Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 20

Steward stuff
I thought I might want to bring attention to two certain posts of mine on Meta that seem to have gone unnoticed. They are [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards#becoming_a_steward? Here] with an explaination here (under the requests for permissions section...it's the top edit as of now) Ilyanep (Talk) 00:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What happened to Lucky 6.9's nomination?
I can't find him in the Recently Created Admins page, not even in the Unsupported Applications section. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It was removed by Infrogmation (who is a bureaucrat) with the note that no consensus was reached. I have now added Lucky 6.9 to the unsupported applications list. --Michael Snow 16:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ooops, thanks for taking care of that part for me. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Listing previous nominations
IMO, when a user is being renominated for adminship, any previous nominations should be listed and linked to in the nomination itself. Since some people will obviously know about them, it would be fair if all voters did. Also, when previous unsuccessful nominations are first mentioned in an opposing vote (as has recently happened), people could get the impression that a cover up was attempted. Zocky 04:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet voters
Strange things are happening on this page lately. An unusually large number of voters who've made fewer than a couple of hundred edits are expressing strong opinions on Neutrality's Rfa. On the side of the "oppose" votes, there are charges that sockpuppets have been used to derail Neutrality's nomination. Among those voting "oppose" are User:TacoDeposit (142 edits), User:Pitchka (76 edits), User:Klanda (fewer than 100 edits), and User:Miss Puffskein (47 edits).


 * Precisely WHO is accusing me of using shill (ie "sockpuppet") votes? You have a lot of nerve for saying that! Rex071404 07:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of using shill votes. I'm sorry about the unclear wording. I'm going to change the wording of my comments above. 172 08:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To make matters worse, after charges that TacoDeposit's vote was illegitimate, User:Shard (24 edits), User:Lan3y (47 edits) and User:Gavin (6 edits) entered into the fold and voted to support Neutrality. Whatever's going on, it's clear that someone is using sockpuppets.
 * Some people may be using sockpuppets, for all I know. But a whole bunch of people are throwing around that accusation based purely on the number of edits I and other users might have. This is silly, and it seems to be against the spirit of Please do not bite the newcomers. Further, some of us who have been "dismissed" as sockpuppets made specific and reasoned objections to the nomination. Personally, mine was a limited objection at this time because I thought it a poor idea to elevate someone in the midst of an acrimonious dispute in which neither "side" was behaving admirably. Instead of considering this argument on its merits, it was dismissed as sockpuppetry. This is not the intellectual plane of encyclopedists. Klanda 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Checks finally need to be imposed against bogus votes on Rfa. The board of trustees elections and the Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 required qualifications to weed out sock-puppets; it's time for similar qualifications to be required on Rfa (perhaps 300 edits, 3 months here?). 172 06:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I would be opposed to a blanket limit on voting (naturally, I suppose, since a 3 month minimum would prevent me from voting). Bureaucrats already have the ability to disregard votes which they consider to be invalid; are you concerned that this isn't enough?   &mdash; Kate | Talk 06:33, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * There needs to be some sort of objective standard. By virtue of this ongoing Rfa, Wikipedia has outgrown this more-or-less informal process of voting on admin status. Perhaps the standard can be 3 months here with at least 100 edits and/or 300 edits, which would opening it up to active users who haven't been here for 3 months. 172 06:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I was about to post exactly what 172 brought up. Not sure whether it's sock puppets or just newbies, but it's all quite troubling. There was always talk of bringing over user qualifications similar to what was consensus for VfD voting. Notably Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy. I would consider doubling the metrics there since making someone admin has more ramifications and requires more knowledge of a user's behaviour. This would make the threshold 200 edits and 2 months as a user. Feedback welcome. Fuzheado | Talk 06:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 200 edits and 2 months as a user sounds reasonable. How will a policy change be adopted. Can the bureaucrats can agree to an objective standard by consensus on this page? 172 07:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think what we can do is draft a new "Guideline". Then people can provide feedback, and then finally vote on. We should also provide an outlet for people who do not meet this threshold to leave comments. Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. Probably something like Rating system Summer 2.0 07:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What's the support/oppose ratio needed to pass a new "guideline?" 172 07:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I also think that the proposal is reasonable. Sockpuppets are becoming a major problem on Vfd. They seem to actually be influencing the way wikipedians are voting. See:Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America. Sockpuppets flood the page with Keep votes, then some real wikipedians flood it with Delete votes. This would not be a problem if the reasoning for voting delete were related to the article but unfortunately it was in reaction to the sockpuppets. If this reaction-opposite reaction voting contiues it will only damage wikipedia: it scares off new users who have been accused of being sockpuppets and minamizes finding alternate solutions; such as moving the infro to a new page or breaking it up and moving it to more appropriate ones, as opposed to Deleting or Keeping wholesale. It would be a lot better to have a solid policy that could be explained new users and help weed out sockpuppets.
 * -JCarriker 07:39, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The link above to Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America is quite illuminating. It looks like a few of the users voting on Neutrality (Taco Deposit, Pitchka, and Klanda) were born on that page. It's obviously time to adopt the same thresholds for voting eligibility used, for example, during the Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 throughout Wikipedia. 172 08:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, hello! I've been editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004 how was I "born" on that page? Just wondering. Pitchka 01:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004.
 * 172, you are fairly casual dismissing people as sockpuppets, but what do you mean by stating that I was "born" on MMHA? I have been using WP for I don't know how long, and have been making (fairly minor) edits for almost a year! Many of you are getting caught up in thinking that low edits == sockpuppet; maybe you have developed good reason to by leery. But it looks like some people (me including) are being caught up in the wrong net. By the way, if Rex had been the subject of the RfA, I would have opposed him too. It was not an issue of personal animosity, ideology, or sockpuppery. I opposed Neutrality's nomination with good reason. 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Something has to be done. I support any reasonable idea which will prevent such blatant use of sockpuppets, and which will also indirectly protect new users from being charged with sockpuppetry. Although not with as many ramifications, some people also use sockpuppets on Talk pages in an attempt to influence people's thinking unfairly (the only example I can think of the top off my head is Talk:Coca-Cola, in which Vbganesh was accused of being a sockpuppet, although there wasn't much beyond circumstantial evidence, and in which Flagfanatic was an obvious sockpuppet). Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with John that user can be judged unfairly and one of my concerns, all as stated above I support the measure, is newbie. For example, I don't think Taco Deposit is a sockpuppet. Here's why: 1. He/She joined wikipedia on April 18 that meets the proposed two month criteria. 2. While they don't have 200 edits its close and they are spread throughout the time since the user joined. 3. The first edits the user made was to the tutorial, sockpuppets don't do tutorials they go for the throat. The user first voted on Jul 18, in other words it took some time for the user to learn how to get around,a nd the only reason that they found Vfd that quickly was because an articel the user was working on was put on Vfd. There is a reason why I have digress into talking about Taco Deposit: Sometimes newbies might seem like sockpuppets. I think that Taco Deposit, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and I think we should be careful before making allegations of sockpuppetry, it scares away newbies. A standard voting requirment will help because, it removes the sockpuppet equation. -JCarriker 09:07, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. An objective threshold will not only make elections cleaner and more transparent but also protect newbies from charges of casting shill votes. As evidenced by some of the acrimonious comments regarding Neutrality's ongoing Rfa, it'll also help prevent conflict regarding voting. 172 09:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Implicit in all of this is the suggestion that bad decisions have been/will be made because of sockpuppets. I have not seen any evidence of this. I have done lots of VfD clean-up work in the past. Sockpuppets stick out like a sore thumb. It is easy to weight their votes accordingly, look at the persuausiveness of each side of the debate as well as the numbers and make the right decision. I have seen lots of other admin do the same.

I am not a bureaucrat so haven't had to make the same judgements on this page, but I am sure it is just as simple. I really dislike numeric boundaries because it immediately gives the trolls something to aim at. They make their 200 trivial edits and then crow "Oh but you have to count me, it says so in the policy."

Thus, before instituting this change, I strongly urge that proof of corruption of the process be presented. I.e. people made admin when they shouldn't have been, or vice-versa. Otherwise let's just ignore the pathetic sockpuppets and their childish little games. Pcb21| Pete 09:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * See my first post, sockpuppets are having an effect on the way wikipedians vote. -JCarriker 09:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've seen votes were users vote where they normally wouldn't bother because they are afraid that the sockpuppet vote will prevail where it shouldn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that users are "cutting their nose off to spite their face" as it were. Pcb21| Pete 09:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe that over 90% of the problem with socks could be solved by changing the software to add some sort of flag for new users (say, fewer than 90 days or 300 edits), in their sigs and recent changes, aritcle histories, and watchlist. If we had an equivalent to the "sunglasses" icon used on ebay, the sock votes would become obvious, and would need no response because it would obvious that they are obvious. uc 16:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While that might be beneficial, it reminds me of the rank system used on some bulliten boards. If we append flags to new users, someone might make a push for a gold star (or something like it) to be appended to the signatures of users with over, say, 5000 edits.  It could encourage people to make useless edits.


 * Acegikmo1 17:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arg. Please do not list me under a heading of "Sockpuppet Voters." I'm trying to get started respectfully here on Wikipedia, and that doesn't help. I'll do anything you need to help prove I'm not a sock. Miss Puffskein 17:16, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Even if you're not a sock, how can we be sure you've been around long enough to formulate an objective opinion on the candidate? I state my support for these limits, but can we please stop the massive off-topic discussion under Neutrality's Rfa? It makes it a lot harder to understand what's going on. &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  17:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you mean by this. I promise won't be offended if my vote is taken out because I haven't been here very long. :) Miss Puffskein 18:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

This vote seems to be affirming those who were arguing, some months ago, against keeping a "toctally," because numbers become more important than what people are saying. This does encourage some amount of sockpuppetry. Then, of course, you have what I think of as the "Percy Effect." At the risk of oversimplifying, the Percy clan was a warrior family in England that had a reputation of watching the course of a battle and then, when they decided that one side or the other was prevailing, would jump in on the winning side to end the battle decisively (and share in the spoils).

Now numbers are a comfortable thing, because they tend to shield the bureaucrat from criticism for a tough decision, but there are other things. In the case of Neutrality's nomination, there is plenty of material to make a determination when it comes to it. A lot of the voters on both sides are familiar names, some aren't. Some seem obvious sockpuppets: looking at edits (number and type) it would seem Pusher is and Miss Puffskein isn't.  What are the quality of the comments? Do those in favor make cogent comments about the candidate or the process that help us? Do those opposed cite reasons for their opposition? Do the reasons cite traceable events or actions of the candidates? If the complaints are well-founded, do they show something that reasonably conflict with an admin's responsibilities to the community?

As to the question of minimum qualifications on voting. We now require a voter to be a logged-in user. My feeling is that the user should be around long enough to determine whether or not s/he is apt to be a puppet. I fear that attaching numbers may just encourage sockpuppetry--a user could "bank" a name and make enough trivial edits to meet time/edit qualifications. OTOH, a fairly new but honest user could make a cogent vote about a candidate, particularly if it's backed up by a reasoned comment, pro or con (or even just an observation, for that matter). If we're going to try for some kind of hard minimums, I think that's a separate discussion. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cecropia and PCB21. The reason we have bureaucrats is so they can use thier judgement. Let's trust them to do it. I think the best way to deal with sockpuppets is to label them as such right after their vote, (This makes life easy for the bureaucrat). That's all we need to do IMO. theresa knott 18:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly new here, and haven't been involved in the thread listed at the beginning. However, I would like to say I have found the atmosphere pretty hostile to new contributors in some cases. There have been some wonderful people, but there have also been people quite quick to bite. I think the ideas about minimum contributions and the like will only add to the negativity and create a divide that needn't exist. Some people just can't contribute on such a level as you are asking, making their edits over a longer period of time on their own pace. Please don't hold that against them.--Che y Marijuana 21:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Voting qualifications straw poll
Ends 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What voting qualifications would you like to see on Rfa? While this is a non-binding straw poll, bureaucrats may decide to use the results to include/exclude votes. - UtherSRG 18:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Time minimums
No minimum
 * 1) theresa knott
 * 2) No hard minimum&mdash;too open to manipulation -- Cecropia | Talk 19:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Guanaco 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Old socks no better than new; in fact, probably worse. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * 7) Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Conti|&#9993; 23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Concur with Cecropia [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Pitchka 01:40, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004!
 * 12) SWAdair | Talk  04:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Austin Hair 04:18, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Kevin Baas | talk 07:52, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) max. voting accuracy can be achieved if illegitimate votes are ruled on a case-by-case basis, which is feasible, given their infrequency.
 * 15) Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) disruptive users and socxkpuppets are very much a case of "I know it when I see it". Decide on a case-by-case basis.
 * 16) A case-by-case basis is fine with me. PFHLai 03:09, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
 * 17) Agree with Cecropia. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 04:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Same - no hard minimum Gene s 07:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Goobergunch 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Che y Marijuana Discourages newbies--Che y Marijuana 22:00, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

1 month
 * 1) If anything is deemed nessesary, but should be on a case-by-case basis. This would be enough to root out any recently made sock-puppets. The only issue would be with extremely old sock-puppets. The truth is, if someone really wants to have multiple accounts, and make them look real, they will. This is unavoidable. As such, we can only identify the most obvious cases. It's my opinion that a user who has been around for less than a month would most likely not care about Rfa. Although, as long as the account has been around for longer than the vote, there is no real reason for invalidating the vote.    &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  19:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Gzornenplatz 19:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Everyking 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ditto Mbecker. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutrality 21:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2 months
 * 1) Fuzheado | Talk 02:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) - one or two months, but since I put out two months above (doubling the guidelines discussed for VfD), I'll stick with it.

3 months
 * 1) Bishonen 19:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC). (Only been here a month but voting anyway - it's a straw poll, right?)
 * 2) Sam [Spade] 19:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Nabla 15:13, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

4+ months Other
 * 1) Erich 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (oh ok, admins could be excepted then ;-) Erich 19:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Wouldn't this lead to sysops who aren't allowed to vote?  &mdash; Kate | Talk 19:23, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * A three month minimum would lead to sysops who aren't allowed to vote. Guanaco 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And are sysops that aren't allowed to vote unthinkable? I thought sysops were supposed to be "janitors" and have no special powers. So what would be so terrible about sysops being disallowed from voting for, well, it could hardly be more than a few weeks, could it? Bishonen 19:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the implication is more that it's ridiculous that we trust people enough to make them sysops, but not enough to let them vote on whether others should be sysops.
 * If we don't trust someone to vote on RfA, I'm not sure they can be trusted with the ability to delete articles, interpret other people's vote on VfD, and so on.  Adminship is (should be) a janitoral position, but is also one  that requires a certain amount of trust.   &mdash; Kate | Talk 19:58, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * The difference is: admins have been more thouroughly examined than voters. Erich 20:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Kate and Erich, what pulled me up short about the comments above was their tone of stating the obvious - the way they seemed to assume that admins' voting rights are more important than those of "ordinary" users. I'm sorry if I misheard or misinterpreted, of course. We trust admins, but they're not an aristocracy, are they? The idea that voting restrictions placed on other voters could or should be waived for admins seems to me, well, far-reaching in its implications. Every metawiki page I read insists on the equal power, equal importance - the same say - of all users. Sorry if I sound pompous, I hope I did misunderstand. Bishonen 20:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * well, for me at least, the fact that admins have been vetted means that they should be able to vote, regardless of how long they've been here &mdash; the vetting process makes any time requirement a bit superfluous. That's all I was getting at. Erich 12:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to say that admins should be excempt from voting requirements, rather the other way around&mdash;a voting requirement that prevents people from voting even when they're allowed to do much more potentially damaging tasks strikes me as possibly broken.  &mdash; Kate | Talk 12:18, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3+ Months with 100+ edits or 1 month with 250+ edits
 * 2) 172 02:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit minimums
No minimum
 * 1) theresa knott
 * 2) No hard minimum&mdash;too open to manipulation -- Cecropia | Talk 19:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Guanaco 19:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  19:30, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Cecropia's right. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * 8) Having a minimum is bot bait. A small number of edits should be considered when weighing a vote, but a newbie may have intelligent things to add to the conversation. V V  19:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Conti|&#9993; 23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with VeryVerily. Bureaucrats should apply common sense to possible sockpuppetry.
 * 13) Concur with Cecropia. Judgement call in tallying. [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Pitchka 01:42, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004!
 * 15) The community quickly identifies likely sockpuppets.  Few newbies will be interested in RfA, and those that are interested should be welcomed.  SWAdair | Talk  04:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Austin Hair 04:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Kevin Baas | talk 07:51, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) max. voting accuracy can be achieved if illegitimate votes are ruled on a case-by-case basis, which is feasible, given their infrequency.
 * 18) Ditto Cecropia. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) disruptive users and socxkpuppets are very much a case of "I know it when I see it". Decide on a case-by-case basis.
 * 20) A case-by-case basis is fine with me. PFHLai 03:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
 * 21) Leave it up to voters' judgement - a minimum would put undue emphasis on quantity, not quality. &ETH;&aring;&ntilde;&eta;&yuml;&szlig;&ocirc;&yacute; | Talk 04:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Nabla 15:17, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
 * 23) No hard minimum Gene s 07:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) No precise minimum, but common sense and logic are in order. Goobergunch 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

100 edits
 * 1) Gzornenplatz 19:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Everyking 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

250 edits
 * 1) Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Fuzheado | Talk 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) - puppets can already artificially create edits to appear legit, a high water mark isn't going to change that.

300 edits
 * 1) Neutrality 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

400+ edits
 * 1) It may be easy to manipulation, but it'll slow em down! Erich 19:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Sam [Spade] 19:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other
 * 1) &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3+ Months with 100+ edits or 1 month with 250+ edits
 * 2) 172 02:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should voting guidelines be implemented in a consistent fashion across multiple voting pages? (Rfa, Vfd, etc.)
Yes - standardize voting requirements
 * 1) Sam [Spade] 19:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Bishonen 06:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. Pitchka 21:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

No - different voting pages should have different voting requirements
 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 19:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) theresa knott
 * 3) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:16, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * 4)  &mdash; Kate | Talk 19:17, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * 5) Rfa is too important Erich 19:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Guanaco 19:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutrality 21:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC). RfA should have guidelines while VfD should be open. Besides, sysops are perfectly capable of understanding which pages should be deleted and what a consensus is, etc.
 * 11) David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Conti|&#9993; 23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Everything is (sadly) open to abuse though. [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Austin Hair 04:25, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) SWAdair | Talk  04:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Kevin Baas | talk 07:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
 * 18) Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Apples and oranges....
 * 20) Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) Not every poll or survey is the same.
 * 21) Nabla 15:17, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
 * 22) Gene s 07:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) rhyax 05:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments
Moving comments from intro. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Who are you expecting to count the number of edits of all these voters? If you start enforcing strict limits, that implies every voter is going to have to be checked. This seems unnecessarily time consuming. Angela. 19:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Angela. At the least let those interested do the counting, which can be cross-checked at the end by a bureaucrat if it would make a difference. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I did say that this is non-binding. I created the poll to try to crystalize the more nebulous discussion above. the results would give b-crats something concrete to point to as to why they've decided vote "A" doesn't count but vote "B" did. Or course, b-crats are free to count or discount votes as they see fit. It's my understanding that there's a regularly run task that counts edits, but even easier is to use the "user contribultions" link with one of the pre-canned numbers and see if there is more than one page of that number. (For instance, if 300 is the number you are shooting for, and the 250 count page is not full, then that's a quick disqualification.) I'm curious why you think a hard minimum of time is easy to manipulate. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A user who might want to "game" RfA could create a few sockpuppets, make a few edits to establish a start date, and "bank" them for future use. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * While that is possible, that's not a likely situation for sockpuppetry, which relies significantly more on the start of a vote for the creation of the puppet. However, I'll grant you that game strategy. Here's one I find equally likely for use with no rough guidelines for minimums: Any user could create any number of user ids and rotate through which ones they use each day, building a sockpuppet army over the course of a couple of weeks, and then bank them away just as easily. One rule I know about the gaming of a system is that each system's potential and ease for gaming needs to be weighed not in a vacuum, but against the potential and ease for gaming of others systems, particularly the existing system in place. - UtherSRG 11:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Number of edits" is used as a qualification all over the place, I know, including for sysophood, but I would like to ask in all seriousness if there's any possible alternative that could be introduced. If I write a couple of long paragraphs for an article in a text-editor and fiddle with them in my spare time for several days till I'm satisfied and then paste them in, then that's one edit. If I do the same thing directly in the wiki markup edit field, saving every so often so it won't get lost, then that's twenty edits. (I'm not assuming that anybody's clocking up trivial edits on purpose, I think that has to be rare.) I'm sorry, I realize that argument must have been many times before (I've only been here a month). But has any alternative been proposed? I sure can't think of one, but can anybody? Bishonen 19:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's still a good argument. Hence number of edits and time since registration. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about something like "3 months and 100 edits OR no time limit and 300 edits" or something along those lines? &mdash; Kate | Talk 19:06, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should limit by number of edits. Anyone can easily rack-up 300 edits if they want to. I'd say how old the account is is more of an identifier, even then, 3 months is a little extreme.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  19:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why not vote for that option above? theresa knott 19:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of people who wanted to vote for that option (since someone suggested it above).  &mdash; Kate | Talk 19:18, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

While it may make the job of the person who makes the assessment at the end of the adminship poll that much harder, I think that it would be easiest to just note the join date and number of edits after each name, and not have any particular limits. This discussion will no doubt raise its head again from time to time, so any attempt to impose any 'membership' rules should be applied across all levels at the same time, and be part of a higher level strategy. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking the same thing when I was working on the poll, but left it out because it would not be something easily implemented. I think the best way to do that is something similar to ~ but designed especially for voting signatures. Sounds like a job for the developers, I believe. - UtherSRG 21:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barring other considerations, I think it is fair and useful to point out a voter with lean qualifications for everyone else's judgment, without further comment or qualification: "Editor has eight edits since yesterday;" "editor has 25 edits, mostly minor." I would prefer not to see "OBVIOUS SOCKPUPPET AND FRIEND OF NOMINEE!!!!!!!!!!!" You know, there is also the possibility of people voting opposite to their desires in an obviously bogus way to stir up sentiment. After looking at the some of the argumentation on this nomination, I really worry about encouraging game-playing. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do we decide who gets to vote in this straw poll? *ba-dum-rimshot* Thanks folks, Remember to tip your waitron! --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:36, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I support the concept of minimal time/edits for counting as a voter. However I think even users who don't qualify for this should be allowed to comment about nominees; they may have something to say of interest to voters. -- Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In reply to Angela, I think that people who vote should mention their "status" when voting. I propose they do this between brackets to facilitate the job of the bureaucrats who have weigh and count the votes . E.g. (user:172 sysop ) or (user:Crecropia >1500 edits since may 2004 ) Andries 22:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with doing that is that it leads to people viewing editing counts as some sort of status level, which it really shouldn't be. Perhaps people could just declare whether they have less than a certain number, rather than making everyone do this. It will also lead to unnecessary load on the database if people start counting their edits before every vote. Angela. 01:45, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I am on Wikipedia for 25 days and have made some 300/400 edits, and IMO I am not completely stupid. My votes were: 3 month, 0 edits, no consistency. "3 months" not to avoid sock puppets or any other disruptive behaviour but because how can a new user know what a good admin is supposed to be? I'm here for almost a month, been here every day, several hours a day, read lots of Wikipedia namespace pages, read through talks like this one and IMO I don't know that. Most of all, how can I know if some user as a "sysop profile" in such a short time?.And it is a common practice on "real" associations to avoid newcommers to subvert old standards easyly "0 edits" because it's hard to make 10 good edits, it's very easy to make 200 (correct) minor edits, doesn't say much as a criteria. "no" because, as an example, I feel that I can already have a valid opinion on VfD but do not feel the same on RfA. Finally, maybe a bit off-topic maybe but it looks like this is all about sock puppets, so... Can someone point me the usefulness of having multiple accounts? Really finally, if vandals, hostile editors, dishonest admins, sock puppeteers, vain people, childish adults, and such start overwhelming the rest, then that is the time to write an article on The Internet is a paradise for rotten people and disconnect the damn thing.--Nabla 15:39, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)