't need a REAL consensus if at least one bureaucrat can be convinced that there's consensus. I am NOT saying that this happened here, I'm just saying that the current procedure makes it difficult for "discretion" to be used, as the discretion of those bureaucrats who do NOT promote doesn't seem to matter. What I'd rather see is promotion of Admins being like blocking people... if there's disagreement amongst the Admins about whether someone should be blocked, err on the side of leaving them unblocked. Similarly, if there's disagreement amongst the Bureaucrats that a person should be an Admin, err on the side of them not being Admins. The status quo should prevail, IMO, in questionable cases. After, all, easier to elevate someone a few days late than go through the whole procedure of an RfC.
I'm not sure that "special circumstances" is really the issue here, but I suppose it wouldn't be bad to give it a shot.
--Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the numbers are a "guideline"; however, through many hashings and rehashings, for better or worse, RfA regulars seem to feel most comfortable with the concept that under 75% fails, 80%+ promotes, and between 75%-80% is beuraucrat discretion; also that "neutral" means just that, and isn't considered (on its substance) unless the nomination is in that gray area. As to any one bureaucrat being able to promote, that is true, but that is why the consensus on this page seems to be that this is why we expect higher standards of agreement in approving bureaucrats. It seems to me that the RfA has been fairly quiet and smooth for the last however many months. Very bad bureaucrat calls have been reversed; beyond that I think the thing to do is for interested parties to watch an admin who they deem controversial, and IF their fears are realized, bring an RfC leading to an ArbCom.
I've suggested the possibility of a "special pleadings" page for opponents of a close nomination to make arguments in the last day before a nomination closes. The affected candidate should also have a chance to respond point-by-point if we do that. Another possibility is simple: change the numbers that constitute a "discretionary" promotion to, say, 75%-85%, or 80%-85%, or whatever. But we would need to have some kind of consensus that the community now feels a higher standard should be used. -- 08:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I retracted my vote of opposition following a conversation with Tony because it seemed important to him so I figured wtf; I'd rather retract my vote than have someone hold a grudge, especially over something that doesn't impact my life in a significant way. Personally, in the future, if consensus were to be an even 80% (or less), I'd give some weight to users who retract their votes (and not subsequently support), especially if the nominee is explaining himself to opposers on talk pages. I know many don't care, but perhaps some people don't want to be remembered as the jerk who held so-and-so's admin nomination back. FWIW, someone did solicit users (on the IRC channel) who don't often vote on RFA to go vote for Tony. Perhaps the user who said that was just kidding, but the effect can't be ignored, nor was it surprising (support count increased). This combined with the borderline consensus doesn't paint a pretty picture. I don't contest your decision to promote Tony, but there should be a better guideline than just leaving it (extensions) to the bureaucrat's discretion, "roughly 80%", etc because that will never be applied universally, and something about soliciting votes should be set forth. --jag123 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, here we have another issue: IRC. Personally, I am very opposed to any kind of substantive matter being discussed on IRC, since it violates the Wikipedian goal of transparency. Remember, a bureaucrat can't exercise judgment if things are going on "off the board." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, if I had seen this earlier, I would have promoted Tony Sideaway too, and I believe that Cecropia's promotion was fully justified. Bureecrats are not machines; we're promoted on the basis of having good judgement and we're expected to put it to use. →Raul654 08:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

78.7% is certainly good enough. Withholding promotion would not have been fair, in this case. It would still be nice to see Tony acknowledge the opposition he has met and be especially careful in the areas people have criticized him, especially (but not exclusively, since he is part of the "face of WP" now) when using admin powers. The case may be different if there are allegations that he drummed up support on IRC, at least without making clear that he was doing it. I'm not sure if such allegations are being made, but Tony may dispel them by denying them in any case. dab (ᛏ) 09:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If I wanted to allege or imply that Tony drummed up support, I would NOT have used the words "someone" or "that person", I would have said "Tony". To make it clear: afaik, Tony DID NOT drum up support. The point is not to create more controversy surrounding this particular RFA but hopefully to address the issue of soliciting votes on IRC. --jag123 10:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ok, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, there. Let's forget I said that, then. dab (ᛏ) 12:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is not a numbers game, but I would put the calculation at 80% (exactly): 48 / (48+12) = 0.8. In do not believe that adding neutrals into the total [ 48 / (48+12+1) ] is appropriate because then they are given the same status as an opposition vote. The neutral person might have well voted oppose and given the same calculation [ 48 / (48+13) ]. I know that if I were to vote neutral for someone's RFA, I would not want it calculated as an oppose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. When I vote neutral, I neither support nor oppose the nomination: neutral votes are comments or requests for answers. Neutral votes should not be counted for the percentage, but may be useful if there is a borderline case, in which case each vote should be inspected carefully to see if it is neutral-leaning-towards-support or -oppose. Jordi·✆ 09:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then you are voting improperly, IMO. There is a section called "comments" for comments, which people seem to use. A neutral vote is a VOTE. You can't not count it because "then it's the same as oppose". It's not the same as oppose. The point of counting Support votes is to count the percentage of support votes out of total votes, that's 48 out of 61. The Oppose votes were 12 out of 61. You don't just ignore a neutral vote. It's a VOTE. Now, if you want to change it so that it's called "abstain", that's fine, but right now it's NOT. Now, and I say this AGAIN, it's not about a matter of a given percentage (and this is now at least the 3rd time I've said this), this is about a perceived lack of consensus, and if you want to conflate neutral and oppose votes, that's your business, but the fact of the matter is that there are 61 people who bothered to vote and only 48 of them voted to support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Then explain what neutral votes are weighed as. Either they count, or not. "Comments" are for comments which would otherwise clutter the voting section. Jordi·✆ 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neutral votes, if you want to count them in the vote total, can only be appropriately counted as split (half-support, half-oppose). Kind of like the way ties are sometimes calculated in a sports setting. In this case, 48.5 / 61 = 79.5%. No comment on whether neutral votes should be counted, or whether 79.5% should be treated as rounding up to 80%, or whether 80% should be treated as automatic promotion. We made Cecropia a bureaucrat because we trusted his judgment on matters of adminship promotion, he exercised his judgment in this case, and I for one still trust it. --Michael Snow 19:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. Neutral voters are basically saying "I'll go along with the majority opinion", so if the majority is "support", the neutral votes should be counted as support votes and if the majority is "oppose", the neutral votes should be counted as "oppose" votes. Only when there is a tie between "support" and "oppose" should the neutral votes be counted as split. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
A neutral vote is a neutral vote... there is no magic here. What is so hard to understand about there being 3 options? If 12 people vote Support and 1 votes Neutral, do we say that it was unanimous? Do we call that 100% support? Conversely, if 12 people vote Oppose and 1 votes Neutral, do we say that EVERYONE voted Oppose? Of course not. A neutral vote is a neutral vote. A given percentage of votes (usually zero, looking at the history) are Neutral. They are not Support. They are not Oppose. They are Neutral. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken, Dante. But let's go over the ground rules. Originally (more than a year ago) for, against, oppose or abstain votes weren't even in separate places. Ed Poor, who did most of the promotion (no bureaucrats then either), was expected to read the substance of the comments and with his wisdom and the entrails of a few unfortunate birds, decide to promote or not. When there were a lot more candidates we moved to vote-counting, because humans (male humans especially) like to break things down to numbers. This vote-counting was not without its detractors, and I see their point, too. Now, to "neutral" votes. Yes, they are votes, but they aren't counted in the vote total or percentage, ever. If the voting falls into the area where bureaucrat discretion is needed, then the votes counts and percentage fall by the wayside. The bureaucrats put away their calculators and rummage for their tarot cards and crystal balls. In this instance, the "neutral" votes can count a lot, because the comments in all votes take on importance to devine the sentiment of the community that lies behind the numbers. I'll say again, if the editors who haunt RfA want to broaden the area of bureaucrat discretion, they need to say so. So far, I don't see any such movement. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's not unreasonable as such as a procedure, but if neutral votes "aren't counted in the vote total or percentage, ever", then they're not "votes" in any meaningful sense, whatsoever. If their intended function is as described, it'd be much clearer simple to have a "comments" section/option, not a "neutral" one. Alai 05:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't seen this copy of the discussion before--I thought it was just a discussion on Jim Cecropia's page between me and everyking. I thought it was all done and dusted days ago.

I acknowledge that there was opposition and I take notice of that. It means I still have to work, by responsible use of my administrative powers, to convince those opposers that they were wrong.

Having said that, 48 with 12 dissenting and one neutral seems to me to be a thumping great consensus. But then it's probably just as well that I wasn't running for a bureaucrat position. It was close enough to the nominal "bar" of 80% to raise some questions about how individual bureaucrats make their minds up. We do not need administrators whose actions will divide the community. I do and will continue to exercise my powers conservatively, in the spirit of consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony, FYI I brought this over here since this was being questioned as a matter of policy. I don't see anyone either looking to say I acted improperly or that you shouldn't remain an admin. So far, I haven't seen anything here that would have caused me to withhold promotion in this case, but the general discussion to gauge sentiment of what "consensus" is a useful ongoing discussion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's in the spirit of a Wiki to keep activities open, so I have decided to keep an account of all administrative activity I carry out, in wikified form. Comments on individual items are invited--it's a list so you can just add a comment as a bullet point to the item you're commenting on. Anything major should of course be taken to WP:AN. User:Tony Sidaway/Admin log --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taking this action in the face of debate displays, IMHO, your eminent suitability as an admin. Fair play to you, as we say in Ireland. Filiocht
What Filiocht said, good move. dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's also the Wikipedia log page for you, which shows all blocks, protects and deletes you do, in case people just want to see what you're working on. Noel (talk) 11:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is motivated by any alleged controversy in your Elevation, Tony, I also think this is an excellent idea, as you say for transparency, the "public understanding of sysophood", and general collegiality. Alai 05:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFDA link

I must be missing something here. WP:RFDA is not a functioning process, since there is no community consensus that it should be used. WP:RFA is a functioning process. Therefore, if there is a link to RFDA on this page (which I don't think there should be until it gains consensus), it should at least be marked as a 'proposed policy' or something to that effect - otherwise it's misleading. — Dan | Talk 04:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This seems self-evident. What purpose is achieved by this? Snowspinner 04:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Please bring this conversation to the RFDA talk page. In short, neither RFA or RFDA are "policy" and concensus is proven with each individual nomination. RFDA doesn't seem to have any major problems with the design, and is simply awaiting its first nomination. Getting that is hard to do if people don't allow links to it. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
RFA, on the other hand, is an accepted part of Wikipedia's function. RFDA, on the other hand, is a giant flashing sign that says "TROLLS LOOK HERE," and has been identified as such by many people. Snowspinner 04:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Have any bureaucrats indicated that they will remove admin status from an editor if a vote on RFDA calls for it? —Stormie 04:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Only a steward or a developer can remove admin status. A bureaucrat can add, but not remove admin permissions. Carbonite | Talk 04:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. So, rephrasing my question: have any stewards or developers indicated that they will remove admin status from an editor if a vote on RFDA calls for it? —Stormie 06:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Can we please move this thread to the relevant talk page ? -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
This is the relevant talk page for discussing the addition of a link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. —Stormie 10:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
You have it exactly right, Dan. Netoholic appears to be trying to turn his proposed policy into an active process by some rather disingenuous arguments and actions, while determinedly avoiding putting his proposed policy to any sort of vote to see if it has consensus. Jayjg (talk) 07:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't ascribe motivations to me. The page has been up for a week, and linked from this very talk page. After two days of no additional comments, I've linked it from the main pages of related ones. I have started a straw poll on the talk page, but this does not need "ratification". We need a de-admin process, and this one seems to have a lot of support, having addressed concerns over abuse. It can change over time, like WP:RFA, which itself didn't need a vote to get started. -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
I haven't ascribed motivations, I've described actions; I don't speculate as to why you are doing these things, but I can certainly see that you are doing them. It is your view that we need a de-admin process; to find out if the Wikipedia community agrees, you'll need to put it to a vote. And any new process certainly does need "ratification". Jayjg (talk) 07:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


hello, people? I find this a bit bizarre. Either we link to the page, clearly stating it is a proposal, but one of interest to people visiting this page, or we don't link to it at all. But I don't see the point of putting the link in <nowiki>-tags, making wikisyntax show up and forcing people who want to see the proposal to copy-paste the link. Let's just state what it is, and link to it, maybe somewhere apart from the links to accepted procedure. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the <nowiki>-fied version is silly, this isn't some external spam link that we're trying to disable during a VFD discussion! I think that the link should not be there at all, although I'll refrain from removing it for the moment to allow this discussion to proceed a bit further. —Stormie 10:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, this is ridiculous, I'm making the link inline and clearly marking it as a proposal undergoing consideration. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me. —Stormie 20:42, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tour of the Wikipedia namespace

I notice that occasionally there is someone who applies for adminship who is a good editor but has barely touched the Wikipedian namespace. I may be changing my criteria to reject candidates without that experience, but it would be good to give them some pointers to gain familiarity and come back a month later. Is there a page designed to give users a tour of the Wikipedia namespace? I started my own here: User:Rad Racer/Scavenger hunt Rad Racer 13:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added some more - I trust that that is in order. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(0/0/0)

What is this? Do we leave this alone in voting?--Jondel 02:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a tally of votes (support/oppose/neutral). Neutralitytalk 02:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
When you vote, you update the total. Or if you forget, some kind soul is always nice enough to do it for you. Not that I've ever forgotten to update the tally, oh no. Joyous 02:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Edit counts by namespace

For the past two weeks or so, I've been including a count of main namespace edits on nominations. (Ben Brockert used to do this, along with witty observations about the nominees' user pages that I couldn't hope to emulate, but he seems to be largely inactive these days.) Is this useful or annoying? Should I continue? And is it worth expanding to a complete breakdown of contributions by namespace? (e.g., JoeExample has 3000 edits: 1500/200 to articles/talk, 800/100 to Wikipedia:/talk, 100/200 to User:/talk, etc.) (Oh, and for those wondering, I find the counts with links like this.) —Korath (Talk) 04:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. And useful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's useful for the edit counters. Total, talk and article count in particular. Inter\Echo 09:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is indeed useful for the edit counters. Edit counters however, are people who should be shot on sight. ;-) Kim Bruning 10:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's useful information, Korath. There have been a couple of people promoted who, in one case, had made almost no edits to the encyclopedia, but only to talk pages, and in another case, the opposite. Having an overview of the number of edits made to articles versus talk would be helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is indeed useful for the edit counters. Edit counters however, are people who should be shot on sight. ;-) Kim Bruning 10:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Twice? Isn't that a bit excessive. Then again, whose counting. Filiocht | King of Regulars 10:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Touchè. Inter\Echo 18:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)