Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 173

Alternative proposal for "Immediate Aftermath" scenarios
In some parliamentary procedures, anyone voting "yes" on an item may "move to reconsider" the item within a specified time of its passing. The motion to reconsider has to be approved before the item can be reconsidered.

Now, an RFA is not a vote. But there is a general minimum level of support below which a 'crat will not promote, and a higher number where he will almost always support. In practice, each 'crat has his own range and each RFA is unique.

How does this sound:


 * If, within 7 days of a successful RFA, the closing 'crat receives enough "withdrawal of support" or "now opposing" notifications from people who the 'crat counted as supportive that the person no longer meets the 'crat's minimum criteria for support, the closing 'crat may, at his discretion, ask the opinions of other non-involved 'crats and if they collectively may declare a do-over of the RFA.

Why 7 days? Because that's the time period of an RFA. I'm not married to it but it sounds rational.

While I'm not entirely happy with the power this gives to the closing crat to sweep things under the rug, I think we can trust the 'crats to use good judgment and not abuse that power. If we can't, we've got bigger issues.

A little disclaimer: I would be happier if all admins were either term-limited like arbitrators or at least subject to recall, and that no doubt colors my views on this issue.

Here's some advantages and disadvantages I see over the current system of "once you are in, you are in:"

Advantages over status quo:
 * Solves the "supporting early with incomplete information, but didn't check at the last minute" problem.
 * Adds more encouragement of full disclosure. The current long time window already does this so this is only a small advantage.

Disadvantages over status quo:
 * Introduces more politics, as people may game the timing of the release of unfavorable information to disrupt the RFA process itself and waste people's time.
 * More opportunity that a 'crat or the 'crats as a whole may be accused of favoritism or picking on someone if he makes a close call to uphold an RFA or take action in the face of post-close changes.
 * More work for 'crats, as if they aren't busy enough as it is.

By the way, while I favor this over the status quo, given the few number of people who would be affected by this I can live with the status quo.

What are your thoughts on this?

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Wikipedia is not a Democracy and the above is promoting a vote system by making the current vote system "better". If people want to put forth one statement and then change their mind later, chances are they should never have put down the original statement. Until people put more thought into their statements (especially when many support without rationales), then the system wont be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, it sounds like a good idea to leave RFAs open for a couple days longer in case a pile-on of opposes surface ... but the moment a problem makes it past that few day period we will be right here again. ZabMilenko 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. There has to be a time when the promotion is confirmed, and you could extend it forever like this. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have processes bureaucracy for dealing with this sort of thing. RFC.  ArbCom. We don't need to make things more convoluted. If you feel you were mislead and want to change after closure, you need to follow the dispute resolution processes. per above as well.  Dloh  cierekim  14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose A user should either research better before commenting or follow the proper processes. I don't see much to gain from doing this, and I see a lot of problems that could arise.  hmwith  τ   14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2 for "Immediate Aftermath" scenarios
I. Extensions of RFAs:  In the event of clear changes from support to non-support late in an RFA, 'crats may extend the RFA by up to 3 1/2 from the time unfavorable information becomes part of the RFA.

II. All new administrators will be subject to recall during the first 7 days in office. If a recall effort is launched, the recall must be concluded within 7 days of the start of the recall effort. Any such recall effort must be based on verified information not known during the RFA and the recall effort must be supported by at least one non-involved 'crat and at least one person who supported the candidate during the RFA.

Again, while this pair of changes is better than the status quo, I can live with the status quo.

What are your thoughts on this?

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there an ongoing problem this is trying to fix? RxS (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is vastly inferior to getting a working system of desysopping or at least of review of admin behaviour. Rd232 talk 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the process becoming more hopelessly bureaucratic than it already is.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support part I - a no-brainer; assumed crats already had this discretion (though to clarify, it's 3 1/2 days, correct?). As for part II, what sort of recall process are we talking about here? A "do-over" RfA, or something else? -kotra (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (struck support as per own comment below) -kotra (talk)
 * Recall always carries with it an air of ambiguity and consternation, since there's no way to really enforce it. My guess is that it's reconfirmation proposal.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wisdom; we don't need any more bureaucracy. Let the 'crats use their own discretion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly - the first part would simply be done on a case by case basis, which is implicit anyway.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see we already allow for this (and have allowed it for a while): "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer." (WP:RFA) In that case, I agree that further detailing it is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. Support struck. -kotra (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I miss my guess, both proposals seem to be tailored to address a problem which arose shortly after a recent RfA. I'm not convinced that we need to add a lot of complicated bells and whistles to the RfA process in order to deal with something which is apparently a very rare problem.  We already have Arbitration to deal with revocation of admin privileges; there's no need to generate an entirely novel process in response to cases which are exceedingly rare.
 * Of course, if we really wanted to avoid this sort of last-minute, after-the-fact, I-need-more-time, surprise-witness, this-changes-everything, October-surpise, request-a-recess, the-first-voters-don't-know-anything futzing around, there's a very simple and elegant fix. Put the review period at the beginning of the process, not at the end.  Open the discussion five days before the voting starts.  There's time for evidence to come forward and for people to let things percolate.  There's no need for the heat-of-the-moment arguments and edit conflicts, or the threaded bickering in the numbered votes lists.  The candidate isn't trying to desperately answer questions while the votes just keep rolling in.  Add the usual five days for voting, and we get ten days of candidate review &mdash; including five days of pure discussion.  It's been proposed before (not by me).  Maybe someone would like to take up the torch again? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that sounds very sensible to me - discussion before voting. Rd232 talk 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, although 5 additonal days may be too much. 1-3 days of Q&amp;A and "facts only please, no supports, opposes, or neutrals" information-gathering could be useful.  It would also allow people to point out to obvious "not now's" that they should withdraw gracefully without a "tally" showing.  Discussions before voting won't solve 11th-hour or post-!vote issues, by definition, they arrive at or after the 11th-hour. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Experimentation can be a good thing, but the only example we have of holding off on voting for a few days was Ironholds (in December if I remember right?), and the results weren't good. I'm fine with trying it several more times, just to see. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The results weren't good."? Can you be more specific please? Rd232 talk 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-10-13/Experimental_RfA :) &lowast; \ / {talk} 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If an admin doesn't voluntarily recall then a temporary injunction by WP:ARBCOM will be sufficient until they can sort out the details.  ZabMilenko 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one is probably okay, but the second is pointless (as per my oppose to the option above. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose "Scenarios" - the plural implies that this has happened more than once in the past and is likely to happen frequently enough in the future to need its own policy. I don't think that that is the case. Part one is overly restrictive - the crats have discretion to extend RFAs when needed for an appropriate amount of time and have used that appropriately in the past (though it clearly wasn't appropriate for FlyingToaster's RFA, and I don't remember anyone suggesting that that be extended before it closed). Part two is not worth considering unless someone can produce another example from the last 500 RFAs where that might have been invoked for good cause. In the event of part 2 going ahead anyway we would need some way of avoiding spurious and malicious recalls, and if we can come up with that then we might as well implement the recall system for all admins not just those in their first week.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have processes bureaucracy for dealing with this sort of thing. RFC.  ArbCom. We don't need to make things more convoluted. If you feel you were mislead and want to change after closure, you need to follow the dispute resolution processes. per above as well. If the RFA is ongoing, Crat's already have discretion on closure/extension, as happened with Requests for adminship/Joturner 2, where the RFA was extended to "solidify the community consensus".  Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons I stated at the above proposal (diff).  hmwith  τ   14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 3
Wikiversity has a probationary/mentorship period for all sysops (see v:Wikiversity:Custodianship for full details, which I'm not going to retype). I'm not altogether certain it would scale well, but it could address some of the concerns we've seen recently. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partially covered at WP:PEREN methinks.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the staff at Wikiversity, I would recommend not having such a system here. We are a learning project. Wikipedia is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for mentorship and growing into a job, I fear this may suffer from the same bureaucracy creep as the other proposals. At some point, we all must use the common sense the good God gave us.  Dloh  cierekim  14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some perspective
We've had exactly one RfA where support seems to have dwindled in the immediate aftermath of the RfA. Is that a problem that needs fixing? No system is going to work a 100% of the time.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Hopefully we're talking about the same items.  I can only speak for myself, but I'll admit to becoming overly critical in the aftermath.  I felt that I failed to check things out as well as I should have, and my desires to support RfA 1, led to my decisions in following RfAs.  I got caught with my pants down, and I over-reacted because I felt a sense of guilt, meaning I thought I let the 'pedia down.  In one case, I actually went back and changed my !vote because I felt I was being excessively demanding in regards to my own standards.  While adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal, the use of the functions can be.  Perhaps unfairly, an Admin is looked to as some "all-knowing guru", and that really isn't fair.  Of course they are viewed as role models, but perhaps perfection is asking a bit much.  As far as what needs fixing? .. I don't know. I can only say that I'll try to look, to make sure. that a candidate is fully aware of our policies, and that they are civil in the treatment of others. Then I'll try to !vote for what's best for WP in the long run.  If nothing else, I learned something over the past couple weeks.  — Ched :  ?  02:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly would be very unfair if administrators were regarded as "all knowing gurus", not to say criminally naive. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Boy, one might be able to infer a lot of different things from that one Mall. I know that out there in the real world, many cultures hold ignorance as no excuse in regards to breaking the law. (mine included).  I don't know if "criminal" is an aspect that I look for by default here, but I will admit that WP:COPYVIO has to be taken into consideration at all times just because of the legal implications.  As such, I have learned to look for the signs of it, and I'll adjust my viewpoints accordingly.  I'm not willing to pick up my torch and and pitchfork simply due to one not being aware of one of our policies.  I'd hope that a polite Oppose would suffice, rather than echoing any chants of "off with her head".   In regards to the WP:Plagiarism guideline, perhaps the fact that it became a guideline only after the fact, is an indication that we failed as a community, almost as much as any individual who errantly missed that point.  I think I'll stop here, as I may well be traveling a path that wasn't intended to be highlighted. ;) — Ched' :  ?  19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An aside about the plagiarism guideline &mdash; I would caution that while the plagiarism page only recently got the official {guideline} imprimatur, that newish template should not be misunderstood as meaning that strict opposition to plagiarism is a novel attitude on Wikipedia. As with many of our policies and guidelines, WP:PLAGIARISM is simply an attempt to codify preexisting best practices and concisely summarize information that used to be spread out over a number of other documents (particularly WP:CP).
 * Plagiarism never has been an acceptable way to add content to Wikipedia, and editors who get into the habit have been routinely cautioned and (if necessary) blocked until they mend their ways. Regular readers of AN/I probably see such cases every couple of months, when a persistent plagiarist refuses to be guided and needs to be banned.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, without a doubt I agree with you Ten. It simply occurred to me that some editors may only glance at the title and a few words of WP:COPYVIO, and not make the direct connection of plagiarism being a form of violation.  And while I'd don't recall ever listing anything at WP:CP, if I did notice something, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to make use of that process.  I believe that as the WP:PLAGIARISM becomes more popular, well, strike that ... more prominently known and understood, it will help in easing the burden of those who are most active in that area.  I'll admit, I've seen posts from time to time in regards to the issue at ANI, and it always amazes me that some folks just won't get it.  As you suggest, it's definitely something that has to become part of WP:CLUE. — Ched :  ?  15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
I am requesting administration powers on the basis that I have helped Wikipedia with many minor edits to English pages as well as a few major edits. I am requesting powers to delete articles and protect disputed articles. I also plan to block vandals accounts and tackle the ongoing crisis of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe that I will not abuse my powers and use them for the good of Wikipedia and all other users of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan.tang (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Since you posted here, you have also shown that you have not read Requests for adminship/nominate, which is a good indication why you are not ready to become an admin. You might want to read Not now which offers helpful tips in case you want to try again once you have gained more understanding of our processes. Also, please do not forget to sign your messages like this one. Regards  So Why  12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I offer advice here that might be useful. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

More discretion for bureaucrats after an RfA closes as successful
I have a specific suggestion I'd like to make that would alter the RfA process, or at least its aftermath, in certain specific circumstances. Apologies for the length but I'd like to lay out the full case at the outset and let the conversation proceed from there. What I'll put forward is basically an amplification of something User:WJBscribe suggested here (full disclosure in the interests of utter transparency&mdash;WJBscribe nominated me for adminship over a year ago, though that has no relation to why I am suggesting this). I first asked about this on the bureaucrat noticeboard where it was suggested this should also be placed on our centralized discussion template, so I will be doing that in order for this to receive a broader review.

This suggestion comes out of the "FlyingToaster affair" as it is called above, but I really would like to avoid lingering on the specifics of that and instead think of this proposal in more abstract terms and as a way forward. I see this as a possible way to avoid the kind of situation we just saw.

Simply put, we don't really have a good way to deal with situations where, in the immediate aftermath of an RfA, brand new information comes out that would likely have completely altered the vote. This is a rare occurrence of course, but recent events have demonstrated that we flail about a bit when it happens. I think we can expect it to happen again at some point, and should therefore think of a better way to deal with it.

WJBscribe proposed language as follows, which I would suggest be added to the paragraphs on "Decision process" in the section About RfA.

Where evidence comes to light after an RfA has been closed as successful which seriously undermines the basis upon which community consensus was reached, the closing bureaucrat may for a period of [X] days after closing an RfA request that a steward remove the admin access of the successful candidate and reopen or restart the closed RfA.

I think that's pretty well worded, though obviously it could be fiddled with. The main issue is what "X" would be. It would have to be a fairly brief period, say a week, or it could be left a bit more vague but still be quite limited in duration, something like "immediate aftermath," that provides a bit more flexibility but still shows the period is not at all indefinite. I'm very open to different possibilities for determining "X," but it needs to be a time not long after the RfA closed as successful, at least in my view.

I think there are obvious scenarios where this language could help us, such as the following. An editor passes RfA, but then two days later another editor (who did not notice it) draws attention to an interaction that s/he had with the new admin which no one noticed but which is incredibly problematic (but not so egregious that it's cause for an emergency desysop or a ban), and which causes many (but not all) support !voters to regret their vote. It is suggested that the new admin resign their bit, but they refuse to do so, and there are a number of editors who continue to support the new admin in their stance, while others are angered by it. An RfC is opened but has no conclusive result, and the situation ends up in ArbCom where it draws on for weeks and takes up a lot of community time.

Instead, under the proposed language, soon after the new information coming to light and significant opposition about the new admin being expressed, a bureaucrat could decide that consensus had been undermined and re-run the RfA, asking for the bit to be removed by a steward in the meantime. No doubt the RfA would be drama-filled (the situation described is inherently drama-filled), but it would likely save us a lot of time and effort.

I would point out a couple of things about this proposal before concluding. 1) Obviously this would only be used in exceptional circumstances, would never be used because I few editors showed up angry that they missed out on a vote for RfA, and could never be used months or even weeks after a successful RfA (anyway "new information" is most likely to come out right after the RfA closes, probably because someone was on break or just missed that the RfA was open). 2) All we would really be doing here is giving the 'crats more discretion, and the community has already decided that we trust these folks to make smart calls. Presumably there would be times when editors would claim, without any real justification, than an RfA should be re-run, and 'crats would simply say "no, request denied."

The general point here is that, if there is a collective "buyers' remorse" in the immediate after a successful RfA, there should be an easy way to address that, and right now there isn't beyond ArbCom, which seems unnecessary for cases like these. The important thing in the end is to get it right when it comes to giving the mop to folks, and this proposal would let bureaucrats help us do that in certain exceptional circumstances where the community might have trouble doing that by itself.

Unfortunately I might not have much time to participate in this discussion (assuming folks care to respond to this), particularly if it goes on after tomorrow since I'm going out of town after that, but I want to get the ball rolling on this since there might be some energy right now to make a change along these lines. If I don't get to say much more I leave it in the hands of the community to decide whether or not this is a good idea, but I support something along these lines being added to Requests for adminship. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is just another bad idea masquerading as a good idea. For several reasons: It'll dilute the RfA process itself - hell, why bother researching when eight days later you can just take everything back; What if buyer's remorse hits on the X+1st day? Will we have another discussion on whether the probationary period should be extended to X+1 then X+2 then X+3 days .... We'll have trepidatious admins hanging around in limbo for another X days (X is just an instance of X) when the RfA period is stressful enough already. The reality is that we've had exactly one RfA where this immediate expression of buyer's remorse seems to have occurred. I see no reason for reinventing the world based on this one instance. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the community wanted to change the role of crats so that they're seen as elected representatives who make the decision who passes, then maybe I could support this proposal, but as long as crats are charged with determining consensus rather than making the call, then this proposal isn't consistent with the role of crats. An analogy: right after a student receives a PhD degree, some problem is exposed.  Either cheating was exposed ... the person didn't do the work they claimed to do, or they cheated on the test ... which should go to some disciplinary committee (ANI, RFCU or ArbCom, for Wikipedia), not back to the academic department, or else the problem was that the committee didn't ask the right questions, in which case, the committee should get their act together next time, but that's not a reason to take back the PhD. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark I see your point and have thought of that, I would personally prefer more open ended wording like "immediate aftermath" that leaves it up to the crats discretion, rather than making X a specific number. Ultimately this is about putting more power in the bureaucrats hands so that would make sense to me.


 * And Dank I don't quite understand your first point about "determining consensus" vs. "making the call," but I might be misinterpreting it. I would argue that this proposal is still about determining consensus&mdash;after the fact 'crats would determine that consensus was "seriously undermined" as it says above. As I said maybe I'm missing your point but I don't think anything here gives crats the powers of "elected representatives," it just says they can essentially undo their previous judging of consensus for a brief period after the RfA closes. And I don't think your analogy to PhD programs is apt. Individuals who get PhDs present certain work and then are judged on that by a panel of about five professionals based upon certain standards within a discipline&mdash;it's a rather exacting process with very specific requirements, and it's about entering a field as a professional (supposedly). Here we give some extra buttons to a volunteer, and the decision to do that (or to take them away) is (or ideally should be) based on a general community consensus. RfA is (or should be) a great place to determine community consensus, so I don't see a problem with sending it back here. I just think you're talking about two totally different situations because RfA is not analogous to a dissertation committee, rather it's far more analogous to a group of activists operating on a consensus model who decide to take one action (block traffic to protest the government!) but then change their minds 24 hours later, which is easy to do so long as there is consensus for it. In that analogy, applied here, 'crats are more like "facilitators."


 * Regardless you're both welcome to continue thinking of this as a bad idea obviously, I'm just responding to the concerns expressed. Also I'll be going offline now just FYI. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think most voters see the role of the crats, and I know the crats don't see their role, as deciding who passes. What they decide is whether there was consensus that the candidate should pass.  And I also don't think anyone sees the crats as a disciplinary committee, in charge of deciding whether there were infractions and handing out appropriate penalties.  For that, we muddle through with ANI and RFCU, if they work, and go to ArbCom if they don't work.  I don't think that's a job that crats are comfortable with, or that they were elected to perform.  Correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No Every single one of our current 20 odd crats have been "promoted" on the basis of the abilitiy to judge consensus at RFA and in recent times to add bot flags and change usernames. To add to their rights the ability to caveat a promotion by removing it through their own request to Stewards is not what they where asked to do. Not only do I personally not trust a number of our current 'crats with the +sysop button, I trust almost none of them with a backdoor desysop. If you want local desysop fine - but that's another issue. If the community cocks up then that's our issue and we have many avenues to rectify it. Pedro : Chat  21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second Pedro on this one. FT was our fault, and the avenues to address it simply were not followed. FT just got hounded off the 'Pedia because some people blew a gasket. Any number of civil options were available to deal with this, even though that may or may not have lead to a desysop. She would have posed no immediate threat to the project while things were hashed out. As for a hypothetical situation, I think it depends on the nature of the infraction. If someone is discovered to lack of full grasp of policy that is considerably different than if someone is discovered to be leading an Evil Sock Army. Truly bad discoveries would be grounds for an immediate block anyway, whereas policy deficiencies can be dealt with in many different ways, some formal, and some informal. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose This would save our embarrassment in the rare cases where a problem is found just after the RfA closes, but it does not address the underlying problem that we didn't check properly during the RfA. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This sounds at first like a nice idea, but I agree that it has too many problems to work; in particular, it confuses the role of crats. At the moment, their job is to determine consensus at the end of RFAs and virtually nothing else. I don't think there's support for considerably broadening their powers in this way - probably not even among the crats themselves, who I imagine don't want to have to put up with the inevitable requests to reopen every time they close an RFA. No, if this (new evidence emerging right after an RFA has been closed) really is a problem - and I'm not convinced it is - then the solution isn't to change the role of the bureaucrats so drastically; the solution is simply to extend the length of RFAs. (But given how stressful they are at the moment, I can't imagine there'd be much support for that either...) Robofish (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very silly idea, not least for the reason that the bureaucrats are chosen for their ability to blend into the background, not for their ability to make value judgements. Which is more or less what I think Pedro was saying. If you want bureaucrats with balls then you have to start again, with new bureaucrats and a new method of selecting them. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Giving 'crats a do-over button isn't the answer. A workable community-based de-sysopping process is what's needed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Bureaucrats are elected to judge consensus, not make their own judgment calls. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per solution in search of a problem due to a "one-of" incident. I also concur with many of the valid arguments above as my back-up secondary reasoning. — Ched :  ?  02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * note my IMHO should not be construed in any fashion to be a slight of any sort to the highly regarded User:WJBscribe, or my highly esteemed colleagues supporting this proposal, I simply feel that this individual suggestion, after due consideration, offered in the context of open communication, is not the best path to proceed along at this time. — Ched : ?  02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yowza. While I certainly didn't expect everyone to jump on board this thing, I'm a bit surprised by the depth of the opposition. I don't think it would be a very dramatic change, but obviously others construe it differently. Quite frankly some editors seem to be reading a great deal more into the proposal than what I have in mind, since this suggestion does not give 'crats any additional power other than undoing a power we already give them (i.e., judging consensus at RfAs). There's nothing here, at least as I read it, about "handing out penalties," "deciding who passes," "mak[ing] value judgments," or "making their own judgment calls," but most likely the confusion stems from a lack of clarity in the proposal itself which is my fault.


 * It's worth pointing out again that the original idea came from a (now retired) 'crat, while another (active) 'crat found it a good idea, so I don't think it's nearly as off-the-wall as folks seem to be suggesting, nor something that utterly confuses what bureaucrats do (though one or both of those editors might well not endorse the way I presented it here). At the heart of it is obviously a slight expansion of the power of 'crats to (un)judge consensus such that a new RfA would be run, and as such objections that "this is not what 'crats do" somewhat beg the question&mdash;obviously it isn't now what they do, which is why this would have been a change.


 * I guess this proposal could be boiled down to the suggestion that 'crats be given an undo button that they would use in the rarest of circumstances and only at their discretion, and the basic response here (at least as I read it) is that they should definitely not have such a button (though the reasons why vary).


 * Regardless, it's quite obvious there's not going to be any consensus for this and I don't think we need to prolong matters. Unless this discussion veers off somewhere useful, I certainly have no problem marking it resolved (although if people want to continue to comment I have no problem with that either).


 * Finally I agree with Majoreditor that what we could really use is a "workable community-based de-sysopping process." This proposal was very minor compared with that, obviously, and was intended to maybe help us deal with a tiny minority of cases, given that we don't seem very close to putting together a community-based de-sysopping process at this point that would also be able to address the hypothetical scenario described in my initial proposal. Thanks to all for your replies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
BTP, I do truly admire your goals here. In theory, the +sysop bit should be "easy-come, easy-go" as in "No big deal". I think the problems here attack that idea from a multitude of positions. While the bit itself is no big deal, the possibilities in regards to mis-use of it are. I've read through uncountable threads and archives which centered on the removal of said bit, and while community claims that they want that removal to be readily available, consensus on how to do it has never been remotely approached. Be it those that are mired in the status quo, or those who cling to a perceived "power base" - there is just so much resistance to the idea that it never seems to gather enough legs to get off the ground. I think your idea of running with Will's idea has merit. I also believe that the wording of it is the fundamental key to this idea. While I think that the 'crat approach will never work given the skeptic views so many users have of that group, I think the core idea you're offering should be discussed further. My guess is that a RFC/desysop thing would have many supporters, but I also think that it would face the type of protracted discussion that WP:Fiction has. I have no idea personally on what the best approach would be, but if you truly believe in this, I would encourage you to not give up too readily. If one idea does not work, fine, step back, and approach it from a different vantage point. There's a lot here in the whole +/- sysop idea - the trick is to work out a commonly acceptable approach. I know that's not help where you need it, but it is encouragement - for what little it's worth, considering the source. ;) — Ched : ?  06:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you're not a reliable source? Because I was just going to cite you in a bunch of articles about trees and physics and France and stuff (basically I was going to cite you at random). In seriousness, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think part of the issue here is that I had no idea that many users have skeptical views of 'crats as a group. Indeed you can tell me that and I can see people say that above but I still have no idea why, though I'm sure I could guess some reasons. I hardly ever look at, much less comment on, RfA and do not really understand the culture here (though when I stop by it often strikes me as rather dysfunctional, for several reasons - no offense to anyone who is a frequent commenter here). So the proposal is coming from a major outsider to this talk page, and perhaps me not being familiar enough with the goings on here is part of the issue. Or it's just a dumb idea.


 * To the larger point, obviously I'd love to see a community desysop process (it's the only way I can get rid of this damn bit!) but like you have no big ideas there, which is why I went small bore on this page. Probably the biggest barrier to such a process is, shockingly, administrators. Maybe the rest of the community should have a conversation about this without us admins in the room&mdash;several thousand regular editors can sneak into WP:OBSCUREPARTOFPEDIA after all the admins have gone to bed and have a nice chat&mdash;since we'd no doubt muck-up the discussion at some point. I can't imagine that idea will go over any more than would a lead zeppelin, but it's an interesting thought (for me at least). All I know is that it's fairly absurd that, on a project based so heavily on consensus decision making processses, participants who are literally described as "janitors" essentially have the status of American Supreme Court Justices (albeit while generally lacking imposing black robes and regular checks from the Social Security Administration). In practice ArbCom members, because of elections, are vastly more accountable to the community than admins and that's kascrewy, at least to the extent that the thing I just typed was even a word.


 * I'm going on vacation (you can tell from the devil-may-care tone of my comment here) so I'm afraid I have to "give up" on this for the time being, but maybe after I finish driving across the damn country I'll have an answer. It's a serious issue, and I think we'll see increasing calls for ways to make admins more accountable to the community, without simultaneously making it impossible for them to do the needed work they do. There's the rub. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought in the past that one way to make a recall procedure less problematic would be to limit !votes to admins. Procedures could be opened and comments submitted by anyone, but limiting recall !voting to admins would avoid the problem generally ascribed to a recall procedure, which is that admins would then either be recalled frivolously by people they've pissed off or would self-censor to avoid it. Rd232 talk 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This would seem to implode any RfA it was applied to, no? Admin _____'s RfA is yanked and revived with obvious and overwhelming attention and major drama ensuing. Even if it did ultimately pass it would seem the newly admin would do so under a cloud of suspician. There might be a better solution but this would seem to cause more problems. -- Banj e  b oi   07:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In my opinion, this process would inevitably turn into a blow-out valve by which discontent or anger at the RfA process can be directed towards the 'crats; every controversial RfA will be followed by a week of continued barrel-scraping in an attempt to find enough grunge on the candidate to compel the 'crats to reopen the RfA. We get enough of that drama around open RfAs already.  We do not need it persisting for weeks after the event. Happy‑melon 09:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea to have a buyer's remorse out. When a jury makes a wrong decision, it's not the process that's broken, it's that the jurors made the mistake. FT voters didn't do enough research -- that's not going to be rectified by another rule. Law type! snype? 11:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hard cases make bad law. Rd232 talk 10:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, exactly per Rd232. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You all thought I'd support, right? Right? Not for the hard case makes bad law avenue, but just because this kind of fluke really is a one-off. If we started having RFAs like this once a month, maybe then it would be worth considering. rootology /equality 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Law worded my thoughts perfectly. The process itself is not broken.  hmwith  τ   12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Law hit the head of the nail on that one. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose this proposal. The Bureaucrat's role here is to judge consensus in an RfA. What happens after that promotion is not in the Bureaucrats' hands. If a new admin goes postal, any number of other admins can block him/her, and any editor can summon a Steward if need be. If new evidence appears post-RfA, the matter should be taken to ArbCom. Like it or not, ArbCom is the most fair venue for such an appeal. Bureaucrats do not have any procedures for such instances, while ArbCom does. In the case of FlyingToaster, the matter should have been taken to ArbCom in a mature and calm manner. What happened in actuality was appalling. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I view bureaucrats as a administrative position. What the proposer said belongs to judiciary position, which is ArbCom's job. Wikipedia really needs separation of power.SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Closure
I am delisting this from WP:CENT as an evident lead balloon. No shame for proposing it, of course, but as ever, hard cases make bad law. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough - the idea's had a decent outing. A quick comment as I raised the idea (though didn't bring it here and have only just realised it has had this extended discussion). A lot of people expressed angry feelings at WP:BN that, only a couple of days after an RfA close, bureaucrats were unwilling or unable to reverse the close despite there being serious issues with the candidate that had only come to light subsequently. I suggested a change to the policy that would expressly allow bureaucrats to do what many wished them to do and I am glad that my suggestion has been so thoroughly considered. It was very much intended to be "for discussion" not "this is a brilliant idea, let's do it" and I am sure bureaucrats will refer back to the above when in future people ask them to undo RfA closes as, to quote another, the "people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly". WJBscribe (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wording change
I find the following wording in the section on expressing opinion very disturbing, and unneeded
 * "There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for whatever reason. This more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is often perceived as disruptive, is discouraged, and is perceived by some as "trolling". A common piece of advice when dealing with these edits is "do not feed the trolls." While it may be true that, in a community of this size, someone will react to the troll's posts, others maintain that ignoring such posts, whether or not they constitute "trolling," is the best response. Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. In particular, they know which votes to ignore."

This wording seems to indicate that if you are opposing many of the canidates that you are trolling. Perhaps you just have a different standard, and don't place your trust in that many users for whatever reason. I find this wording completely unneeded, but I suspect it may be in there because of DouglasTech, but it paints too broad a brush and can be considered offensive. Why should we be discouraging users from opposing frequently? I move we strike all mention of which way the frequent edits go and just have a broad statement on not feeding the trolls. Afterall isn't RFA about gaining trust, and some people just don't give out their trust that easily. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording isn't targetting people like DougsTech and KMWEBBER, the wording is there for the people who respond to the likes of DougsTech/KMWEBBER. The community is currently endorsing DT's right to !vote, despite some people seeing his !vote as trolling.  The goal of the above it to limit the unnecessary discourse that often accompanies DT's !vote.  By itself, DT's !vote is not nearly as disruptive as the flood of posts that seem to condemn him for his !vote.  Some believe that DT/Kurt did their posts more to set off the expected firestorms that followed their votes than to actually oppose.  If you have another way/wording that might discourage people from feeding them, we're open to hear it.  Again, the above is not addressed to the voters, but rather to the people who want to challenge !voters they see as trolls.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the goal of the above is not addressed to the !voters then the wording should be changed, because it say "This more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is often perceived as disruptive, is discouraged, and is perceived by some as "trolling". This wording would lend credence to those condemning his ~vote, since it says that pattern of !voting is discouraged. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
 * There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for whatever reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling".  Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

What are others opinions on this wording change? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse change. Shorter and more concise.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the changes. If you feel this is premature on my part please revert. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

New essay
In the spirit of the section discussed here, I have made a page: Thank you for your vote that deals in more detail with this issue. Perhaps a discrete essay with an easy-to-type shortcut (WP:TYFYV) will be helpful in educating editors about less disruptive ways of responding to voters such as DougsTech recently, and others before him. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This will be counterproductive if admin candidates start replying using the word "vote", which would certainly engender more opposes. I was going to suggest "Thank you for your input", but that sounds pretty sarcastic. Dekimasu よ! 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GT's proposal is simple, elegant, and to an editor who (as we all should) keeps WP:AGF in mind, it should be obvious. I like it.  I actually use similar verbiage sometimes in rollbacks to edits that appear to be likely—but not certain—vandalism.  Un  sch  ool  01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good show.  Dloh  cierekim  03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
I've read in yet another RFA that terrible things go on there, and that actions there are grounds to oppose RFA's here. Can others please inform me and dispel my ignorance? I never go there. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, from my experience, people merely discuss users/events at Wikipedia without the civility rule there. It's like a pub if this is a workplace.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever's said on WR isn't secret or unlogged, as on IRC, so why not go and take a look for yourself? Nobody will bite you. Even jimbo posts there occasionally. You might even learn something. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true actually. I've posted there and been treated pretty well... which is odd, considering I'm not as mature as most of the users there.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "mature", I guess you mean "old"? I'm never really sure what the wikimeaning of "maturity" is supposed to be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...yeah. I'm sure there are more mature teenagers than myself. :)  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a great many who would say there are a lot more mature teenagers than myself too, but I won't lower the tone by telling you what I say to them in return. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why my being treated like, well, an adult surprises me so ;) I don't mind if you think less of me because of my age, don't worry yourself.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are quite enough people trying to put words in my mouth without you starting as well. Obviously I wouldn't support your RfA because I know you're a teenager, but I can asure you that it's nothing personal, and that I don't think any less of you because of your age. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucky for WBOSITG, he's an admin already ;) Nathan  T 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phew much ;) That's good, Malleus. I can understand that its only a blanket view and not a personal thing (I'm guessing that if your best friend was running for Prime Minister on a party you didn't agree with you would give him your vote, it's the same idea.)  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't vote for prime ministers, they're chosen by whichever political party wins the election. So to put your question in a UK political context: "Would you vote for your best friend if he stood for a political party you didn't agree with?" The answer is a resounding NO, I would not, and I wouldn't be shy about telling my best friend why. To do anything else would be dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I'm not old enough to vote though, am I? :P That was what I mean like, cheers.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, Jimbo posts there? Since when? I know there are a few people that post with names that mock Jimbo, but not he himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [Re to Malleus Fatuorum]: That is not entirely true. Not everything said there can be seen by all people. Wikipedians cannot see all threads about themselves without joining and making a certain amount of posts (is it 10?), and not everyone can get an account there (some people don't have an email address that will be accepted).  hmwith  τ   16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WR is a warning bell/a red flag, it COULD be a negative and grounds for an oppose, but it isn't in and of itself evil. You have to take it on a case by case basis.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WR's remit, as I understand it, is to be critical of wikipedia, which is an entirely healthy goal IMO. Particularly as criticism is so often stifled by the dead hand of consensus and perennial here on wikipedia. WR shoould only be a "red flag" for those who feel that critical debate needs to be stamped out as a "dramah". One very good recent example is the exposure of ArbCom member Sam Blaketer's deception, something that was clearly kept hidden here on wikipedia until exposed at WR. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not healthy when a majority is vitriol.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a majority "vitriol"? Is criticism always vitriolic in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between healthy criticism (which definitely can be found at WR, too) and "Let's get rid of Admin X"-threads (which aren't nearly as common anymore, but they do still happen). --Conti|✉ 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That "exposure", if and only if it was true, was a call for personal information to be revealed about the actual person and had nothing to do with sock puppetry. One of the members claimed to have an idea of who his previous account was, but they didn't bother to reveal it. So, that undermines any claims that the site can be used for the good. Instead, it was to compromise privacy and privacy only. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...or to expose conflicts of interest that were being swept under the carpet around here. The Register has picked up the story now.  I don't agree with much of the ideology of WR regulars, and find many of them to be nutters, but as long as there are people like the one exposed in this article, and people like you who defend them and attack those who blow the whistle on them, there'll be a need for sites like WR. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conflicts of Interests like User:Moulton, who knew Rosalind Picard, and his edit wars and attacking those involved with the article? And then using Wikipedia Review as a means to attack and criticize anyone who tried to work on the article that put anything beyond what specifically he wanted and was unable to compromise on the issue? Wikipedia Review has just as many conflicted editors, and we exposed and handled many of them here on Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, some of the stuff discussed on that site is useful but some of it is total nonsense. So it's quite like #wikipedia-en-admins or AN/I. I have an account on Wikipedia Review... not that I do much with it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite. It would be very easy to characterise many of the threads at AN/I as "let's get rid of editor X". I imagine that the concern though is that WR focuses its attention on administrators, not lowly editors. Hence by definition it's "vitriolic". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yuppers... too much time at ANI could also be a red flag/warning bell ;-) post at either is not, by definition, grounds for opposition.  It is a place that you might want to check.  Similarly IRC is an area which garners a fair amount of opposition, but being involved with IRC is not grounds for a default oppose.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Review is a site whose administrators are either banned Wikipedians or those that support banned Wikipedians that either do whatever they can to disrupt and get revenge on those that banned them, or are busy using alternate accounts to get around our rules. While some on WR might use it for honest discussion, for the most part it is used to canvass attacks on various people or issues. Many RfAs here have canvassing from Wikipedia Review members and mostly to the negative. This canvassing is normally followed by lies or smears, which means that it is canvassing of the worse kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] Viridae Talk 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "C'mon guys, don't we all hate this guy? (Shameless canvassing, I know.)". Do you need more? How about where Somey directly lied about my interaction with BLPs? Or do you want to get into which moderators at WR are banned? We can go through that list. Plus, Moulton's revealing of all of my personal information to the WR administrators via email did give me quite a few of their original Wiki names, and a conversation with a few Arbitrators revealed that they were banned, so, I can point out which aliases are actually banned users too. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One might argue that the real problem with WR or IRC is that you are assembling people who already spend way too much time on Wikipedia, and encouraging them to spend their time away from Wikipedia discussing Wikipedia. Not a well balanced lifestyle, though there are no doubt less healthy things one can do with their spare time. Personally, I view a lot of the threads as little more than the rantings of disgruntled fanboys. Posting about Wikipedia editors on a webpage they neither belong to, nor follow, is just cowardly behavior. If your argument is not gaining any traction, then perhaps your argument lacks merit, and if you feel hounded for expressing your views, then perhaps you are simply thin skinned. Wikipedia has a lot of problems, but discussing them elsewhere will not get them fixed here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IRC rarely has known banned users in the Wiki chats nor does it condone the use of sock puppets. They also don't support stalking on IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...because banned users should be Orwellian Unpersons, suppressed from all places where Wikipedia is discussed, and probably whited out of documents and photographs where they appear or are mentioned. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because banned users are those that have committed huge offenses with the purpose to disrupt and are not here for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not need anarchists that want to troll this site in order to get digs against Jimbo and others that they feel are the "man" simply because their mothers didn't hug them enough at night and they can't deal with others properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because nobody has ever been unjustly banned, and no banned user has ever had anything truthful or meaningful to say about anything remotely related to Wikipedia, so any forum where any of them can be found ought to be cast off the edge of the Earth. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is one of the falsiest arguments ever. If they were unjustly banned, they wouldn't be seeking revenge and trying to disrupt. They also wouldn't make the kinds of attacks they do. They wouldn't hold multiple accounts and brag about it. They wouldn't put websites compiling personal data or mocking WMF members whenever something happens. These are the actions of the innocent. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like rock'n'roll, BADSITES hysteria will never die. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I will look at offsite links that are posted in RFAs, but I'm conscious that different sites have different rules. I don't think it relevant if a candidate who is civil here is incivil on a site that allows that. There are things on other sites that I would consider relevant for an RFA, for examples taking part in offsite canvassing to influence Wikipedia results and confessions of Wikipedia misdeeds.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, at least this kicked off some navel gazing here and at WR! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's supposed to be the job of the United States Navel Observatory! *Dan T.* (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Review was (and still is) notorious to certain members because it houses a few banned users who has the fanaticalism similar to wanting the destruction of Israel. Even though there are reasonable critics and civil discussions that form the bulk of the forum, it is far too easy for anyone to accuse any contributor there, however reasoned, some form of such association with the banned users just by the mere act of participation. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WR is like communism - an idea that lost sight of the end goal. Reviewing Wikipedia in a harsh light is an entirely good idea. Regretfully the idea (like communism) that seems so good on paper fails in practice (the 5 year plan if you will). Writers get slagged off for wasting their time on a doomed project. Admins get slagged off for their admin actions. Vandal fighters get slagged off. Someone who does a bit of everything gets slagged off ("What do these admins do all day" was one thread I recall). Let's face it people - whilst we've got Eric Barbour desperately imploring you to read his blog, Kato doing endless "round ups" in the hope of getting noticed and HerschelKerdojaymaflip moving posts from forum to forum to stave of either boredom or insanity does anyone honestly think WR is going to achieve anything more than WT:RFA........(i.e. precious darn little) Pedro : Chat  19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read the link provided above wherein WR has taken notice of this thread. Again, I am not about to judge or condemn the site wholesale. I think you have to look at what is actually said there. But I found this comment on WP Review highly entertaining, Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here. I know that it was intended to convey the message to the WP readers who were reading the thread there that Alex/Majorly is not as vocal as some people there, but the flip side is, that if you accept the arguments in the oppose camp that Majorly is drama driven, immature, vindictive, etc; then you really have to wonder about the rest of WR! If Majorly is one of the most bland WR's, and is anything but one of the most bland WP's, then where are the rest of the WR's on that scale?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can show you some emails from some of their more outrageous users. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Review is valuable because it's one of the only places outside of Wikipedia where people get together regularly to discuss Wikipedia. That said, some of the moderators are jerks, and I don't contribute much anymore. Sole Flounder (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. There are many blogs, chatrooms, messenger systems, and the such which have active discussions by Wikipedia members in good standings that critique various items and the rest without resorting to personal attacks, stalking, and other such nastiness. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you rack up hundreds of posts there? Sole Flounder (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I believe he was banned from there from reasons I cannot explain without being banned from here. Peter Damian (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That there are things you can't talk about without risking getting banned is a flaw of both places, but at least, with the set of bannable things being different in each place, the existence of both gives a greater degree of free speech to those like myself who are willing to go back and forth. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is well known that I was banned from Wikipedia Review for nothing more than my blatant criticism of their methods and their actions upon their website and their hypocritical inability to accept criticism. Before any political related topic, I was restricted to posting once every 24 hours because Somey thought it would be a hilarious way to try and get rid of me without anyone knowing that I would be banned. Why was I critical? Because they were attacking Wikiversity time after time, spreading lies, and fueling Moulton's massive sock puppetry on that site. Then there was their constant spreading of personal information and allowing him to use the site to keep up the very attacks that got him banned from Wikipedia. If you think revealing personal information followed by malicious attacks is "criticism", I really want to know what dictionary you use. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a familiar irregular conjugation. I'm banned because the site has a hypocritical inability to accept criticism.  You're banned because you act in an uncivil manner.  He's banned for making malicious attacks. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was banned for suggesting that it was a bad thing that it was set up by a neo-Nazi as a forum to bash Wikipedia's Jews, Dan. You could do with stopping the whining about BADSITES, btw. It's so dull. Why should a site like Wikipedia tolerate another site that has among its purposes trying to get its contributors sacked from their jobs, harassing them and generally slagging them off left, right and centre? Even if the Holocaust deniers have now moved on, it's still a place that largely focuses on the negative. I wouldn't let someone who shit-talked me post on my blog (you're welcome to comment though, mustn't infringe poor Dan's freedom of speech in any way -- although there's a good argument that freedom of speech is not licence to run one's mouth off wherever one pleases), so I'm really struggling to see what the big issue is here.Grace Note (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about time you showed up... an anti-WR whinefest wouldn't be complete without you going on with your usual nonsense about WR being a bunch of Nazis. You could do with stopping this; it's so dull. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony of your comment is that the only whining going on is in the form of "wah, they are correctly identifying our troll site as a hot bed of incivil canvassing and created with the purpose of causing disruption in order to get rid of Jimbo and other WMF individuals that offended us years ago but since we have nothing better to do we live solely for that purpose." Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the thing - I bent over backwards trying to help Moulton correct his mistakes and do what was necessary to get unbanned at Wikipedia en. Near the end, he stopped caring, starting posting people's personal information left and right, and started sending Jimbo harassing emails. He was warned and continued. See, people like me at Wikipedia try to -help- users and get them to satisfy their desires in a manner that is suitable and best for everyone. Wikipedia Review just supported Moulton in his attacks and encouraged him further. They didn't want him unbanned. They wanted him completely banned so they could have another reason to justify their broad attacks. Moulton had a chance to be redeemed and he was corrupted to the point that was unacceptable. That wasn't enough for them, and they corrupted another member in trying to help him in his attacks and the rest. They cost Wikiversity two members in their petty desire to attack WMF for whatever petty reasons and caused us over 7 months in having to clean up constant attacks, trolling, and sockpuppet abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, awesome. Another page for Ottava to spout off his tripe about WR. The misrepresentation of your ban from WR is a nice new addition, though. You weren't banned from WR for criticizing them. You were banned for trolling incessantly to the point that you'd annoyed pretty much every active member. As far as Moulton, did you miss that whole situation where he was unbanned by a member of WR? Did you miss how that went down and how he behaved following his unban? Did you ever ask Moulton if he wanted to be unbanned? I don't think you did. And, if you did, I think he told you he wasn't interested in an unban, because he maintained that pretty much from the beginning. Any crusade you decided to start wrt Moulton was of your own volition, not a desire to help someone who'd requested it. لenna vecia  03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You speak with such authority on the matter. Are you an admin on Wikipedia Review, by chance? How would you know? Were you given the private messages from Somi or from the others by chance? And Jenna, you really have no clue about my involvement with Moulton or with any of that, so don't pretend to know. Alison knows part of my involvement. The staff at Wikiversity, Jimbo, and Cary know part of it also. And my own volition? I was approached by Moulton, Rosalind Picard, and two members of the community asking for a neutral look at her biography and try to find a compromise between both sides. When Moulton was at Wikiversity, I was approached again and that was why I was brought into Wikiversity and what was going on there in order to try and create a neutral and objective system to deal with it. You, however, were not privy to any of it. Your post here represents one of the fundamental problems of WR - you are poorly informed but you make up for that with malice. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope she was just repeating what a mod had said. If you don't believe that here it is from the mouth of an admin: "Well, I'm an admin here on Wikipedia Review, and I can say with total assurance and authority that Ottava was, indeed, banned for trolling incessantly to the point that he'd annoyed pretty much every active member. Jenna/Lara is 100-percent correct about that." No wonder you are sore about WR, you are one of a handful of people to have ever been banned from there, a forum that does its best to accomodate everyone. (interesting the other person frothing at the mouth with animosity towards WR and its members in this thread is Grace Note - another of the handful of people banned from WR because their behaviour was so intolerable) Viridae Talk 08:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nope she was just repeating what a mod had said" And there we have it. Wikipedia members that don't know for themselves and just repeat what a group of banned users say. This is exactly why Wikipedia Review is a problem. Remember, these are the same mods that claimed I was out to destroy BLPs and the rest without any proof. Its called smears, and Wikipedia users are treating their smears as truth. That is intellectually dishonest in every possible way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And one must always ignore anything a banned person says, because banned people were banned for a good reason no matter how much they may foolishly protest that they were unfairly banned. But one must listen to what you say, although you were banned from WR and claim that this ban was unfair.  How self-serving. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is nice to see that Dan is unable to understand that if you are banned, you are capable of conducting yourself respectfully and don't actually have to resort to using a forum to constantly attack the people that were involved in your banning, calling for personal information, and promoting the creation of multiple accounts and vandalism in order to seek petty revenge. See, there are many people that were "banned" and acted correctly and were welcomed back. These aren't the people attracted to Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look in a mirror; you were banned on WR, and you're using this site as a forum to constantly attack the people that were involved in your banning. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please link to where I created pictures of Somey's head comparing it to planets. Please link to where I outed Gomi's personal information and made conspiracy theories about it. Please link to where I have canvassed for an election happening at Wikipedia Review while saying "we hate this guy, don't we?". Please link where I have accused their staff of promoting child pornography or bestiality. etc, etc etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How am I repeating what I mod has said when the mod names me as being 100% correct? Unless I'm psychic, I don't think that's how it went down. I was there for Ottava's trolling, I seem to recall participating in a discussion about his potential ban, then he was banned, after he'd sufficiently annoyed everyone there. I made my comment here, Somey read it and posted that. THUS, I did not repeat what a mod said. A mod agreed with what I said. Glad we got that cleared up... Ottava got banned for trolling WR with extreme religious views, among other things. لenna  vecia  19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, apparently, Jenna has confessed in the above that she gets her ideas from no where and then sees if people confirm. That is, unless Jenna wants to admit that the only original source would have been a moderator and not her imagination as she seems to claim above. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people will oppose on ostensibly other grounds, but actually oppose because of WR. Personally this isn't hard to spot; they usually pull some oppose reason not in line with their general personal trend. This is quite a noticeable phenomena in general. In 2006 I said that because there are only 1-2 close RFAs per week it would hardly be too hard for the crats to have a look as to whether a lot of people have abnormally moved their "bar" for a certain a candidate. I got told to get stuffed mostly, but I know a lot of people get opposed for only being around 2-3 months, except in one case a person who was here for 7 weeks got over 100 supports, because of social reasons, and those who supported often opposed others who had been around for 3 months. In some cases it simply bad-faith retaliation, eg, opposing people's RFAs because they opposed another's FAC or GAC etc (I know one admin who used to always abuse another guy, and when the other guy ran for RfA, he opposed, simply saying <2000 edits, although he always supported with "no big deal" on everyone else including guys with less than 1000), but sometimes it is simply a lack of objectivism and favouritism. Most people said that my proposal was unworkable but you don't have to count up everyone's votes; if you look at RFA regularly like I used to, you can easily pick up what ideology every regular is and where they fit in the spectrum.

I would not be surprised a lot of people oppose because of WR and say some other uncharacteristic reason (ldeliebratly). For FAs, there is more consistency because there is a set criteria, but even then, some people have different bars for "good prose", which is fine, but some people apply different standards to different articles, sometimes supporting any articles by their friends/countrymen regardless of large swathes of unreferenced material or whatever, and then go and object to those they had a previous dispute with, using a high bar, eg saying that 90% reference coverage is not good enough but supporting their mates/allies articles with 30% ref coverage. Some of this is good-faith non-objectiveness, some bad-faith, but anomalies need to be ironed out. I know some articles with about 25-3 support that had to be rejected etc. When I close WP:FAR I have to take into account opinion irregularities for borderline articles, else a poor article could be kept because of biased voting (I know one FAR where about 6 people wanted to keep and 6 wanted to oppose; all the keeps were from people from the same ethnic background as the article subject, the removers were all outsiders. The article was littered with broken English, 50% unreferenced etc. People from that wikiproject always vote "support" on all their articles, regardless of lack of sourcing; after that one of them FARed an article that was copyedited by a guy who did 100s of FAs, and they suddenly showed a sudden concern for the enforcement of good English, said that 100% of the article needed to be sourced etc); if people want RFA to be consistent then the crats have to do the same, because RFA people can be even more inconsistent with their personal standards than at FA; I've seen instances where 25% of the votes were flagrantly bad faith and scuppered an RFA of one candidate; their profile was entirely consistent with many others of the same interests/outlook/method that passed 95%+  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Opposing a candidate just because they may participate in another website that is critical of some aspects of the Wikipedia makes about as much sense as fans who are voting Manny Ramirez into the all-star game. RfAs, like baseball fan ballots, have devolved into contests of popularity rather than of merit. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions? Sometimes I wish that was a policy and not just an essay. RFA would be much more interesting then if people suddenly had to avoid ILIKETHEM- or IHATETHEM-!votes ;-)  So Why  08:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WR's freedom from civility
It's not the fact that they participate that I believe is the issue, it's how they conduct themselves on the site. One of our most respected administrators (Newyorkbrad) remains stellar whenever he posts to WR and I don't think one person could fault him for what he does there. Other regular WP contributors give less than ideal performances when they go to WR - they use it as an excuse to flaunt the lack of civility policies and generally use it as a forum to slag off people they don't like here, rather than do it to the persons face (we expect discussion with a user who you have a problem with here, rather than running off to another forum). So to reiterate, participation at WR isn't inherently bad, but conduct there can have an impact on how people view your overall demeanor and suitability for adminship.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...because over here if you offend the wrong people you're likely to get blocked or banned. This can make other sites attractive as a place to let your hair down and/or blow off steam about your frustrations here. *Dan T.* (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in why people go to WR, but I am saying that an attitude like the one you're alluding may mean affect how people perceive your attitude to adminship.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like political correctness to me. If someone follows the NPA rule on Wikipedia, but doesn't follow the NPA rule off of it, what's the problem?  Or should I ask, why do you have a problem with it? Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Political correctness? That is an odd take. I guess its really hard to ask people not to childishly create pictures comparing people's heads to planets, to not constantly accuse others of bestiality without evidence, to not call for personal information of people you dislike and then post it everywhere you can, etc. Free speech and the rest is something that Malleus commits on Wikipedia now without any major problems. What has happened at Wikipedia Review for years is all out hate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Wikipedia Review in general. I've supported plenty of people who post there when they've run for positions of trust on Wikipedia. I do have a problem, I guess, with people who are superficially polite here on Wikipedia while simultaneously going off at Wikipedia Review. It's hard to respect people who are polite to your face and badmouth you behind your back. I wouldn't call that "political correctness". MastCell Talk 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm of much the same view. i make it a rule never to say about anyone—either here or on WR—anything that I wouldn't be preapered to say to them directly, and ideally have already said to them directly. But the atmosphere on wikipedia discourages that kind of honesty in anyone who wants to be popular and succeed at the RfA game. If you don't want dishonesty then don't create an environment that encourages it. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Free speech and the rest is something that Malleus commits on Wikipedia now without any major problems." I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I get some clown from the civility police knocking on my door every few weeks or so, occasionally dragged to WQA/AN/I, so I find it very easy to understand why anyone would feel under pressure to remain PC on this site but to let their hair down on another. Free expression of unpopular opinions—just look at the recurring "agism" nonsense for instance—is certainly frowned upon here, and ultimately suppressed by whatever means are necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you didn't cuss, attack, or really say much of anything, you probably still would be dragged there just as often. Therefore, its not actually what you say or do. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more about some people being overly sensitive to comments. I, for example, don't say anything on WR that I wouldn't say to someone directly. Of course, you also have to keep in mind that someone people don't want to be engaged with criticism anyway. They may bitch about it; but when it is brought to them, they then ignore it. It's important to keep in mind that the majority of comments on the site are viewable to the public, and if you can read the comments others are making about you, then you really shouldn't consider that talking behind your back, particularly if you are a member of WR and are known to read the site. And, yes, Ryan, I'm addressing you specifically. لenna vecia  19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the above was true, why even bother doing anything but saying it to them directly? Apparently, you -wouldn't- say it directly. Furthermore, if you are upset that people can't take criticism, why are you offended by criticism of Wikipedia Review? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer surely is obvious; critical comment directed towards another editor is a "personal attack". (And no need to say it, I know, "Don't call me Shirley;") ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, so? If you are willing to, then you would. If you are worried about being criticized as incivil, then you wont. She made the claim that she would, and if that is true then Wikipedia Review would become redundant. So, there is a simple choice - WR is necessary to make attacks you do not feel you can get away with here, or WR serves no purpose as there is no difference from here. Jenna needs to pick one to overcome the logical incongruities of her claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Pretty scarecrow. I think I just noted that some people do not want to be engaged with criticism, thus it is pointless to even attempt to do so. The problem is that you can't grasp the obvious, Ottava. Being willing to say something directly to someone and choosing to instead voice your concerns or opinions elsewhere is perfectly acceptable. Take an example: A mild comment is made on WR. As is so often the case, an over-sensitivity to criticism leads to the characterization of the comment as a personal attack. The "disparaged" party then expresses disappointment that such a comment was not brought directly to them. When, then, it is brought directly to them, as initially expected, nothing is discussed. It is simply ignored. You see, Ottava, one can make their critical comments on WR without negating the fact that they are willing to make those comments directly to the subject. Additionally, a preference to avoid the drama from Civility Police on Wikipedia does not force one to use WR to make their comments&mdash;clever you attempting to label any criticism on WR as "personal attacks"&mdash;there is always the option of IRC or email. لenna  vecia  00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Before tossing out rhetorical dodges such as "strawman", please actually do research and find out what one is. A strawman is something that isn't being discussed and is something that no one would agree be defending. However, the above is directly what you stated. Now, if you want to say that your response above is the equivalent of a strawman, feel free, as it only shows that you are only capable of empty words. See, you posit that you need WR because they allow you to speak. Then you posit that you would say anything there to a person's face. Apparently not, as these two are directly contradictory facts. You are either a coward afraid of reprisal, or you are tough enough to not need such things. Which is it? We already have you admitting that you have no knowledge of a situation above but take the word of the admin there, so lets see if you are willing to be so forth coming about your true reasons for being on the site. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're misrepresenting my argument, Ottava. To say that making a comment on WR is the equivalent of being too coward to say it directly to someone is just stupid. I brawl with you here on WP because it's fun. When I have serious criticism for someone whom I take seriously, I make a choice between taking it to them or not. The specific example above was my expression of an opinion. I did not feel compelled to discuss it with Ryan because there was no desire for discussion on my part. I had all the information I needed to draw the conclusion I did, and I stated that on WR. He commented on IRC about it, someone told me about it and I went to him, as requested. He ignored it. So, clearly, Ottava, I'm not afraid of reprisal, I merely don't always feel like going through thousands of kb over everything. Additionally, clean your specs, bud, as I stated above, it's backward to state that I'm taking the word of an admin who's post I supposedly took the information from includes his agreement with my statement on the matter. How possibly can I draw a conclusion from a post made after my own comment? He confirmed my version of events as I witnessed them. لenna  vecia  02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its hard to misrepresent when there was a simple binary put forth. You are just unwilling to come forward. You still never answered why you promote Wikipedia Review as being a site about criticism but can't take criticism of that site. I think your dodging of both of these points is very telling. Oh, and a final note about your above - you claimed to have information that only admins would have. You throw out the statements. Then you say you were verified by them saying you were right. There are two options: 1. you were originally told by them, which means you trust them, or 2. you completely made it up and were told you were correct after, which means that you make things up. Either way, it looks really bad for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (←) Where the hell are you getting this shit from? What admin-privy info are you referring to? I stated why you were banned. That's not admin-privy. It was noted when you got banned why you were banned. I simply detailed my opinion of the situation, and Somey, the site admin that kicked you to the curb agreed with my summary. Going back to your first point, I don't view your comments about WR to be criticism. It's just drivel. Plenty of people criticize WR with legitimate concerns and I discuss those concerns with them. You, however, are just on a bitter rampage because you got sent on your merry way. I like how you keep framing the whole thing like I wasn't there. It's not like I'm basing my comments about the situation solely off of Somey's comments, though I do trust him. If I didn't trust the mods at WR, I wouldn't be a member there. لenna  vecia  04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jenna, everyone for the past two days has seen you make claims about why I was blocked at WR. Only administrators would know the actual answer. This was pointed out. As such, I stated that you took the administrators at their word. You have dodged this point for two days. It is blatant that you actually believe what a series of banned users that have been revealed to support sock-puppetting, stalking, and some of the worse behavior, has to say about users. This is a serious problem. The fact that you spent the past two days dodging from this shows that you realize this is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't dodged anything. You just have a serious inability to grasp my words, apparently. The only serious problem I see is your obsession with WR... and everything else you comment on lately. I presented my opinion of why you were banned, Ottava. Scroll up and read again. I was there when you went batshit on WR, and I, along with everyone else, was pretty annoyed. As much was expressed at the time. So, when you were banned, which almost never happens on WR, it was pretty clear why. I stated my opinion here, Somey read it and he confirmed it. That's not taking an admin's word for anything; but again, I do trust Somey... much more than I trust you, in fact. لenna  vecia  16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "You just have a serious inability" another deflection. I guess this will go into day three with yet another set of squirming. And I am glad that you admit that you trust Somey. It really puts some perspective on your rabid defense of Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. I'd already stated that before. But, like I said, you have a serious inability to grasp my words. Projection, Ottava. You should do less of it. Such a waste of time, just like religious debates. Wholly pointless. لenna  vecia  17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much as I'm enjoying this discussion, I do worry sometimes that perhaps the most productive part of it is behind us. Could it be laid to rest, perhaps?  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jenna, admitting that you have trust in anonymous users that seek to destroy Wikipedia was only half of it. The other half was your flawed argument that you would say things to people's faces and yet you hide on a noticeboard. Both of these two points really makes you look really bad, and your rabid actions and hypocritical claims that criticism of WR is bad and awful makes you look even worse. You have basically proven yourself as a puppet to their games, as was pointed out when you took up their canvassing request and started disrupting BN and AfD to make a point. Then you hypocritically ignored another case of plagiarism at an RfA because you really didn't care about anything but trying to make people at Wikipedia look bad, of which are not connected to the current RfA. That is really sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go again, Ottava. You misrepresent the point of WR, and you misrepresent my position. You cast aspersions on my intentions, and I am completely confident that you can't support your laughable claims. There was no request for anything. A link was posted and I, being a BLP advocate, picked out the BLPs in the list. If my goal was simply to disrupt processes and make someone look bad, I would have gone through the entire list. However, as pretty much everyone knows at this point, my focus is on BLPs, another reason I wasn't spending my time cleaning up the plagiarism issue. Also, I believe it's worth pointing out that two of the three BLPs I nominated for deletion were deleted as a result of those discussions. The one that was kept was only kept because FT found sources, although she only added them to the AFD rather than where they belong, which is in the article. SheffieldSteel is correct, however. Debating with someone who uses the tactics that you do is counter-productive and I have more important things to work on. لenna  vecia  19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I misrepresent WR? Really? I take it that you are their new representative? It would explain the hostility towards any negative characterization or criticism of the site. My my. I love how you just sweep under the rug the constant attacks and hate. Hell, you would think that all the members of WR were not banned users, don't talk about how they have sock puppets, don't constantly attack Jimbo and the WMF, and other problematic things. You would also think that all of that canvassing there didn't happen, and that you were innocent of following that canvassing. You make a lovely propagandist. Perhaps all of these dodges and hides are just a sign of fear that you know that you are operating in something that is wrong and you are desperate to hide from any consequences. If WR is such a great place, why are you acting so guilty? Such an odd reaction. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking to what Ryan was initially talking about. I'm not a WR user, but I just searched on my name and came up with a comment in this thread] where User:Peter Damian disparages one of my posts on Wikipedia with "vomit". He could have easily expressed his displeasure with me here, but he chose to do it on a site that I don't frequent. This is important because he was engaged in the conversation on both sites. In my book, that is d-bag behavior. See what I just did there? He insulted me on one site, and I insulted him back on another site. Aside from the fact that this is lame, it is also inconvenient. If someone has a problem with me or my ideas, they shouldn't be so chickenshit as to take it up somewhere else simply to strut around with their chest all puffed up, mainly because that simply ensures that the debate on said ideas never takes place. So the problem isn't that WR exists, or that people post on it, or that people talk about Wikipedia on it. The problem is that people take d-bag cheap shots on WR at Wikipedia editors with whom they are speaking to on Wikipedia at that moment in time, while running parallel threads that guarantee everyone is just yelling into an echo chamber. If you want to have a thread on WR about how "Hiberniantears is a gigantic moron", I don't actually have a problem with that, because it is a stand alone topic not related to an issue currently being discussed on Wikipedia. But if you need to have a split personality conversation on Wikipedia and WR, then you have serious issues, and knowing that about someone would definitely weigh into whether or not I make a support or oppose vote on someone's RfA. It wouldn't be enough to sway me one way or the other, but it would definitely carry a lot of weight. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone on wants to know why I did something on Wikipedia, they need to ask me here, not on WR. To answer the question posed at WR that could have been asked here, I've read several RFA's where there were charges and counter charges stemming from actions on WR-- like I said at the top. The latest is Majorly's RFA. People complain about distant, unapproachable, unresponsive admins. I certainly am not one of those lofty admins that is too perfect for others to initiate a dialogue with. Thanks to all who have opined under this section. I certainly have a fuller understanding of WR now than I started with.   Dloh  cierekim  14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

State of the Project-- the Badsites epilogue

 * Dan, you made me smile ridiculously, and it was definitely quotebox worthy. Fortunately however, I think you're wrong.  Not only will the BADSITEs hysteria die, it's already got one foot in the grave.   I can't remember the precise count, but some ridiculous number of our arbs were elected despite WR participation.


 * Ultimately, I think the project has made it to point where we recognize that guilt-by-association isn't a good litmus test. If you go somewhere and converse honorably, you'll be treated with respect.  If you go to some message board and behave dishonorably, then people are going to take that into account too.   But I'm very very happy to see that, as a community, I think that whole BADSITES is behind us-- whether "BADSITES" refers only to the damnatio memoriae policy of striking badsites from the encyclopedia, or the BADSITES-related view that that guilt-by-association-with-a-badsite is a simple litmus test for a person's character.   A few extremists will always argue those points, but the community as a whole now seems to have firm rejection of both of those.


 * And now for something completely different-- As for the cause célèbre that faces the community now, I think the biggest problem we face is how to deal with admins who, it turns out, don't have the knack for resolving disputes between established users.   Right now, the only way to go from admin to editor is through a huge and adversarial ordeal.   If could make a wish for the Wikipedia community now, it would be that we could find a way to "honorably reassign" admins who do excellent work for the project, but probably would be better off without being in charge of inter-user conflicts--  which are arguably THE most difficult task on the entire project.


 * Semi-protecting a page is one sort of job that just takes trust. But playing referee to a dispute between established users is a very difficult task-- good faith isn't enough to do the job, you need to actually have a knack for it.   I wish there were a way to, without insult, recognize that not everyone is good at the latter job, but that doesn't mean they're a bad person, a bad wikipedia, or anything negative.  Unfortunately since desysopping is so intense and violent and "scarlet-letter-esque", it's reserved only for really bad cases.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In what I remember, only one Arb, One/CoolHandLuke was supported when it was revealed they had WR work. The others like FatMan and others failed their ArbCom runs. Most of the ArbCom later created names to deal with criticism against them. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a number of different things that admins can do, but not every admin is active in all of them. Are inter-user conflicts "THE most difficult task on the entire project"? I'm not sure I'm sufficiently experienced to judge, but I suspect that different people find different things harder or easier. Should we "reassign" (presumably desysop) admins who aren't very good at that or any particular aspect of adminship? I suggest not, but with a couple of caveats; If an active admin stays clear of one part of the role it doesn't matter whether they do so out of embarrassment and a surfeit of fish suppers, disinterest, or because they feel that they are not yet ready to wield the mop in that area; but if an admin persists in using the tools in an area where they have proved repeatedly inept and unwilling or unable to learn from their mistakes then desyopping should remain as a last resort.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For the love of Pete
This is a tremendous waste of time. Somey, the owner of Wikipedia Review, said when Ottava was banned why he was banned: for over-the-top trolling of his website and aggravating everyone to where everyone was complaining he should be banned. Exactly like how people get banned here for over-the-top trolling and enough of a chorus emerges of people that are aggravating enough to call for a ban. Not that this matters here, but since Ottava keeps wasting Wikipedia's time with pointless semantic exercises about "admin-privy" (what?) and other nonsense, that's why he was blocked. I watched it happen, as did many others. Any dispute by him is just false, and so we can put the fork in this, and never ever waste OUR time again, can someone post on WR please to ask that the thread in question be dragged out of the Tarpit with the link to Somey calling out Ottava, or start a new thread asking for Somey to post something or quote that original, so that the next time Ottava starts going ballistic on this site inappropriately we can just link it and save us all a lot of time? rootology ( C )( T ) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An "admin-privy" is where admins go to relieve themselves, of course! But I don't think Somey is actually the owner of WR, just the most prominent current admin there.  The actual ownership has, it appears, gone through at least two palace coups over the site's history and is sometimes in dispute, but I don't think Somey has ever been one of the claimants. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)