Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 27

Weyes extended
I have extended  Weyes'  RfA for 48 hours. At this point I feel I could justify either promotion or removal based on the existing votes and comments. However, I would much prefer that this be hashed out by the community if possible so as to be able to conclude without bureaucrat discretion being necessary.

Since the most significant general point of opposition seems to be the claim that Weyes is too curt with editors, especially newbies, it would be useful if voters would address this point one way or the other. It would be especially useful if those who have not already voted and presumably have not made up their minds would look at the nomination. Thanks! Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Jim, please tell me you're not counting MasterShredder's opposition vote. It was his third edit. JFW | T@lk  21:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I ain't counting anything 'til the fat lady sings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: The 'Weyes' Case
"What we have here is a fairly shameless attempt by the pro-weyes camp to garner support through posting messages on talk pages, last minute emails and irc polling in order to push the tally over the required 80%."

"Please consider that this is a controversial nomination, and erriring on the side of caution is always advisable when dealing with such cases." Unsigned comment made by 62.253.64.19 (aka User:MARMOT) 14:35, Jun 22, 2005
 * Some evidence for that claim would be helpful. Also, signing in and signing edits would too. - Taxman Talk 18:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Weyes: The Fat Lady Sang
Everything considered, I would have a much greater problem justifying a promotion in this case than justifying removal. The simple numbers don't support the nomination at this time, and the complaints against the candidate are sufficiently non-trivial to have generated significant opposition.

I will address JfdWolff's comment about MasterShredder's vote. First, this disputed vote did not make the difference in the nomination. Since the decision was a discretionary one, I took all factors into account, including (1) the fact that MasterShredder was entitled to vote and (2) the fact that this user had but three edits at the time.

Be aware that up until a year or so ago, all votes, comments, etc., were considered in making admins, including from anons. However, we then decided that a person should at least have an account to vote--no minimum number of edits, no minimum time on Wikipedia. Another thing that has changed in the last year is that we pay a lot more attention to numbers than we did. Please keep in mind that the standard is and always has been consensus and that bureaucrat's are entrusted to determine that beyond that simple numbers.

If we want a minimum criterion for voting, this is a change of policy and we should make a proposal and have a straw poll. My opinion, and just my opinion, is that we could have a minimum to make certain that a voter has not created an account just for the purpose of voting, which also begs sockpuppetry. Perhaps a month and 100 real edits could do it. However, I'm not anxious to see "qualification wars" as the latest team sport on RfA. I'm not speaking for any other bureaucrat, but if we agree on a minimum qualification, I do not intend to personally examine the qualifications of every voter on every nomination. I believe it is appropriate for those voting to question the qualifications and put their claim in the RfA for the bureaucrats to take into consideration. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a bureacrat, I concur with Cecropia's assessment. &rarr;Raul654 19:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.
 * On the other hand, I do concur with Cecropia's point that we should not have voting minimums, nor do I intend to check for them either. &rarr;Raul654 21:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you let this one go, and renominate later, in a month or two. Although I sincerely believe that it is not what it appears, it has the appearance of being nothing more than "lets extend the vote until we get the results we want."  By extending this vote again, you're feeding the trolls who already think that adminship is a power clique among those willing to punish anonymous users, and that this is just a formality along the way to adding a "friend" to the clique.  -- Un focused 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they can think whatever they want - sometimes what is right is not the most popular decision. On the other hand, there's clearly some suspicious goings-on there and I am not keen on turning a blind and and letting a handful of suspicious votes decide a nomination, so clearly the best thing to do would be get more votes by extending the deadline. &rarr;Raul654 21:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly second that. We shouldn't look over our shoulder every second worrying what the problem users will think. We're here to run a succesful encyclopedia project. The rest be damned as long as we act in good faith, which Raul clearly has done. While I personally think it should have stayed as being deemed without consensus, given this one was borderline it is perfectly acceptable to extend it. It's not like it was 50% support and it's being extended to allow in 30% more supports. - Taxman Talk 22:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul, I respect your decision to reopen this yet again (it already had one extension) but there are also claims of campaigning in favor. I think it would have been better to wipe the slate clean, set some ground rules for voting if needed, and reopen from the beginning. Do you think that would be a better plan in the future? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be OK with that -- what kind of ground rules did you have in mind though? &rarr;Raul654 22:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I hadn't really thought that out in any detail. Perhaps no voting except by accounts at least a month old with 100 edits, as I suggested above. And in the case of this nomination only (because of possible hanky-panky and so as not to set new policy without discussion) expect each voter pro or con to give some kind of non-BS reason so bureaucrats have something to go on in making the final decision. Just suggestions. Your thoughts? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion a 100 edit limit is too strict. And 30 days is also a too long time IMO. But a rule that the voters account should be older than the nomination seems reasonable to me. Shanes 22:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe in order to vote you should either have 100edits or have had your account for a month. Most editors that come here with neither are vandals or trolls, IMHO. Falphin 22:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am personally unhappy about yet another extension, as it does look like you are simply extending and extending until you get the RIGHT result. I would personally be OK with a brand new vote, providing each user posts a valid reason (not 'because my friend voted yes'). And Matthew, you are saying there are many 'suspect' no votes, but there are also many 'suspect' yes votes that give no reason. - Marmosa
 * Such as... sockpuppets? :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

1. Support. Sure; welcome to the cabal. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

5. Support. --Carnildo 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

7. Support.-gadfium 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

13. Support RickK 06:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

16. Support. NormanEinstein 13:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

17. Support, Ghakko 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

18. Support. Grue 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

19. Support. --Kbdank71 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

21. Support Arwel 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

22. Support-JCarriker 11:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

31. Gets my support vote. Dan100 (Talk) 22:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

37. SupportGeni 02:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

38. Support--nixie 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

40. Support. Carbonite | Talk 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

43. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

44. Support --Duk 04:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Total = 16

On the other hand, there is only one oppose vote without an expalanation - Master Shredder.


 * I think you'll find sock puppetry works better if you don't actually sign both names from the same account. --W(t) 22:55, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)


 * Aha! Looks like we just found ourselves a sockpuppet! Nice job, MARMOT/62.253.96.42/Master Shredder. I guess your usage of your IP address to hide your activities as MARMOT has really done you justice.

5. Oppose I commend his vigilance, however I have seen this user undo several perfectly good edits with no explanation. Also has a tendency towards antagonisation of members he disagrees with. - Marmot

9. Oppose - Master Shredder 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure ArbCom would LOVE to heat this one. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any evidence, technical or otherwise, that I am Master Shredder. [unsigned by 62.253.96.42 23:05, 22 Jun 2005]


 * Okay.

On the other hand, there is only one oppose vote without an expalanation - Master Shredder. posted here. [unsigned by Linuxbeak 23:11, 22 Jun 2005]


 * Yes, what is your point? Like I said, there is only one oppose vote without an explanation, that of Master Shredder.  You seem to have misinterpreted what I said. [unsigned by 62.253.96.42 23:14, 22 Jun 2005]
 * What was that, Linux? Gutted.  62.253.96.42 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. You tampered with an RFA, you used a sockpuppet in an RFA to give you two votes, and you shot yourself in the foot. You have effectively told the world that you're a sham. I'm through feeding this troll. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I created a second account, used it to cast phony votes, then signed my name as it on a talk page. You really are a fucking 'tard, Linuxcunt.

62.253.96.42 23:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I try my best :-) Enjoy your block! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Falphins suggestion of 100 edits OR 1 month. I also think that anons and accounts created since the nomination should be ineligible. The biggest problem that I see with repeated extensions is that some early voters will not revisit their votes in the light of developing discussion. This problem becomes more acute the longer the debate lasts and without such revision the process becomes increasingly akin to mock democracy and further from consensus building.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * One obvious treatment for problems of that sort would be to open discussion for some period of time before voting begins. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Law of large numbers
I wonder if the continued extensions will make any difference; because of the law of large numbers, the proportion of support and oppose probably will not change much. --cesarb 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Normally, I would be in full agreement with you. However, seeing that we have concrete evidence of vote tampering, that might change. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * In summary, what is the concrete evidence of vote tempering, please? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * MARMOT was found of using a sockpuppet, and as such, this nullifies both MARMOT's vote as well as his sock's. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Specifically, David Gerard used the the checkIP page and found a match between the two. &rarr;Raul654 02:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't we nullify this whole thing and start over clean? It would be seven days instead of five. I'm also not crazy about extensions after extensions. It's like the principle that there is a limit to how much you patch a program before you throw it out and start with a clean code base. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me. &rarr;Raul654 03:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * It'd be fine by me, though I'm not quite clear on for what reason. Yes, there has been sockpuppeting, but it hasn't effected the vote in any way that can't be solved by discounting the sockpuppets. The main problem appears to be that it insists on floating in that magical 75-80% region which makes it hard to bureaucrat. Though re-RfAring would probably solve that due to random fluctions, I'm not sure it's the normal way of resolving that. --W(t) 03:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * It is an issue that after a certain point the process is tainted. Since Raul654, the other b'crat involved agrees, I'm cancelling and restarting this nomination. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It didn't work in Washington. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)


 * I would not be surprised if this nomination fails for a second time. However, I think Weyes deserves to have another go anyway, seeing that he's been more or less cheated out of a concencus. In another month, his mistakes should all have washed over, and he should be admin'd without much fanfare. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop misusing the law of large numbers. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 1 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Is this an example of poor form?
In every other case I've seen, the "Wikipedia way" when consensus fails has been to withdraw the proposal, discuss, redevelop the proposal, wait a period of time, then resubmit the proposal for another vote. Why should Weyes be treated any differently?

If the bureaucrat judging the nomination vote cannot decide if there is a consensus, then there is no consensus. It is NOT time to extend, extend, then revote. I would not have been upset had a bureaucrat used their judgement to claim that the valid, accepted votes formed a consensus the first time. We expect bureaucrats to use their judgement to make decision. I won't be upset if a bureaucrat makes that decision now.

I am highly disturbed by the unusual nature of the process used (but I wouldn't call my feeling "upset"). Even though I believe these actions were taken in good faith, they have the appearance of a vote with a predetermined outcome. Any process with the appearance of impropriety is inherently flawed, and should be discarded immediately.  Un focused 14:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. This is entirely within bureaucrats' good judgement. If the picture doesn't change substantially within the extension, the nomination will still have failed. To nitpick about this would be wikilawyering, which is clearly inherently flawed. dab (&#5839;) 14:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there needs to be a massive reduction in Wikilawyering and second guessing (acroos Wikipedia in general, but especially here). This is an admin nom, not a supreme court case. The bureaucrats have made their judgment in good faith, and that's all that needs to be done. Let's not lose sight of the more important goal, of improving the project. Voice your opinion in the nomination and call it a day please. - Taxman Talk 14:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that these actions were done in good faith, I stated so above. But one of the things Wikipedia needs most is administrative transparency.  Processes need to not only be done in good faith, but need to appear to be done in good faith.  Anything less feeds the trolls.  -- Un focused 14:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The RfA in question has been handled in the most shambolic way and definitely has the appearance of impropriety. It sets a very bad precedent. People may claim this is a new vote, but it is in fact an extension of the old vote by another name. Please. --Mrfixter 14:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Taxman, I think the problem is people did voice their opinions by vote, and a concensus was clearly not reached (even ignoring sockpuppet business), this was subsequently ignored, and the process started again. Hence unfocused comments are, i believe, perfectly legitimate. Bluemoose 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents
This has been a very unusual case. When I originally extended this nomination (as has been done many times before) I stated the reason. Then Raul654 noticed that there were unusual circumstances (included vote tampering) and, in good faith, used the powers entrusted to him to make a further extension. When it became evident this was just getting more messy, he and I agreed to wipe the nomination clean and restart without having to sort out which votes might be socks, or bogus accounts, or whatever.

As to transparency, I would argue that the RfAs are one of the more transparent processes on Wikipedia and so has this nomination process been. The decisions have been made and explained out in the open. The only lack of transparency on the part of Raul and I would be if anyone feels that we are not acting in good faith or have a hidden motive in regard to this nomination. If anyone thinks so, say so, and say why, remembering that it is one thing to say someone made a wrong decision, or could have made a better decision, or did not make the decision that they themselves would have made, and another entirely to charge that a corrupt decision has been made.

We have had hundreds of decisions made in the last year, with little controversy, and I believe this process is working well and smoothly. In this case, this is a learning experience like any other. Perhaps we should limit extensions to one, perhaps we should set out a simple qualification for voting (like a minimum month for a voting account). We can discuss this if we're so inclined.

Perhaps voters should keep transparency in mind in their own actions; before you "campaign" for or against a candidate; or are tempted to sockpuppetry; or try to get decisions made on IRC, think: if your behavior would be embarassing to you or the candidate if it were revealed in the RfA, maybe you shouldn't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I blame the alleged sockpuppets not the bureaucrats, though to have more and clearer information about the alleged sockpuppetry would be great. Wouldn't a full investigation of the alleged sockpuppetry and a removal of suspect votes have been a better option? As a transparent no voter I want to know who has been tampering with the vote, SqueakBox 16:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Any bureaucrat or admin who takes administrative action on the process of a vote in progress should consider if it would be just as acceptable for Insert Notable Despot Here or his supporters to do the same. Although I believe the motives of the bureaucrats were in good faith, transparency of motive is almost never clear enough, even when publicly stated.


 * Ideally, I think Weyes should withdraw his acceptance of the nomination, and come back in a month or two (when I expect he'll pass handily) . Otherwise, his administrator position could be troll bait for as long as he keeps it.  If he withdraws and comes back later we'll have a clean slate to work from.  If he succeeds then, Weyes won't have this giant Troll steak hanging around his neck.


 * Let me state again, I believe that both extensions and setting up a revote were done in good faith, but I'd rather see a delayed "clean result" than any possible appearance of impropriety. -- Un focused 17:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The first extension was fully justified, since the community has indicated consistently that it trusts bureaucrats to do what is necessary and advisable in their judgment to determine consensus. The alternative would have been to make the decision then and there, which bureaucrats are also empowered to do, and that too would have raised complaints. Remember, it is the bureaucrats' job to make their own best efforts to make a decision in accordance with their best judgment, not the decision which they think will provoke the least controversy. Your reiteration of your the idea that avoiding "any possible appearance of impropriety" is the heart of this process is quite subjective, and is bound to be unattainable in everyone's eyes. Appearances of propriety or impropriety should be based not simply on displeasure with a particular result but on a knowledge of the process, the history of the process, and the record of and trust in those who administer the process. With the miracle of hindsight, I could say that it would have been better to not have had the second extension, but that is water of the dam now. More important is that every disputed call not become a Wikinquisition. I agree with Raul's general POV that we shouldn't make procedures on Wikipedia any more involved than necessary. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this embroglio is illustrative of the problems with extending votes. In general, I do not believe that a vote should be extended because consensus is unclear, unless there simply aren't sufficient votes. The practice of extending questionable votes is one Cecropia has instituted that was not followed prior to him taking near-total ownership of the adminship process after he was promoted to bureaucrat. This practice has never been voted upon by the community. Prior to its use, bureaucrats (and formerly developers) made a call shortly after the nomination closed.

It is my view that the practice of extending ending times, restarting votes, adding banner ads for certain votes, and so on generally undermines the simplicity and fairness of the process. The way it is supposed to work is that the vote runs for its proper duration and then bureaucrats make a call, with a 75%-80% threshold at their discretion as they gauge the feelings of the community. Part of the bureaucrats' job is to determine which votes are valid, and it is wholly appropriate for bureaucrats to discount sock-puppet votes, anonymous votes, and votes of people who clearly have no genuine involvement in the project. The overuse of extensions and whatnot have led to a Calvinball-like atmosphere where the rules are unpredictable. The process has become so unpleasant for nominees that it is a wonder we still have applicants.

I also believe that, in truly questionable cases, bureaucrats should close the vote and consult amongst themselves to determine the best course of action. -- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I am fine with the extensions and banner's drawing attention to votes without a consensus. All that does is allow a voter to make a vote, it doesn't encourage one way or another. But I am also fine with the simpler policy you outlined, no extensions, and if there is no consensus, simply don't promote. Also closing the vote, and making a determination amongst themselves seems fine to me. Admins and bureaucrats will always take heat for making decisions, but some greater consistency that would come from no extensions may help. - Taxman Talk 18:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused here - I see one or two sockpuppet votes, in what way does this constitute such an irregularity to require a new vote? sockpuppets aren't exactly a rare phenomenon. I don't understand the thinking behind this action -- Joolz 21:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Which action? You'll have to address that question to Raul and the other editors who discovered the problems. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it's the combination of two sockpuppet, two votes that seemed to be opposing the procedure, not the user, and the fact that the voting hovered in the 75%-80% range for a long time. --Carnildo 21:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The action I refered to was the action of starting a re-vote. My question was addressed to the discussion and anyone who might have an answer. :P
 * The two sockpuppets could have simply been discounted, and the two users which oppose the process should be treated consistently accross all RfAs to which they voted, in other RfAs I believe that those oppose votes have counted with no need to restart the vote. -- Joolz 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda." Let's do a brief timeline. When the original vote expired, I examined it as I usually do and extended it for 48 hours. I posted my reasoning above, which you can read. At the end of the 48 hours I determined that consensus had not been demonstrated, based on the totality of the votes and comments, and ended the candidacy without promotion, but with an explanation of my reasoning in that, which you can also read above. Then Raul looked at the situation and restored the nomination for five days based on new information he had. I wouldn't have reinstated the nomination (it could come up again in another month, after all) if only that I believe that a cooling-off period would have been beneficial rather than to keep chewing this over. (For the record, I also considered another extension myself without Raul's intervention, but thought it not useful). But I firmly believe Raul acted in good faith and reasonably as he saw it, and that he was within his powers and trust to extend the nomination. After this became controversial, I proposed that the process was messed up and that the vote should be annulled. There were two ways to go: revert to the previous removal or start new. OR because a lot of editors had become interested in this we could clean out the votes, good, bad and doubtful. I proposed this and Raul agreed. And there we are. The process is back in the hands of the community, and in my often stated opinion, this is better than the other alternatives.


 * The heart of management is not to expect to always make the right decision, but to make a reasoned decision, and be able to justify it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * UC feels that some of the actions I've taken undermine the process. OTOH I've been criticized in the past for putting to vote issues to gauge community sentiment, from which we got firmer opinions that show where sentiment lies and have enabled me and other bureaucrats to make hundreds of promotions with very little controversy. Sure, in the past we didn't have extensions but we simply left some nominations in limbo because noone acted and we had fights over the result of RfAs bcause the candidates and their supporters or detractors did not understand or have explained to them reason behind promotions and non-promotions. UC, you are mistaken. The community explicitly did vote on the propriety of banner ads by bureaucrats and on bureaucrats using their discretion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe I made it quite clear in my comments above that the extension of ending times, in particular, has not been voted upon by the community. I disagree that we have made "hundreds of promotions with very little controversy," and even if that were true, it may not be a goal.  Adminship, like it or not, has become a political matter.  In politics, controversy is normative.  But even in politics, it is vital that a sense of fairness and consistency be maintained.  The problem we have now is that the voting period has no clear and unambiguous endpoint.  Instead of promoting or not on the merits (and perhaps disagreeing upon them and discussing them) we end up in a disagreement about the mechanics of voting.  A disagreement about the mechanics of voting is pointless, and is impossible to resolve without clear ground rules.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are correct, what do you propose as a solution? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for falling into the middle here :) I just wanted to make one comment, and that is that people who use socks to vote, or vote to make a WP:POINT, are likely to do so again if the nomination is ran again. So the best option would be to ignore them entirely. For the first that's relatively easy; any voting page (VFD, for instance) discounts sock votes. The second is a difficult judgement call, but personally I would trust the bureaucrats if they decided to discount votes that are extremely spurious (for the simple reason that the idea is to gauge consensus, not simply count votes). Of course, that also means discounting people who vote A because user:X voted B. The obvious result will be that people will still do that, but not give that reason - but it will make the voting less offensive to both parties (frankly I find voting A because a specific person voted B, rather offensive). Anyway I'm not saying that this is or is not a good idea; I'm just saying that I'd prefer bureaucrat judgement to an instant re-nomination. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * What about user X voting A because user Y voted A? Is that any better or worse?  I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that people will still do it and not give a reason.  I'd rather know why someone is voting a certain way, regardless of how trivial I think the reason is.  --Xcali 14:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extensions are potentially helpful for nominations that receive little attention, and restarts may be appropriate if significant new evidence comes to light. But as I've mentioned before, if the nominee is controversial, extending the vote will not make them any less controversial. The usual outcome is that support and opposition will continue to come in roughly the same proportions as before, as seems to be happening with Weyes right now. --Michael Snow 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revalidation
Seth Ilys has added a "self-nomination" to revalidate his adminship. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this thought to be a good idea?
 * 2) If so, how often should we do it?
 * 3) Should it be mandatory after a probationary period of, say, a year?
 * 4) Should it be mandatory on each anniversary of adminiship being conferred?
 * 5) Should we have a separate page?


 * A very noble gesture by Seth Ilys, but noble gestures are not always a good way to form policy. Personally, I think it would be a good idea for any admin to do this after they have been the subject of any kind of ban or other serious problem; in fact, this might be the first step towards the long-discussed de-admining process. So admin A is banned for a 3RR ban (for example); at the end of the 24 hours they list themselves here (for transparency, I'd avoid a separate page) for revalidation; they probably pass, but with a significant number of voters warning that they will not support a 2nd revalidation vote. Now A will seriously ponder any future breaches of the rules. Might well be a good thing. Filiocht | Talk 10:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The de-adminship discussion has started anew. The irony of the case is that admins tend to get involved in controversies, and any admin involved in page protection or user blocking (or sometimes even deletion) is bound to offend an immature user at some point or other. If, during a year, Admin:X gives temporary blocks to 10 users, they may hold a grudge and vote against his renomination. That doesn't mean that X was a bad admin. An admin breaking rules sufficiently to warrant a block should be investigated, but this is a difficult process and mere voting doesn't cut it. (case in point:RickK. Not everybody is convinced that he should have been blocked since he may have been reverting vandalism; the RFC and VFU filed against him, as well as the restarted discusson on de-adminship procedure, show signs of some people having their judgments clouded since they dislike them. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The de-adminship discussion has never really gone away. Yes, there are dangers in the voting idea, but they could be limited by a statement that the default position is to revalidate, with a clear majority required to de-admin. If an admin gets blocked, and if the consensus is that the block is justified, I believe that this raises serious questions around their suitability as an admin. Do you not share this concern? If not, at what point do you feel that an admin may have overstepped the mark?
 * One block? Ouch. Everyone has lapses in judgement sometimes. If someone is persistently a problem, and rejects attempts to address their behaviour (i.e. Guanaco), then action may need to be taken. If you de-sysop someone, there is a very good chance that they will resign - indeed, it has happened every time someone has been desysopped so far. Let's minimise this to only the most utterly necessary cases. Our purpose here is writing articles, not browbeating admins into trying to be some pinnacle of behaviour. Ambi 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I don't think going far enough to get (rightfully) blocked is very hard to avoid. It has to be a pretty serious breach to earn that. One block that was considered legitimate is enough for me to ask that someone get revalidated if there were a perfect system. I just don't think there is a good system for that. I guess reapplying and only asking for a majority support may work, but the problem of user's angry at being rightfully blocked by the admin is still there. - Taxman Talk 11:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been thinking about RickK, but as there is no consensus that his block was justified, he would not have had to submit for revalidation under the system I am proposing. But it occours to me that a revalidation voting system could be a workable way to adress the problems that arise from the current absence of a de-admining process. Even janitor jobs are not for life. Filiocht | Talk 10:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * What problems? There is a de-adminning process. It has been used twice, because while the troll lobby has a tendency to whine and bitch a lot, there just hasn't been that many cases of serious admin abuse. Ambi 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think voluntary revalidation is a good idea. It will only be done by those who are secure enough in their support (like Seth Ilys) and not by those who might actually be voted out (like Ed Poor). Mandatory revalidation for all is not very practical either; many admins are uncontroversial and repeating their votes would be quite a waste of time. I think there should be a revalidation vote if demanded by a certain minimum number of people with minimum qualifications of time and edits. The necessary support percentage could be somewhat lower on revalidation than on the original nomination, to allow for a few "immature people holding grudges". So you wouldn't need 75-80%, but you should still have at least 60% support. NoPuzzleStranger 11:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've got a de-adminship process. If an administrator goes ape, he loses admin powers immediately. An administrator who is abusing his powers can also be hauled before the arbitration committee, which can remove the powers. These mechanisms don't have the problems associated with vote-based de-adminning, which would only restrain administrators from acting when they need to, for fear of becoming unpopular. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Some questions I really do not know the answers to: What is the process? Where is it documented? How is "goes ape" defined? Who decides? What safeguards of fairness and transparency are there? I've been editing here for nearlt 2 years; how come I've never seen this process? Look on the process I'm pondering as trial by a jury of peers rather than voting; what's to fear if it is correctly established? Filiocht | Talk 11:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as with regular user abuse, it is documented and put before the community in the form of an RfC to determine the views of the community on the matter. It can then be brought before the arbitration committee, who has the power to de-sysop users or make them reapply for adminship. The safeguards of fairness and transparency are just the same as with all other arbitration cases; the community elects people who they trust to hear user disputes, and most of the proceedings are conducted in open view on the wiki. The reason you haven't seen it is because there has been one serious case put to the arbitration committee - and that person was desysopped. The troll lobby is very good about screaming about abusive admins, but not producing any evidence when given the opportunity of making a complaint and following due process, instead of following the lynch mob path. What is there to fear? RC and newpages patrol are already painful, which is why so few people want to do them. It is also an unfortunately good way to make enemies. You'll see things like this getting neglected - or indeed, anything that could potentially make an admin unpopular, lest they be subject to a lynching. We already have the means for the community to make their voices heard, through an RfC. We already have the means for a trial by their peers - with genuine due process instead of a popularity contest/lynch mob. There aren't hordes of abusive admins marauding unchecked, making this a solution in search a problem. Ambi 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with Ambi's answer, which is much the answer I would have given. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know how RfC works, in Tony's original post, he said taht rogue admins "can also be hauled before the arbitration committee". My questions related to whatever the other option the "also" referred to. Filiocht | Talk 11:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The option that the developers can (and will) instantly strip admin privileges of an admin who goes on a vandalism spree. The reason that most people don't know that is that it doesn't really happen all that often. I'd say Tony and Ambi hit it right on the head. There is no evidence that any of the present admins should be de-adminned, and there is evidence that some people have tried, or are trying, to get users de-adminned for personal reasons or grudges. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a case a couple of months ago where a longtime user, an admin, left Wikipedia, deleting all of his pictures from Wikipedia. The pictures were recovered from various sources and mirrors, and the user's admin privileges were removed.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seth Ilys "Nomination"
I have moved Seth Ilys' "renomination" to his user space. If you like, you can vote "for" or "against" him at User:Seth Ilys/Renomination Poll. There is no process or policy or mechanism for what he is doing, and if this should "fail" there is no policy to remove him as an admin.
 * If it should fail (which is highly unlikley in the first place) then he can request to be de-admined, can't he? -- Joolz 15:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper place for this. If he must, he can request de-admining now from Angela or Anthere, as Stewards. If they de-admin him, he could then nominate himself new. If he succeeded, he would become an admin again; if not, not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit, um, odd to me to restart Weyes' nomination in the absence of any "process or policy" for that, and then abort Seth's confirmation on the grounds that there is no "process or policy". I know, WP:IAR, but I have to admit that I'm not really happy about it.  Kelly Martin 15:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with Kelly on this. I was thinking the same thing.  Someone complained about me making a point on my vote regarding Weyes, but Seth's entire "nomination" seemed to be trying to make a point. --Xcali 16:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is "Requests for Adminship," not "Requests for Self-Validation." The Bureaucrats made a decision to salvage the mess that Weyes' nomination had become, which we are empowered to do. If you think otherwise, make an RfC. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not challenging your decision on Weyes' nomination. What I am expressing displeasure with is your justification for your action in relation to Seth's request for reaffirmation.  As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if there's a policy regarding Seth's reaffirmation.  What I want to know is whether what he did is reasonable.  If you think that it's not (and apparently you do), I'd like to know why.


 * I'm sorry that my comments reopened the discussion of Weyes' RFA; I consider that issue resolved and have no wish to revisit it. Kelly Martin 16:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not expressing an opinion on validations. The community can decide that; it's been discussed before, and it can be discussed now. Whether to do it, how to do it, should admins serve for a fixed term, etc. etc. But this is a topic for discussion. Seth Ilys is already an admin and has no standing to seek adminship. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If after all this Weyes actually is made an admin an Rfc will probably be the only option, SqueakBox 16:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia saved us from having to make reasoned arguments for or against Seth's idea by invoking objections against its form. It seems to me too that Seth was making a point, he just forgot to put in the disruption part. Cecropia made sure the community didn't have the potential to supply it, just in case. I cannot argue against his actions (but neither do I think he has strong arguments for them); I will argue it's overly protective. JRM · Talk 16:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * You can discuss Seth's idea all you want. You can create a straw poll here, as has been done on many other issues. You can frame and tear apart the arguments. But Seth is already an admin and his attempt at self-validation (and any subtext such as trying to force other admins to seek "validation") do not belong on the project page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, let me formulate that more pointedly. You saved us from having to take Seth up on his idea, here, right now, as he demonstrated it. Instead you're trying to argue that by starting a nice little poll somewhere we can have just as productive a time. That's just not so. If you're arguing that having Seth's re-RFA here will actively harm Wikipedia, not just that it doesn't jell with what "proper course of action" Seth is obliged to follow by reading policy (as if that were exhaustive), then I'm just not seeing it. JRM · Talk 17:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * Did anyone ask Seth Ilys if his renomination includes relinquishing his admin powers if it doesn't pass? If that's the case, I think his self nomination really is a "Request for Adminship" and not a "Request for Self-Validation" (which I find is a little bit of an insulting thing to say about his self-nomination, especially if he is resigning admin powers absent a consensus to keep them). -- Un focused 16:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Let him resign in advance, then. After the de-adminship becomes effective, he can seek adminship again. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the functional difference between having the reaffirmation vote, with the understanding that if he is not reaffirmed, he will stand down his adminship, and forcing him to resign first and then run for administrator again. Can you explain why you feel that he should be required to resign first (and have that resignation accepted) before he can be reaffirmed?  Kelly Martin 19:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of Confirmation of sysophood. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Whether or not one agrees that the "re-nomination" was the right thing to do, Cecropia is not wrong in noting that this is putting the cart before the horse. There is currently no policy requiring admins to be reelected; Seth could propose one if that's the goal. If he wants place his adminship on the line for the purposes of seeking validation (or whatever less "insulting" term one might want to use), then he could certainly be welcome to resign and try again. The project page is not for experimentation or point-proving. siafu 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Two apologies - (i) I think I injected the term "revalidation" into this discussion: apologies if anyone thinks it is in any way derogatory or insulting, which was not in any way my intention. I certainly did not intend to alllude to "self-validation".  Perhaps "confirmation" would be a more neutral term.  (ii) I seem to have kicked over an ants' nest.  Sorry.  Shall we go back to writing an encyclopaedia? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An attempt at a more detailed explanation

 * I don't see this as en exercise in self-validation; I'm not fishing for compliments (although I am touched by those I have recieved) or boosts to my ego. I've stated almost since I recieved admin status that it really doesn't make a big deal to me whether I have the powers or not. What disturbs me is that I see potential admin candidates who I have great sympathies with in terms of Wikipedia policy and culture (such as User:Eequor) being turned down; it makes me think that perhaps the community views adminship rather differently now that it did when I was nominated, and I think that the most reliable way for us to make an assessment of whether that's true is to have older admins go through RfA again under the new community standards.
 * I intended for this to be a binding discussion; if I don't meet precisely the same threshhold as is required for new admins, I'd expect that someone would take it upon themselves to remove my admin privileges. If someone didn't do that automaticaly, I'd start to pester a bureaucrat to do so and (of course) not use my admin powers in the interim.
 * Folks being up WP:POINT, which is somewhat relevant. If my nomination proves to be contentious, then I will have "broken" WP:POINT (which isn't a hard-and-fast rule anyway, and, regardless, I'd point to WP:IAR), but it will be a point which I (and others, judging from my discussions on IRC) agree needs to be made -- namely, that adminship isn't at all the "not a big deal" thing that Jimbo originally intended it to be. (There are, as Kim alludes to below, examples on nl. and de. where established admins have been given the boot in votes just like this for rather petty reasons). I think it's worthwhile for us to know if such an environment exists on en., as a number of folks have observed changes in the climate (including myself, particularly on Eequor's RfA). So that's the story. I think it's rather legalistic and instruction-creepy to insist that I resign my adminship before being reconsidered on RfA, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus that that makes sense, especially given what I'd stated above.
 * I hope I've been sufficiently clear here, but I'll try to answer any other questions about my intention if folks have them. I certainly didn't ask that a fight to put my rRfA back on RfA be taken up, but I won't stand in the way either way. I'm just trying to be an asset to the community by conducting a very slightly disruptive experiment to see if the community's attitudes towards adminship are majorly disruptive to the project. - Seth Ilys 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd add as an addendum that this may or may not be moot now, given all of the attention being paid to my motivations. However, I'd be inclined to let the experiment continue; I see three potential outcomes:
 * 1. My renomination is confirmed by a very strong consensus, indicating that I'm considered to be a good admin; this tells us little or nothing about community views towards adminship;
 * 2. My renomination is not confirmed because of legitimate greivances against me, incidicating that I'm not actually such a good admin and probably shouldn't have been given admin powers in the first place. (which would be telling)
 * 3. My renomination is not confirmed because of petty trivial arrogant people who have only superficial complaints against me (easily confusable with #2, perhaps, but also, again, possibly a very telling outcome, and the one with the greatest possible ramifications for the community as a whole).
 * Only in this third case could my rRfA be considered to be remotely disrutive, and then I'd hope it would be agreed by sensible people that that's precisely the sort of disruption we need. I apologize, though, if my boldness in these actions have been confusing in my intentions or if I've stirred up unreasonable or unwelcome dissent and disruption. -- Seth Ilys 19:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renomination experiment
Cecropia (et al),

I'm positive that you are acting in good faith here and doing what you believe people expect of you. Even so, please let Seth Ilys run his experimental nomination here. You can mark it with "experimental" or some such banner if you prefer. He's attempting to reconfirm data we got from the .nl and .de communities. The conclusions will have a direct impact on RFA, so this is the most appropriate venue for the experiment. Kim Bruning 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to let us know the data or results from the Dutch and German experiment, or would letting us know skew the experiment? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't you know that the lab rats are never told why they are being stuck with cattle prods? This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If the consensus here is to restrore this "renomination" I won't stand in the way, but I will vote oppose and explain why. I will also expect Seth Ilys to step down if he fails the new nomination on the same basis as any new nominee. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought that last part was obvious, even if policy didn't mandate it. Seth said as much that he "expected" to be deadminned if he failed. I agree he might have been even clearer about it, though. JRM · Talk 18:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

It would be nice to know the background of these things up front (as in "transparency") before we become guinea pigs to experiments. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the reasons why the revote on Weyes has stirred up such a fuss. I don't think anyone thought an immediate revote was an option until it was already in progress (because it wasn't put 'up front' before being implemented.  The whole RfA process has unintentionally been made a guinea pig.)  -- Un focused 18:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)  (I suspect you may be tiring of my replies, so I think I'll not say more on this whole thing for a while, except that I think the bureaucrats have been doing a very good job so far, but there's always room for improvement.)
 * I believe I explained in detail about the Weyes matter, including a timeline. This was not planned, but became necessary after another Bureaucrat reopened an already closed nomination. It is an attempt to put the best result on what was probably a procedural error. There is no intent to create policy out it. Please read over the extensive verbiage here, as this has been chewed over so much it resembles a haggis without the casing. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also like to see Seth's renomination back here. I think it won't get the feedback it deserves if it's tucked away on a user sub page. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is "here"? On the talk page is OK IMHO, but I don't really think it belongs on the project page, especially in view of the ingenuous way it was presented. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Holding it here on this page (or anywhere other than WP:RFA) will render the event meaningless, as it is unlikely to get the necessary attention anywhere else. People go to WP:RFA to express an opinion on on who should (or should not) be admins; they don't go to other places, such as this talk page or subpages of Seth's user space, for that purpose.  Seth wishes the Wikipedia community to declare whether they wish for him to remain an admin (let's not read anything more into Seth's intentions than that, please; many people are wrongly guessing at his intentions without talking to him and jumping to erroneous conclusions as a result).  Your actions indicate that you feel that he's not entitled to ask for such a declaration in a manner that would be effective without first convincing a steward to deadmin him (which, as you probably know, is likely to be ineffective).  Frankly, that seems to me to be putting form ahead of substance, and that continues to concern me.  Kelly Martin 19:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't think I was being ambiguous, but to clarify, I mean on Requests for adminship. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is one big multifaceted experiment. After they're done, yes, we draft policy so we don't have to repeat them. But you can't replace everything with a dry exposition of your ideas, asking if people would please comment. Not everything has an impact that way. And also: what's done is done. JRM · Talk 18:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Seth is the one admin with the integrity to allow himself to be recalled by the community if necessary, while all other admins hide behind the rules that give them the status for life, Saddam Hussein style. It's pretty scummy to try to scupper his most noble gesture lest it become too common. &mdash; Chameleon 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer to think of it as "Supreme Court Justice style". If the rules give it for life, then it's not really "hiding", is it?  --Kbdank71 20:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And besides, it's not for life anyway, any serious breeches of policy would result in deadminship rather quickly by a steward or bureaucrat. More subtle case are handled by arbcom, and admins have had their admin rights revoked by that process. - Taxman Talk 20:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, a lot of us would like to see a recall system of some kind put in place. If anyone's hiding behind the rules it's those who see no need for a system for deadminship. Encouraging admins to submit to a new RfA is a noble gesture, but not a blanket solution because those at risk of losing won't submit themselves to it. I'd like to see those of us who respect Seth for putting himself forward for this get behind a system whereby adminship can be removed by the same people who grant it - the community. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 22:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no need for putting in place a recall system (and I am not an admin) as the current system works well. However much I admire Seth's gallant gesture, I surely hope that not all administrators feel the need to do the same, as it takes me a long time to evaluate whether somebody is worthy of adminship, and I do not want to have to vote more than once a day just to keep the administrators we already have. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a renom system is vital to health of wikipedia. There are certain admins who have become POV warriors and use thier adminship as a false cloak of respect. As it is, admins are unanswerable, and there is no way for admins to be required to justify maintaining thier admin powers. Klonimus 30 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of renominations as well. For instance, my original candidacy was a 4-0 vote on a self-nomination after about 4 1/2 months of use and less than 800 edits. Clearly standards are rougher now, and I think after a year and a half of being an admin it'd be fair for people to decide whether or not I've been using those powers to the benefit of the encyclopedia or not. Certainly more people are aware of my presence now, many of whom were not even present on Wikipedia at the time, and others who would not have considered voting in my initial election. Sarge Baldy 10:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please review the 3 experimental renomination RFAs (Seth Ilys, Francs2000, Linuxbeak).
 * Having reviewed them, do you still want to have renominations?
 * If you're undecided, talk with Waerth. He's a steward, and is involved with nl and de, where people are using yearly review.
 * Kim Bruning 13:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * While I am a bit skeptical that in those tests the controversy tends to be more with the system than the user, they don't discourage me and I would like to proceed. Sarge Baldy 16:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you find some admins to volunteer for a second round of experiments then. :-) I'm quite put off, myself, but feel free! :-) Kim Bruning 16:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be up as long as there was a little disclaimer on there that said you can't vote oppose just because you're against the concept. The vote is on the admin. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 16:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Opposition to the system should be done on the talk page rather than by attacking everyone using it. If someone wants to vote oppose based on the character of anyone who would use such a system, I see no problem with it. But it should not be used as simply a medium for one's own wiki-activism, which comments such as "my oppose vote, which I am maintaining, is not at all about your fitness as an admin" make abundantly clear. A jury member may vehemently oppose the death penalty outside the courtroom, but in it her choices are to work with it or walk out. That debate belongs elsewhere. Sarge Baldy 18:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. But I'm sure bureaucrats can use their own discretion. I'm up for re-nominating myself as long as such votes do not become a problem. (Course I'm a bureaucrat as well, so does that make me re-nominated for both?) &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 03:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's safe to just say admin, since it's probably evident that only an admin would have bureaucratic powers. As for the section I think it should be worded in a way so as to discourage votes against the system itself, although I'm not sure it's necessary to forbid them. If they do become problematic, I see no reason why you couldn't retract your bid, as 2 of the 3 original experimenters did. Sarge Baldy 06:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Renomination idea
As renominating 500+ admins would be silly, I had an idea last night which i'll post here now. It may be an idea to implement review for new admins. Basically, after an RfA succeeds as normal, the user becomes an admin. After 30 days the user then goes under 'Admin Review', which is a second RfA. Should they pass that or result in no consensus, they remain an admin permanantely (barring any ArbCom decisions). This may not weed out those who are abusive later on, but most unsuitable admins would show that they can't control their powers in the first month. If anyone passed the review and was too abusive, ArbCom would normally intervene anyway. Hedley 10:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't meta survive with admin's being reviewed every year? This link is Broken 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)
 * Comparing meta to en is a clear case of apples to oranges. En has an order of magnitude more administrators, orders of magnitude more edits and articles, and basically 0 article conflicts and 0 user-admin conflicts. Just because something works on meta doesn't mean it would work on en -- it almost certainly wouldn't. &rarr;Raul654 June 30, 2005 00:36 (UTC)
 * En has 500 admins which would mean almost 10 have to be reviewed every week -- between 1 and 2 new ones a day. That's not something I'm personally up to, nor are most wikipedians. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 03:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed policy for bureaucrats regarding RFA
To try to make the process more consistent and predictable, I propose:


 * 1) That all nominations be permitted to run for exactly seven full days unless declined by the nominee.  Nominations will not be removed earlier, by virtue of being frivilous, due to voting irregularities, or due to overwhelming opposition.  Nominations will not be closed prior to the end time by bureaucrats even if the outcome is clear.
 * 2) However, bureaucrats may optionally extend nominations to a total of ten days if there are fewer than 15 votes when the original end time is reached.
 * 3) That a bureaucrat may not promote, remove, or extend a nomination if they voted on it themselves in the last 48 hours it was active.
 * 4) That votes after a nomination's end time will not be considered by bureaucrats.  That way, bureacrats have the opportunity to consult with each other and other community leaders to decide whether promotion is appropriate, without having the voting tally constantly change.
 * 5) That bureaucrats may disregard at their discretion votes made by sock puppets, votes made in poor faith or in an effort to prove a point, and votes made from new accounts that appear to have been created primarily for the purpose of making RFA votes.
 * 6) That votes on matters other than promotion of new admins and bureaucrats are inappropriate for RFA and may be moved elsewhere by any user.
 * 7) That bureaucrats may, at the conclusion of the seven day period, decline to promote in cases where voting irregularities, wiki downtime, or other factors make it impossible to determine community sentiment with accuracy.

I believe that these are common-sense rules that would serve to make the process more clear, transparent, and fair. In some cases this is codification of existing practice. I invite comment.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * While you have many good and reasonable suggestions above, I believe you are complicating a process which has worked well. Codifying rules to the point of micromanagment, is going to lead to more argumentation any time someone disagrees with the result of an adminship. So step one is not to find out if Wikipedians consider the process "broke" before we "fix" it. To that end, I have started a poll below. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose you mean that step one is not to find out if Wikipedians consider the process "broke" before we "fix" it. --MarSch 17:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds like instruction creep. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is definitely instruction creep. I see no need for any of these restrictions. Kelly Martin 19:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Is Bureaucracy in Need of Reform
Is the process of deciding on the making of admins working well, or does it need new, explicit guidelines?

Working well. Bureaucrats are trusted to make difficult decisions

 * 1) &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --cesarb 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Kbdank71 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) smoddy 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Angela. 17:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) - Bratsche talk 5 pillars 17:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) -- M P er el ( talk 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Un focused 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I'm of two opinions on this matter.  See "Guidelines" vote below.)
 * 10) I think the system works well as-is, and that this poll is unnecessary. Cecropia: relax - you're doing a fine job :) &rarr;Raul654 18:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) -siafu 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) --Shanes 18:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) --Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) And also, don't vote on everything. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) --Carnildo 19:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Didn't we already have a poll defining the job of a bureaucrat? &mdash; Dan | Talk 19:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) While I would agree with don't vote on everything, I'll add my voice to the consensus. Just because there has been a lot of whining, doesn't mean the process isn't being done right. So far there haven't been any concrete explanations of any major problems. - Taxman Talk 20:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Not perfect, but Nothing is. Bluemoose 22:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) A vote on bureaucracy, I love it! Seriously though: the problems with RfA are not the fault of the bureaucrats, who do a sometimes difficult job very well. Rje 00:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) +sj  +  01:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) No problems whatsoever.   Ingoolemo   talk 02:02, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * 22) 69.182.48.34 04:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) I'm yet to see any problem that needs a solution. &mdash;Stormie 10:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it. Grutness...  wha?  11:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Ain't broke; agree with Grutness above; also I'm impressed with the decisions made by the bureaucrats so far.  Antandrus  (talk)  17:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) It's fine. It's only when disruptive users try to mess it up that it can be annoying. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) - JCarriker 17:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) 90% of the time the decision is obvious. The other 10%, generally, the person shouldn't be made an admin. This link is Broken 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)
 * 29) Never change a running system; you can't make everyone happy. And be happy to have someone who makes the difficult decisions for you Lectonar 30 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)
 * 30) Neutralitytalk July 8, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
 * 31) There is a level of trust that is placed in the hierarchy, and those supported by peers enough seem to have risen to the occasion for the most part. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Guidelines would be helpful, but should not be in the form of explicit instructions

 * 1) -- Un focused 17:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) But I think we already have them. I trust the bureaucrats to use their discretion where required: a straitjacket is not required. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I would support a guideline policy but I believe the status quo works pretty good. Falphin 17:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The procedure for RfA should be changed

 * 1) I have drafted a replacement proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * I don't think that anything is wrong...the general public presents their opinions on whether the person should be made an admin. It shouldn't be an elite clan. There are processes for dealing with troublesome admins. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this poll. --cesarb 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh gracious - the bureaucrats are asking for revalidation now... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But (1) this is not about whether I or anyone else should remain a bureaucrat; (2) this is being mounted in talk, where it belongs, not "Requests for Bureaucratship," and (3) Bureaucrats have to carry out a process, and discussions of that are always appropriate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why they are bureaucrats. Because we trust them.  smoddy 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * People who design straw polls should be more careful not to present false dichotomies.  Un focused 17:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)  See apology by Cecropia below.  -- Un focused 18:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The process is working well, but I see no harm in clarifying the process. This also allows bureacrats to point somewhere if there is an argument over the followed procedure. Still sometimes it is necessary to deviate from the rules. I don't think rule 3 about voting xor promoting/removing/extending is particularly useful. How much rules do we have now anyway? --MarSch 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * On "Guidelines." We have had polls and discussions in which many points of guidelines have been discussed and community sentiment expressed. This has included that Bureaucrats should use discretion. See the talk archives linked from this page. So it is not as though Bureaucrats just do as they please. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The presence of archives should not be interpreted as foreclosing any possibility of discussing the same issues again. It is the Wiki way to back off, reformulate, and then reconsider as often as the community desires.  -- Un focused 18:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to foreclose nothing. I am pointing out that many of these points have been discussed in detail, and this process is not anarchic. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The system ain't broke, our bureaucrats consistently act with savvy and sagacity. -- M P er el ( talk 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I explicitly apologize for failing to have a "neutral" option in this vote. I returned to add one, but saw it had already been done. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this all about the Weyes thing? That's a tempest in a teapot.  The system works fine, the bureaucrats are doing a good job. Jayjg (talk)  19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be called bureaucratcy?  Ingoolemo   talk 01:55, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * No! Learn to spell!  &mdash; Chameleon 29 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)
 * What?  Ingoolemo   talk 2005 June 30 00:38 (UTC)

Requests for adminship reform
Hello all, I have in past stayed away for voting in RfA because I think it's a flawed system. With recent events, I have been even more convinced of this, so I have drafted a proposal for changing the entire procedure. I've sent it to the wikien mailing list, and it is also available at User:Talrias/Adminship reform. Please be rough! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently you propose to give potential new admins powers for a week under supervision of another mentor admin, who gives a recommendation at the end. Maybe I missed something vital, but if you want people to read everything you shouldn't bore them with details first. --MarSch 11:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I have reorganised and summarised the proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That is much crisper. Thanks --MarSch 19:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * this is really a solution in search of a problem. Maybe it will solve a problem in the future, but I see no indication that the RfA process is flawed, and therefore no need to fix it. Sure, it can become a popularity "contest". So what if some people are elected with 100 votes? Good for them. Joe D. User may be elected with a mere 20 votes, but since the outcome is the same, I really don't see the problem. By default, we should be opposed to introducing new rules and procedures. The problems we do have with admins is not straightforward abuse, it is slightly obnoxious behaviour with some throwing around of weight. nothing arbcommable. I think there is good reason to be sure a user is not a complete jerk before making him an admin, and if that means a "popularity contest", so be it. We just need to remember the "it's no big deal" mantra from time to time. dab (&#5839;) 20:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Does your suggestion apply to returning admins? - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 05:24 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I hadn't considered that. My answer would be that seeing as returning admins have already been admins before, there is no need to be mentored and they could be fast-tracked to the end (the decision to be made by the bureaucrat). However, if the person had not been an admin for a substantial amount of time and the admin policies had substantially changed, I would suggest they went through the mentoring process again. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)

I don't really see abuse of admin powers by new admins as being a major concern and therefore little reason for the mentoring program as suggested.--nixie 28 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)


 * Why are many nominees rejected on RfA then? Surely the only reason for not making someone an admin is because of fear they might abuse them? Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)


 * Nominees are rejected either because they have done something in the recent past which means the community doesn't trust them or because they don't have enough experience/interaction on the Wiki, which are both valid objections. I don't think mandatory admin school will address either of these objections.--nixie 28 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)


 * I think it would - if someone is untrustworthy, either they will not find a mentor, or their actions will be watched carefully and any abuses will be quickly detected and reverted. If they don't have enough experience, if they are able to find a mentor, that mentor will be able to inform the adminee if they are making wrong decisions. At the end of the mentoring period, if they are unsuitable in the mentor's and bureaucrat's opinion, they will not become permanent admins. I expect every admin (and probably every Wikipedian) has made at least one bad judgement. Learning from a mentor can only be of possible benefit, and will help address both of these objections. The feedback period is intended to allow other admins and users to comment on whether the person is trustworthy and has enough experience to become an admin - with the benefit of seeing them taking decisions that admins actually have to take, rather than relying on their promise to do so! Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Request for extending admin vote time
Given that Wikipedia was down for a day, shouldn't the votes be extended by a day? Not that I much care for myself &mdash; I've already broken the record :P &mdash; but for others they might like that. - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)


 * It wasn't down for a day. As best I can tell, it was down for 22 hours. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 05:34 (UTC)
 * Close enough. Most of which was during non-job, non-sleeping time. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)
 * I extended all candidacies by one day, except TBSDY, who is an admin (again) and Seth Ilys' "experimental" "confirmation." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 08:53 (UTC)

Remove blank support/oppose votes?
Boothy443, in particular, has voted "oppose" for no real reason. Should we have a policy of removing oppose votes if they are not qualified (ie. blank)? violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I am totally comfortable with that idea. On the other hand, given Boothy's record, I think it would be entirely correct for a bureaucrat to ignore his unexplained votes, since he has pretty much admitted that they are WP:POINT.  I'd argue for case-by-case interpretation - that's what we have bureaucrats for.  (Though granted, this did turn into an "attack the bureaucrats" free-for-all for a while). Guettarda 28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. Oppose voters should have as much of a right to vote as Support voters. If anyone else has a problem with blank oppose votes, they can ask the voter to qualify their comments. The bureaucrats should be free to interpret blank oppose votes as they see fit. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should absolutely not remove votes of this sort, any more than we'd remove support votes with no reason given. Filiocht | Talk June 28, 2005 14:45 (UTC)


 * Policy is to count all votes from logged-in users. If there is need for discretion as judged by one or more of the bureaucrats when it is time to make a decision, all circumstances are taken into account. That includes if someone such as Boothy443 is placing votes for the sake of proving a personal point. Once we begin to remove this vote or that vote or value this vote or that vote higher or lower than others as a matter of policy, we'll have endless battle on which votes should be counted. Boothy443 would just be the tip of the iceburg. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)


 * No, definitely not. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 28 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)


 * Not unless we're about to remove all unqualified support votes as well. Users who vote oppose do so for their own reasons and we should assume good faith rather than hounding them for justification. siafu 28 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)


 * The standard for becoming an admin is "consensus," and vote count is just one guideline. It would be much much better if every voter would give an indication as to why they are supporting or opposing; but it is not required. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)


 * No, as per siafu. Also, we choose bureaucrats for their judgment and so I trust them to use it; if an individual call seems to have been poorly made then question that call. (I find unqualified opposition completely unhelpful and unproductive, personally, both to the candidate and to others who might want to know what the concerns are before stating a position, but it should still be accepted and counted.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 28 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)


 * I really dislike unexplained oppose votes, and often ask for people who oppose to at least give some indication of their reasons, but I wouldn't like to see them removed as a rule. Boothy's are a little different though. His behaviour is distinctly trollish. Good candidates are having unjustified objections put against their name because of one user's problems with the admin system and his disruptive way of expressing them. I'd be quite happy to see these removed. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 28 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements. Perhaps we should (informally) ask people to consider qualifying their vote if they, on multiple occasions, vote blankly. I really think that Boothy443's votes should be removed, though, as I can't see how we can assume good faith on that. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)


 * I think we should certainly encourage people to leave a comment, but never ask people to qualify votes (however annoying it is), as there is a much greater propensity to challenge opposes than supports, leading to a situation where people will either vote support or not at all. In extreme situations, such as boothy, I would still not challenge individual votes. Note that boothy has supported FCYTravis. Bluemoose 28 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

In discussion relating to my draft proposal I was informed that I was incorrect in calling it an election as there is discussion and debate following a request or nomination (unlike a political election where one casts one's vote and that's the end of it). Here we have the ability to change a vote throughout the nomination week depending on discussion in the original request. I think that if RfA just becomes a simple voting procedure, it is not only harder for the bureaucrats to determine consensus, but RfA will turn into an election - and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Therefore, I think that people who oppose without substantiating their reasons (even a simple "per " is sufficient) should be discounted. For support votes, I do not think they should be discounted if no reason is given, however I think it would be polite to offer a reason as to why. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)


 * On what basis should silent oppose votes be removed whilst silent support votes stay? This seems neither fair nor logicial. -- Joolz 28 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)


 * In general, uncommented "support" votes mean "Support. I agree with the reasons given by the nominator". --Carnildo 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)


 * Because there is specific reasoning needed for a support vote - it means "I agree, given this person's previous contributions and statement, that this user could be a good admin". An oppose vote means "I disagree, given this person's previous contributions and statement, that this person could be a good admin". The first is more self-explanatory, while the second needs clarification with a reason. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Why is the first more self-explanatory than the second? siafu 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)


 * The nominator usually explains why they're making the nomination. Personally, I would like to recommend recommending more detailed nomination summaries (see below).


 * Indeed the nominator explains why the nomination is being made, but both support and oppose infer an understanding of that explanation. That is, assuming good faith, a "support" vote that's left without any comment means something like: "After having researched the issue as much as I needed to to satisfy my own personal criteria, I agree with the reccomendation of the nominator," when expressed with maximum pedantry.  Change "agree" to "disagree" for an uncommented oppose, and unless I'm missing some clear difference that can be inferred a priori (a priori because this is a blanket policy we're discussing), both are equally self-explanatory.   Therefore, assuming good faith, there is no reason to treat them differently, unless you drop this assumption.  I do agree that there are times when it needs to be dropped, but I don't think it would be a good idea at all to institutionalize the practice beyond a case by case basis. siafu 29 June 2005 05:39 (UTC)

I find that refusing to leave an explanation is often an act rudeness, but some oppose voters may have quite legitimate reasons for doing so. For me, one of the most frustrating things is when users I respect leave no summary or only a deliberately vague one. When they do, it makes me more balky about supporting, but the only reason I have to oppose is peer pressure. However, my frustration does not mean that we should require explanations. Instead, we should encourage posters on both sides of the aisle to explain their reasons, and be pleasant if others request elaboration. A policy of removing unexplained oppose votes can only be justified if we remove unexplained support votes as well. Ingoolemo   talk 2005 June 28 23:08 (UTC)

While I agree we shouldn't be removing votes either way based on this, there is a fundamental difference between support votes and oppose votes: All votes are based on the edit history of the user in question; if all the edits in the history are deemed "good" the person should be an admin and if there are "bad" edits the person shouldn't be an admin. So a support vote means you have by some method reached the conclusion that the entire edit history is "good", whereas an oppose vote means there is a "bad" edit. So in the support case it is based on the entire edit history, but an oppose is based on a small amount of bad edits, which should be linked or described as a witness (in the mathematical sense) of the person's unsuitability for adminship.

(The above ignores the experience requirement but that doesn't harm the argument. Also, there could be users nominated who have a large (>0.5) fraction of "bad" edits, but these would generally be troll nominations, and given one of those it'd only be easier to give a witness for the person's unsuitability). --W(t) 29 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)


 * "All votes are based on the edit history of the user in question" No, that's incorrect. Votes are based on whatever the Wikipedian wants to base them on. If a candidate has raised a user's animosity in some way, s/he may vote Oppose for that reason. If the candidate has raised enough users' animosity, the nomination will surely fail on that basis alone. Many voters will vote for or against on the basis of what they perceive as enough experience. Or the most important factor may be fear that the candidate will use the powers badly: take sides in edit wars; block editors they dislike; throw around their weight because "I'm an admin." Some long-term editors will probably never make admin because they're on the "wrong" side of an issue many other Wikipedians feel strongly about. Some feel that a candidate is too rude or has too short a fuse in dealing with others. Some think a user just doesn;t understand what an admin is supposed to do. And those reasons probably only scratch the surface. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 29 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Users should be free to vote as they please. Forcing users to justify their vote will create endless battles about whether the user's justification is valid. It will also discourage users from voting freely and with confidence. Bureaucrats can use their discretion in judging votes without explanation. Acegikmo1 29 June 2005 06:31 (UTC)

To my mind, the fundamental point that is repeatedly lost here is that we are trying to build consensus. That is, we are trying to find a proposal with which almost all of us are in agreement. Although the format leads us often to see it otherwise, this is not a binary vote. The motion is not "do you agree?", it is "are most of us in agreement?". This is a debate, not an instantaneous poll. Consequently, an unexplained vote is only constructive if it goes with the consensus. Since we assume good faith, a proposal will only be made if the proposer believes it to merit consensual support. Because of this, few support votes require explanation and most oppose votes do require it if they are not to terminate the voter's participation. An unexplained oppose vote that is not part of a consensual opposition says "there is no way this proposal can be modified to make it acceptable to me", or at least, that is how I read it.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 13:08 (UTC)

My view is that unexplained votes are fine, whether they are supporting or opposing. I think as a contributor you have a right to a vote regardless of whether you want to explain it. Remember also that there are some cases where a person may not wish to state their reason, as opposed to mere laziness. Everyking 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)


 * Now of course we shouldn't remove blank "votes", but they are certainly not helpful either. Yours and similar opinions are correct, you are allowed to vote without an explanation. But you're allowed to do lots of things, that isn't exactly a compelling factor making blank votes a good thing. The two major points, that have been made on this page, but seem overlooked, is that blank oppose votes and blank support votes very different. Based on the assume good faith policy, we are expected to assume an editor is worthy of trust unless there are good reasons not to. That's one reason opposes are different from supports. The other is that the nominator has already made positive comments about the user. Supporting is more or less just agreeing with that, so no comment isn't as much of a problem. The other thing your point and many other people on this page are missing is that the RfA process really isn't a pure voting process, it's job is to determine consensus, not count votes. It's just that it involves votes because a better way hasn't been found. So blank oppose votes are unhelpful in determining consensus. Allowed currently, but that doesn't change that they aren't helpful. - Taxman Talk June 29, 2005 19:56 (UTC)

"Oppose - shouldn't be an admin". There, a non-blank vote, which adds absolutely nothing over a blank one. Unless you want to start declaring certain forms of non-blank votes invalid and removing them too, the intent of this policy can be defeated with only a few words. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 29 June 2005 13:53 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, let me make this explicit: I do not argue for controls on the ways that people state their votes/opinions. I contend simply that unexplained votes against the consensus admit of no consensus-building change to the proposal. I think this undesirable but I see it as each editor's prerogative to comment as they wish; just as it is each editor's prerogative to request clarification as they wish.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world all votes would carry a qualification. We do not inhabit a perfect world. Nor do we have the right to demand an explanation for an individuals decision whether that be one of oppose of support.  If a candidate really has no idea why a vote has been cast in a particular direction, he has the right to state that, which gives other voters etc. the opportunity to assess the vote concerned if it still remains unqualified.  Boothy's is an odd case, but equally odd was the procession of ten editors, during Theo Clarke's nomination, arriving on Boothy's talk page demanding an explanation, that can hardly have helped his temper.  My conclusion is all votes must be valued, until such time as policy dictates both support and oppose have to be equally qualified.  I would then oppose such a policy as it smacks of intimidation.Giano | talk 29 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)


 * When I go to vote on election day, there isn't anyone asking me my reason for voting one way or another, and threatening to ignore my vote if I don't answer. My reason is my own.  If I want to help shape consensus here, I'll certainly give my reason.  But I shouldn't be under any obligation to do so, regardless if I'm supporting or opposing.  --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)
 * And that is not an argument. Everyking 29 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I was merely giving an example.  Sorry for the confusion.  My point stands, though.  My reason is my own, and I shouldn't be under any obligation to give it if I choose not to.    --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)


 * I've avoided commenting here, but some of the comments are just too ignorant of Wikipedia policies for me to take it anymore (and no, I don't mean to single anyone out). There are people here who are arguing that they should be entitled to make votes without having to give any supporting reasoning. These people clearly do not understand how decision making on wikipedia works. OF COURSE YOU SHOULD HAVE TO. The whole point is that this page, like all others, is supposed to work by consensus - reasonable people discussing ideas, and coming to a collaborated decision. If you are so inclined as to express an opinion, then it is expected that you help others reach a decision by giving your reasoning. If you don't want to for fear it will make you look stupid or petty - too bad - that's the risk you run. (Note - everything up to here applies equally to both unexplained supporting and opposition votes). Now, here's the critical difference between a support and an oppose vote -- Taxman was getting at it earlier but I don't think he expressed it clearly. Generally, people support on the basis of a good track record with no "bad" incidents. That is, you think someone is a good admin because of a lack of evidence they are bad. So when someone asks you why you think they would be good admin, you have nothing specific to point at (merely a lack of bad behavior). On the other hand, when you oppose someone, generally you oppose on the basis of one or a small number of incidents which exposed that person's judgement as questionable -- that is, you have a small set of incidents which you can point at affirmitevely and say "these are why I oppose". So, in summary - Yes, you are expected to give you reasoning, particulrly for oppose votes since they are much easier to give reasoning for.
 * So to clarify my position - while I don't think removing the oppose votes is a good idea (it's a really bad one, quite frankly), it's not a practice that should be condoned. I have no problems with people inquiring why someone voted one way or the other, and I fully expect that when questoined, the voter will respond honestly and in a forthright manner -- particularly for oppose votes, since (as I showed above) those are so much easier to respond to. People who refuse to give an explination should be given a good whack upside the head. &rarr;Raul654 June 29, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
 * Raul, I have never read such a load of pretentious, pompous and intimidating codswallop in all my life. People can vote however they please, frequently do, and should be allowed to continue to do so, without people who should know better suggesting they should be hit, are weak or basically snivelling.  Many people have many reasons for not wishing to disclose their views, if candidates allow themselves to be put up for what is in fact (whatever you choose to call it an election) then like anyone else wanting to be voted into authority they should be prepared for the the occasional rotten egg, if they can't stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)
 * I would echo your comments back to you. Just because people can do something does not make it the right thing to do. People may not want to disclose their views, but they don't have to vote either. You have to reallize this process is whatever we want it to be. It has long been decided that voting is bad and what we really are after in RfA is the consensus that a user is worthy of the extra trust. We unfortunately vote anyway. But as has been said, voting without comments is extremely unhelpful in actually judging the consensus. - Taxman Talk June 29, 2005 21:57 (UTC)
 * Voting is bad? Let's vote on it. Everyking 29 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raul completely. The RfA process is a debate, not a vote, and not an election.  I say it's not an election, because adminship isn't a job.  It is just a set of tools, and the RfA process decides whether someone is likely to use them responsibly.  In my opinion the only truly valid reason to oppose is a reasonable worry that the user will misuse one or more admin tools.  A vote to oppose, therefore, should explain why you believe the user might misuse the admin tools (for example inexperience, hot temper, ignores policies, etc.) Now, I don't support removing unexplained opposition... but I have no problem with bureaucrats ignoring it.  Isomorphic 29 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. Unexplained opposes are anti-social and unhelpful. Unexplained support votes just mean everything's fine. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 29 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)
 * It's a vote. This silliness where we try to pretend democratic practices don't exist in the community needs to be tossed out. In any case you can't give and take in an admin vote, there's no compromising, the person either gets the adminship or doesn't. I think from now on I won't explain my oppose votes just to stand up for the principle that a contributor is entitled to a vote. Everyking 30 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)


 * While I agree that blank oppose votes should not be removed, WP:POINT. That doesn't help anyone. Ambi 30 June 2005 06:38 (UTC)


 * Everyking: many democratic/voting/polling processes are employed on Wikiedia, but they are de facto processes. Such systems are not necessarily the best way to get things done, but they are nevertheless employed because many users refuse to doubt them.  Though you are correct in asserting that RFA is a vote, please note that it shouldn't necessarily be a vote.   Ingoolemo   talk 2005 June 30 06:56 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with a de facto process? The reason a process becomes de fact is because it works well.  The implication here is that there is some other de jure process, but no such thing exists.  Under what situation shouldn't it be a vote?  I'd like to hear your criteria for deciding to override a majority of oppose votes.  If you can't specify said criteria, then your entire argument is invalid.  Ingoolemo, every single argument you've made so far can be equally applied to the opposing argument, it holds no water at all.


 * As for WP:POINT, if you actually read the page you'd see it's not a valid argument either. It's a guideline, not a policy.  Also it specifically applies to DISRUPTING Wikipedia to making a point.  Can you _honestly_ say that someone refusing to provide a reason for an oppose vote is disrupting Wikipedia?


 * In any case, I just love how the admins here are trying their absolute best to disengenuously change the process in order to ensure their continued status. The admins keep pretending that they're arguing from some "official" standpoint about the purpose of Wikipedia, but their standpoint is not one that was reached through consensus, it was reached through the views of a small minority of users (mostly vocal admins).  Proof by contradiction, you are arguing that you need general consensus, but your views regarding the purpose of Wikipedia have not been reached through general consensus.  Now is the point where you try to take some guidelines or policy and try to grossly distort their meaning to "prove" you have consensus (such as distortion of the meaning of WP:POINT).


 * Also, I notice no one is providing ANY criteria under which votes can be overridden. IF you are unable to specify this criteria, then it amounts to a secret rule used to silence dissenting views, which isn't valid from any standpoint.  Nathan J. Yoder 1 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

I don't think removing blank votes would be a useful policy. If we adopt it, they'll generally be replaced by boilerplate I think this candidate would make a bad admin votes, or something equally unexplanatory. I understand we want people to give reasons for their positions, but if they don't want to we won't be able to force them. Josh

I think this is getting a little out of hand. I've argued that, Jimbo's famous quote notwithstanding, if many Wikipedians consider that this is a little more than "no big deal" (and they do) then it is more. But the argumentation here looks more like a rehearsal for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court nomination debates. It seems to me a hefty consensus has just expressed that the process was working well, and that if there were glitches, the bureaucrats could work it out. There is a long and honorable history of finding pleasure in "disputing" (check out Marlowe's Faust) but if this is supposed to be a policy debate, I think we should put more of this energy into the encyclopedia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 30 June 2005 07:04 (UTC)
 * indeed. plus, oppose votes without comment more often than not trigger sympathy with the candidate. It is possible to oppose for all sorts of reasons. If users choose not to give theirs, that's up to them. But they should be prepared for questions, and not have a nervous breakdown over the cheek to question their motive like Netoholic just did. Everything is working fine, let's change things once they stop working. dab (&#5839;) 30 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)


 * OK, in the interests of experiment I've just thrown a question into FA,  this user has challenged what I feel is a very good prospective FA. I've never done this before and never will again, but am I intimidating him, challenging him, or encouraging him to vote,  or never to vote again (I use the word vote  loosely) lets all watch, (it's the Gauss article we are looking at) it won't prove anything but how comfortable does it make us all feel. I'm squirming already. Is this what some of you you all really want? Giano | talk 30 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! This should not be an experiment, this should be regular practice. The person obviously has a valid complaint about the article, but he hasn't described it. How is the article going to improve, in his opinion, without his feedback on what is wrong with it? I'm not sure I understand why you would *not* want to do this. Talrias (t | e | c) 30 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)


 * I agree fully with Talrias. &rarr;Raul654 June 30, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
 * Well I think he may feel imtimidated, he's stated his opinion and probably (with justification) feels that's the end of it. Knowing my luck he'll be somebody's sock anyway, but let's just see - be patient. Giano | talk 30 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't feel like that's the end of it or be intimidated in the least. Are you kidding? How would be be intimidated? If he's here to try to help make the best articles (which of course we should assume he is), stating an opinion that the article is not good but not elaborating on how doesn't reach that aim. That's ok, he may just not have thought of that. Asking for clarification (as long as it is done nicely) on what he feels is wrong with the article is common practice on WP:FAC, and will actually help the article improve if he has some insights on the article's failings. The same applies to RfA. I also fully agree with Talrias. Remember polls are evil. We're here for consensus, not voting. - Taxman Talk June 30, 2005 22:16 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Taxman said, and I'll go one step farther -- on the FAC, at the very top, it explicetely states "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. " for the reasons Taxman has just lain out. &rarr;Raul654 June 30, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to that quote? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
 * It's at the top of Featured article candidates (it's actually found on the FAC instruction template - template:FAC-instructions) &rarr;Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:03 (UTC)
 * This is not FCA, Mark, it is RfA, where all votes count, it's been that way as long as I can remember, and those charged with promotion use their discretion only when absolutely necessary. Are we trying to change policy here? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
 * Um, with respect, did you read all of the above discussion? Giano was making a comparison to the FAC, trying to use the FAC to justify not explaining opposition here. Taxman and I were pointing out that this is totally untrue, that the FAC rules *explicetely* require commentary, thus refuting his analogy. &rarr;Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:18 (UTC)
 * OK, since it seems I misunderstood, I apologize. But this discussion seems to have gotten quite rambling and diffuse, and I'm trying to understand the point of it all. Even if FAC did not have such an explicit statement, it is a different situation, since articles are chosen at FAC that are supposed to represent Wikipedia to the world. All we're doing at RfA is gauging sentiment on whether users should have the relatively few abilities that are restricted, though I think it is a little more important because admins are considerd, correctly or not, the human face of Wikipedia. Still, I can't find the promotion problems that are implied by all this verbiage. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
 * If you read my large comment above ("I've avoided commenting here, but some of the comments..."), you'll see it's not a matter of verbiage, but of principle. I believe that refusing to explain one's opinion inherently goes against the way wikipedia works -- it actively works against forming consensus. I also suspect this opinion is a pretty common one. Now while I don't think ignoring votes is a good idea (and removing them is an even worse one, IMO) I would support a rule requiring people to answer questions (with specificity) when asked. &rarr;Raul654 July 1, 2005 06:08 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to say that this principle - answer someone when they ask you a question - is an obvious bit of Wikiquette. &rarr;Raul654 July 1, 2005 06:19 (UTC)
 * Then why aren't you for removing unexplained support votes? Your view is entirely inconsistent.  All but one of your arguments can be reversed and easily applied to the opposing argument, especially considering your personal views don't represent any kind of consensus despite what you say.  The only argument that makes an actual differentiation is with Assume_good_faith, which is not a valid argument anyway.  That article was created specifically in the context of editing, not votes.  It is also a guideline and not a polilcy.  That is a complete distortion of the meaning of something which has nothing to do with voting procedures.  It doesn't even make sense to apply it in the first place, since that would mean all admins would have to be self-appointed because, following your logic, denying them a chance to do with would be an act of "bad faith."
 * Interpreting it correctly though, it turns out that YOU are violating the guideline by assuming that an unexplained vote is in bad faith. They could very well have reviewed the evidence and used that to determine (not ASSUME) bad faith.  No part of the guideline requires explanation and lack of explanation does not in any way, shape or form imply that they are ASSUMING.
 * If you _really_ think your views are supported by a general consensus, why don't you hold a vote to see what people think? I don't think you will, since you know the idea would get shot down by the vast majority AND you'll also try to argue that oppose votes in that case don't count either.  I'll bet you the vast majority of those who would vote support are admins.  Nathan J. Yoder 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
 * There are so many things that are blatantly wrong with your statement, it truely boggles the mind. It's quite obvious that you did not even attempt to read the earlier messages in this thread. I won't waste my time trying to refute all the totally wrong claims you just made, but here's a few of the whoppers:
 * You say: "Then why aren't you for removing unexplained support votes?" while earlier I said "while I don't think removing the oppose votes is a good idea (it's a really bad one, quite frankly), it [voting without explination] is not a practice that should be condoned"
 * You say "All but one of your arguments can be reversed and easily applied to the opposing argument" as if it is some revalation, not noticing that one of the very first things I said was "(Note - everything up to here applies equally to both unexplained supporting and opposition votes)." and then went on to explain why supports and opposes are different (supports are harder to explain for reasons I mentioend earlier).
 * You say "your personal views don't represent any kind of consensus despite what you say" while I notice that my first comment had 3 of the 4 respondents (taxman, Iglomo, and Isomorphic) saying that they agreed with me.
 * You say that "The only argument that makes an actual differentiation is with Assume_good_faith, which is not a valid argument anyway." which is obviously wrong because, as anyone can tell you, the consensus policy applies here just as much as it does everywhere else.
 * ...and I could go on debunking you but I quite frankly, it's not worth the effort. &rarr;Raul654 July 2, 2005 00:23 (UTC)


 * I wasn't commenting on what you wrote specifically, but on the amount of debating that's been going back and forth here since Weyes original nomination. As a general point, I always prefer people to make a useful comment when they vote; especially if they are voting oppose, since "opposes" are powerful when you're looking for 75%-80% positive feedback. Opposes should always comment, IMO, because (1) if they don't comment, their concerns cannot be addressed and (2) if they feel strongly enough against a candidate to oppose, they kind of owe it to others to share the reason for their opposition; if the oppose is well founded it might encourage others to oppose also, but if it's BS it might encourage others to support--either way, the candidate is being looked at more closely, which is proper.


 * Having said all that, keep in mind that if we drop a doubtful candidate, s/he can always come back in a month, and often get promoted on the next try. But, Nothing personal to a Wikipedian just promoted, but a 10-0 vote is the most minimal possible definition of consensus to me; it implies that few took the interest to really consider the nomination, and once an admin, (almost) always an admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

A little admin-milestone
(An update - looks like FYCTravis was, indeed, 500th...)

I thought some people might be interested to note this. It looks like User:FCYTravis and User:Y0u are both about to have their voting periods close in the next few hours with a clear consensus for acceptance (congratulations to both)... and Special:Statistics tells me that currently:
 * We have 313,523 registered users, of which 498 (or 0.16%) are administrators.

Okay, if you include past admins who've had the powers removed, or gave them up, the "500th admin" milestone passed some time ago, but I was quite amused to notice it, and suspected someone else might also be. Shimgray 30 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)
 * Yep, I noticed. Looks like I'll be 499th.  I was kinda hoping that I could say on my userpage i was the 500th, but oh well. You (Talk) June 30, 2005 21:29 (UTC)
 * do we have any statistics of how many of these admins are still active? I suppose any admin account without any edits for a couple of months should go into hibernation (maybe not 'revoked', but excluded from the count, in a way that the returning user can still have his privileges re-activated without too much ado) -- I think it's important to know how many active admins we have, in order to judge if we need more, which will have an effect on how liberally admins will be created here. dab (&#5839;) 1 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
 * We generate stats for "users recently edited" and "users who are admin", so it should be possible to produce a second admin list - "admins active during the past two months" and put that somewhere to complement the existing list of admins. Having not got any such competence, this is very much not me volunteering :-) Shimgray (with login problems) 1 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
 * The first list at WP:LA is a list of active administrators. The second list (not updated very often) is admins who are inactive (no edits for several months).  In the past day or two I've started updating these lists (by hand, using Special:Contributions).  There seems to be an in-between category of admins who are rarely active (less than, say, 10 edits a month).  These users are currently in the first list.  I've tried to start a thread on how or whether we should distinguish these users at Wikipedia talk:List of administrators. -- Rick Block (talk) July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Uncle G's new nomination - suspension proposal
It has been three days, and Uncle G has not been around to either accept or reject his new nomination or answer the adminship questions. This is not his fault, but we do expect acceptance before someone can become an admin. I propose that, if he is still not around when 3 days up (72 hours) have been completed, that we suspend the nomination until he has a chance to express his desires, and then resume for the final 4 days starting with his (assumed) acceptance. Fair?

Unsure has anyone tried emailing him, or any other contact method? Worth a shot, at least. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd July 8, 2005 22:03 (UTC)
 * Fair --Arcadian 8 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, but he appears to be around. Guettarda 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's been active. I'd like to assume he's composing nice, long, thoughtful answers for the questionnaire. Could be he just missed the notification, too. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 8, 2005 20:27 (UTC)
 * Cecropia, in the past you have permitted nominations to continue until their end time, requiring candidate acceptance only prior to promotion. There have been several proposals to change this de-facto policy, which you have opposed.  Perhaps you should handle this as you have in the past until there is discussion of and consensus for a change, in general, rather than making up new rules each time it comes up.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
 * He has? Surely that could only be if there are special circumstances (not that I know what they'd be, exactly)? Cecropia formally opposed my own RFA in early May, 8 hours after nomination, for the (unenthusiastic) way I phrased my acceptance, and for not yet having replied to the standard questions. In view of that, I have trouble believing he'd let the whole week go by without requiring a candidate to show some sign of interest. Bishonen | talk 8 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
 * I have? I don't have a good enough memory to swear I have never let a nomination go longer, but I think I have been a fairly consistent advocate of the concept that a nominee should want a nomination and should declare it so. As to my making policy, I try to manage my work in a coherent fashion, and I (early and often) poll the community if I have any doubt, as here. You've expressed some complaints about me lately (including that I run polls instead of advancing formless theoretical arguments and that I've taken "ownership" of RfA. Perhaps your complaints would have more standing if you were a more active bureaucrat. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 9 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
 * Oh darn, he's out making an encyclopedia. *Sigh* (people are always doing that kind of thing here; it's really annoying). Well, I'm not exactly sure a vote can practically be suspended, unless you're talking about physically taking it off this page. Otherwise there will be voters anyway. And while this length of time is certainly not normal, I think most people really make up their mind without the questions (you can look at his old answers anyway). After all, didn't Ta bu have around 40 supports before he accepted, not that it was a normal vote. We'll just have more initially neutral voters than usual here. --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 21:03 (UTC)
 * Ok, this was going to be first vote having watched RfA for quite a while &mdash; I was looking forward to a good healthy support. My concern is that there may be a point being made along the lines of not having a user page last time around. This sounds like I'm assuming bad-faith; I'm not, but there was a pretty clear determination not to go along with community norms last time. RfA is neither the place nor the time to seek to change them. Uncle G can do as he likes, but not when he's after adminship. I would therefore probably support the move to suspend the poll until he turns up and answers the questions because I really don't want to have to vote to oppose, which is what I'll have to do if it gets too close to the week being up and a precedent being set for users being made admins despite not anwering the questions or accepting the nomination and having been active on the 'pedia during the poll. -Splash 8 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
 * He may have been making a point, but definitely not a WP:POINT. The distinction being that he wasn't "disrupting" Wikipedia, and that's kind of a big charge here for so little. Unless you are willing to accuse all anons and users without user pages yet of disruption. I don't understand all of this "clear determination not to go along with community norms" stuff. Do I have to remind everyone again that he received a two-thirds majority. (And that was even with me not voting, having been totally oblivious that week). While 2/3 is not enough to be made admin, it's certainly enough to show most of the community is on his side. --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 21:27 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right. It was a point, but not a WP:POINT. I've corrected my statement. I just think it was a remarkable decision to take seeing as it clearly denied him his rightful adminship last time. I'm not willing to make any of the plainly outrageous claims you suggest; my user page is pretty lame too and I don't think I am disruptive (but then, I wouldn't). I know he got a 2/3 majority, but he'd have got 80% if he'd just made a user page. He'd have near unanimous support votes now (with no neutrals) if he'd just accept and answer. I would like to see Uncle G an admin as much as you. -Splash 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
 * No. I figure a candidate can, if he wants, wait to see what others say about him before he accepts; that's exactly what I did. I'm generally leery of changing that which ain't broke. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 8, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but he has been notified of the nomination and has been editing since. I'm sure he knows about it. Either he's going to appear at the last minute and accept, or just leave the time to run down in full knowledge that he hasn't accepted the nomination. If this happens, I assume he will not be made an admin? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since he knows about his RfA and is just choosing not to accept the nomination (again, I'm working on an assumption here but I think it's a fair one) I don't think there is any reason to suspend or extend the vote. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not like he's unaware of the RFA, and he has certainly expressed an interest in being an Admin, even recently.  There is no rule on having to accept a nomination within a certain amount of time, is there?  Obviously if the seven days pass without his acceptance than the nomination should be closed without action, but I see no reason to suspend the vote.  At the same time, I would not fault anyone for using this extremely delayed response as grounds for opposition.  As evidenced by the people calling for the suspension of the nomination, this behavior is unsettling; accepting the nomination and answering the questions are important and provide valuable information for voters.  If an admin was called on specifically for some other action and didn't respond in four days while still being active editing the wikipedia, I would think that would be considered pretty anti-wiki behavior as well. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 8, 2005 21:39 (UTC)


 * The point is now moot. Uncle G accepted his RFA at 9 July 2005 02:41 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 9 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Votes by newly registered users
User:Facethefacts appears to have registered just to oppose WMC's nom. I was trying to figure out how this fits into voting policy. Do we have a policy on new users or sockpuppets voting? Guettarda 23:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's up to the closer's discretion whether or not to discount such votes. Jtkiefer 06:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting that that just came up. I have created Suffrage for discussion on this topic; I would appreciate it if one of the Bureaucrats dropped by and briefly told us how they handle the matter on RFA. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

DrZoidberg's RfA
DrZoidberg is a user who edits almost exclusively in the sandbox. He currently has zero edits in the article namespace. [. He has now decided to nominate himself for admin. At last count there were four opposing votes and no supporting votes (other than himself). This is almost certainly a "joke" nomination and I don't see the purpose of having it hang around for a week when the outcome is obvious. However, I wanted to get some opinions before I took any action.

In general, when is it appropriate to remove a nomination before the voting period is over? Also, should a bureaucrat remove a nomination or can an admin do so? What's your opinion on removing the following:
 * Non-serious nominations (DrZoidberg's)
 * Candidates with extremely low edit counts (< 100)
 * Rejection is obvious (votes such as 0/9/0)

Thank you for your time. Carbonite | Talk 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say that if someone with so little chance of actually passing a RfA vote goes to the trouble of putting his or herself up for a vote, just let the vote ride itself out. It doesn't harm anyone by sitting here and accumulating oppose votes, and prematurely removing such noms means there's a chance (albeit a fairly small one) of removing a legitimate, serious (if potentially misguided) nomination. As for the other potential situations, I'm not sure that having an edit count limit is necessary, but I don't think it could harm much, provided the number is low enough, and the requirement is explicitly spelled out somewhere. And in cases where "rejection is obvious," I'd let the vote ride out: if nothing else, the oppose comments might prove useful to the rejectee. In addition, I think removing noms should be saved for bureaucrats: I see too much potential for confusion and/or abuse otherwise. – Seancdaug 17:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * An argument for removing the nomination is that if a person is just seeking attention, they'll get exactly what they want by having people comment on them for an entire week. There's also the possibility that legitimate RfAs will receive less attention if non-serious ones remain up for a week. I agree with many of your points though. I'm still mostly undecided and that's why I wanted to seek comments on this issue. Carbonite | Talk 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but we're not out to punish egotistical nominees, we're out to ensure that Wikipedia functions properly. If the nom wants a week of people telling him or her that s/he's incapable of performing the duties of an admin, than so what? There will be the odd crazy, sure, but I can't at the moment see it progressing to the point where it seriously damages Wikipedia. If things do reach that point, then such restrictions would be worthwhile. Until then, I don't think it matters much. – Seancdaug 18:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Seancdaug. No harm in letting it stay.  --Kbdank71 17:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * also, once the vote is at 0/9/0 anyway, I won't even bother voting. No time wasted. dab (&#5839;) 18:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, bureaucrats have no special authority over the RFA process other than being empowered to promote people. Any unsuccessful RFA can be removed by any user, and while this is now rarely done it was once routine (though bureaucrats/developers have always been given the opportunity to judge any close calls).  The policy parallels that of VfD where it is not necessary to be an admin to remove a nomination that has not resulted in a clear consensus to keep.


 * Second of all, in general, experience has shown that removing frivilous nominations usually produces more conflict than leaving them until they expire. That said, there are certainly plenty of nominations of obviously unqualified candidates that have been removed early; indeed, I have done this myself.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Non-serious nominations"? Neutral point of view please.   DrZoidberg 18:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV only applies to articles. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  18:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does No personal attacks also only apply to articles?  DrZoidberg 18:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that applies everywhere. But note that discussing someone's behaviour, even negatively, is not a personal attack. Now, if someone had called you a maroon, that would have been bad, but saying that this nomination stinks is only unpleasant. JRM · Talk 18:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You probably meant Moron here, unless you meant Maroon in the context of an escaped slave - an article (and term) I was hitherto unaware of! Thryduulf 14:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maroon was used by Bugs Bunny, coined in the 1940's as a jocular pronounciation of moron.   --Kbdank71 14:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, what's wrong with my nomination?!?!?!?!? I believe I qualify according to the standards at the top of the page!   DrZoidberg 18:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. Those are only the technical requirements. In addition, but we can hardly put that down in writing, we need people who are willing to crawl through dirt and broken glass (proverbially speaking) doing all the ungrateful work so the regular users don't have to. We cannot, no, will not allow you to debase yourself like that. They've already gotten to me, Zoidy. There's no hope for me. But you can still save yourself. JRM · Talk 18:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't believe how much dirt and broken glass end up in the sandbox every day! Just last week I stepped on half of a beer bottle and had to spend a night in Hospital !!   DrZoidberg 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Zoidberg - you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. We confer adminship on people we trust to use good judgement in exercising their adminly powers. When trying to decide whether or not we trust someone, metrics like edit counts and how-long-someone-has-been-here help us guage trustworthyness, but they are not the only factor. So while you might have a high edit count, and while you might have been here a while, because you have only edited in the sandbox (and VFD thereof), in our judgement you are (very) ill-equipped to exercise the kind of judgement we exect from an admin. &rarr;Raul654 19:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know you are but what am I?  DrZoidberg 13:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What wonderful dedication to Futurama that he's stayed in character this long! ::sigh::  I really do miss Futurama.  Un focused 14:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO!  DrZoidberg 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fun torole play. However, I think you need to get some of Zoidberg's speech patterns down; for example, he usually uses V2 word order when phrasing questions and even some statements.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of a different Zoidberg? I'm the Doctor, I am!   DrZoidberg 21:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're close... It would be better if you said something like "Perhaps a different Zoidberg you are thinking of? The doctor one I am."  Cheers.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess this answers most of my questions. Carbonite | Talk 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Question for B-Crats
Do you guys count votes by user:Boothy443? He/she only votes oppose and does it without reason. So do you actually take it into consideration? Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * He has voted support on at least 2 occasions. Lots of people dont give reasons. (i'm not a b-crat though) Bluemoose 20:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, he seems to only oppose. Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a quote from Denelson83's RfA. "This user has never given any specific reason for mass-voting oppose, which he does periodically. Oh, my bad, he has given a reason once: "BECAUSE ADMINS ARE LIARS AND CHEATERS! THEY ARE EVIL AND EAT PUPPIES FOR DINNER!" or something along those lines. So don't expect answers from him. His vote amounts to nothing on this RfA, anyway. --Sn0wflake 07:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)". Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me :) Requests for adminship/FCYTravis was one support, cant remember the other. Also, his contributions seem perfectly reasonable as well, I would like to understand his reasoning properly though. Bluemoose 20:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * All this talk about puppies is making me hungry. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Stupid Admin!!! Oh wait, I want to join you in four days. I'll have to aquire a taste for puppies. Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

No one's vote is discounted out of hand, including Boothy443's. In the event that such a vote might make a difference in promotion or removal, his vote as well as all the other votes are considered on the basis of their content. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. What do you mean "on the basis of their content"? All Boothy443's votes are blank. But thats what we have B-crats for. Howabout1 Talk to me! 21:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider the content of the vote, the voter's degree of participation in Wikipedia (particularly when their participation is limited), and the voters' history of RFA participation. I consider the comments included in "neutral" votes.  I have a greater expectation of rationale from "oppose" voters than "support" voters except when the nature of the objection is clear from other discussion.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's one vote. And this isn't an election anyway, it's consensus-building. In the unlikely event that any troll or vandal or whatever casts the vote that means the difference between getting 80% or not, it should still be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, like the rest. If it comes from a generally unreliable source, and gives no specific reason whatsoever (Boothy), then it adds nothing to the attempt at consensus-building. The vote isn't discounted, but its total contribution to the consensus (0) is added with no change. That's how I'd go about it. But it's highly unlikely that we are going to decide an adminship based on Boothy's vote, so I don't know why everyone's getting so worked up about it. Of course, IANAB (I Am Not A Bureaucrat). --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You have answered my question. Howabout1 Talk to me! 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

WP:TRI requirement
Hello! With more and more new wikipedia users unaware of WP:TRI, I'd like to start asking all current candidates to answer a question about the trifecta. I'd even like to phrase it in a distressing way, and such that innocently answering it might cause disruption of rfa and thus emnity from bureaucrats. (Thus answering the question to people's satisfaction will require some thinking out of the box, and application of WP:DICK and WP:IAR, which is what we want :-) ), We'd also like to see the answered phrased along NPOV of course.

Well.. that's a list of requirements... Let's see what we should ask:


 * Please review WP:TRI. There are three cardinal rules of wikipedia. Note which policies are included, and find out who supported them, when, and why. Do you think that these are sufficient? Please answer in 750 words. Even if you think this question is unfair, please allow the candidate to deal with it as they see fit.

Hmm, Let's see, that looks about right...
 * Who when and why covers NPOV. check
 * The question gives the editor some stress, so we can test if they hold up under WP:DICK. check
 * 750 word essay on RFA? No way! That takes up too much space and is disruptive, but we're still asking it! time for some WP:IAR. check

Okay, so that's looking good. But maybe you might know some improvements to the question? Please comment! Kim Bruning 14:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Kim, I just noticed that WP:DICK is on VFD on Meta. Some of the Meta-ians seem to feel that since its mostly only en that uses it, that it should only be on en. func (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just checked, that vote's not going anywhere, it's a near unanimous keep. Duh :) Kim Bruning 14:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

So you'd like to create a controversy to see how people handle it? Hmm, sounds counterproductive to me. We have enough controversy on Wikipedia as it is. If you want to see how people handle a controversy, have a requirement that candidates point out a conflict they successfully averted. That would require consensus to add of course. Now if this was all a joke, and I'm the wet blanket, I apologize. Shoot me, I'm the literal. :) - Taxman Talk 14:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The conflict they've averted is already on the (very short!) list. I'm asking them to show that they can apply WP:TRI. Kim Bruning 15:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. IMHO all it would do is stress the candidate and make them not want to apply for adminship or not accept a nomination. Howabout1 Talk to me! 14:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, (with due credit to Bishonen) it makes adminship more self-selecting. Kim Bruning 15:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A 750 word essay is just too excessive in any case. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is correct. It's an unreasonable request. What will the candidate do? Kim Bruning 17:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with starting off every adminship vote with a deliberate controversy. What problem is this intended to solve? New users aren't aware of WP:TRI? Then add it to the welcome messages.  New users aren't generally admin candidates.  Joyous  (talk) 17:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, how does the question cause a controversy, and how can that be fixed? Kim Bruning 17:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This proposal would be counterproductive. Essay requirements are for school. Maurreen 17:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, well the intent is to figure out if the admin in question actually understands WP:TRI, too many new admins fail to do so, and occaisionally cause a heck of a lot of work, so I'd like to figure out somehow if they've gotten it. Any alternative suggestions are welcome. The essay request is unreasonable yes, that's the point. It's one possible way to test understanding of TRI: if a candidate understands TRI properly, they will find a way to gracefully sidestep the problem. Try to think how you'd answer this request if you were on RFA today? Kim Bruning 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the only way I could do that is to write the essay, unless you're telling me to WP:IAR and therefore write like 2 sentences on what it is. But how far from there until not answering the question at all? I'm not quite sure if I see what you mean, and if you mean it in the most literal sense I'm afraid I must disagree. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 17:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Different people can figure out different ways to answer the question. It's a disguised challenge to get creative and apply your admin skills to an actual (if slightly artificial) problem. It's *your call*, what will you do? So like *do* give a 2 line answer, if it shows you understand NPOV, DICk, and IAR, perfect! Or delete the question entirely, with an explanation why... , or maybe put up an essay in your own userspace (750 words or no) and link to it, or ... etc. ...


 * If a candidate doesn't catch on and writes a 750 word essay on the RFA page, they're obviously not suited to being an admin yet anyway :-P Kim Bruning 17:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Kim, possibly it would be useful to see an example of the problem you are trying to correct. Maurreen 17:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think WP:TRI is a good set of guidlines to follow. However, each editor is going to intrepret them in a different manner. Requiring anyone to demonstrate their understanding of these guidelines in such a deceitful manner, borders on instruction creep. Who is to determine if the candidate was able to use WP:IAR in a clever way? For that matter, assigning such a requirement to potentional admin candidates is bias, unless the same requirement is asked of all current admins. If anyone feels that a user cannot be an admin unless they can demonstrate how well they use and understand WP:TRI, then an admin shouldn't remain an admin, unless they can do the same. so we can test if they hold up under WP:DICK, and who is going to be performing this? Are there guidelines, who will intercede when it goes too far? I do not totally disagree with wanting to know if a candidate meets a certain criteria, but that should be demonstrated by their past edits and performance, and not left up to random testing by any user, who may not even understand the guidelines themselves. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 18:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In the context of RFA however, we're already looking at how a person behaves. The point is that there is no single *correct* answer, just that how an editor responds to the question will give us an excellent opportunity to gain insight into their views. I am glad to hear that you feel that requirements for admins are becoming crazier by the day. I feel that this however is a sane requirement, the more so since older admins all *do* understand the policy. We try to get everyone who has become an admin to understand WP:TRI, but it'd help if people were aware of it in advance, rather than post hoc. I do feel that any current admin who fails to understand WP:TRI should be either so educated eventually deadminned, but fortunately we haven't had the latter happen much so far. :-) Kim Bruning 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's understandable, and I do agree all potential admins should have a better knowledge of all the guidelines before adminship. I really don't think any current admin should be de-admin based merely on the WP:TRI, I was just giving a realistic comparison.  I did however, understand the reasoning for testing of candidates, my only concern with this is who would do it, and how will they be monitored? It would be quite scary if everyone took it upon themselves to do this, and the outcome of such, I feel would not be pretty, especially if the "tester" pushes the "testee" to far.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  19:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah *RIGHT* but no no, it's just the one question today. I'm wondering if I can get away with asking that, and how might it be improved, one way or the other? Kim Bruning 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really sure, to be honest. I think maybe putting it under About RFA section of RFA and on the top of Administrators' reading list. Then you could question the candidate on how they feel about certain policies, but NOT about WP:TRI.  That way, you would know if they took the time to read it, as there were two prominent links to it, and then probe them about *other* policies, and see how they respond. Might be a good start, but theres a ton of the methods, all are probably good, but  should only be used with WP:FAITH   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  20:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, you just proved my point I think ;-). WP:TRI consists of 3 rules, each of which alone can be said to be the basis of 90% of wikipedia policy. Together, they're overkill. The trifecta is the shortest policy summary we have. It's also the trickiest one to grasp. That's why it seems to me that admins should know it explicitly. :) Kim Bruning 12:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that WP:TRI is a poor summary of the project's "basic characteristics." I disagree that "Ignore all rules" is of the same importance as NPOV. And while civil and polite behavior is important, perpetuating the "don't be a dick" slogan is counter to the scholarly goals of the project, and as a title, hardly qualifies as brilliant prose. Finally, I don't think the project is well served by additional barriers to adminship. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree with most of those comments, I don't think that we can get to any scholarly purpose if people act as Dicks. And as Immanuel Kant once said "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 03:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps more fundamentally, any candidate for adminship will (well, should) know how to look at page history so will be able to see how previous candidates answered the questions (unless you're proposing deleting previous RFAs, keeping them from the prying eyes of all but admins). A user's edit history is an open book - if sufficient understanding of WP:TRI (or any other pet criteria anyone has) isn't demonstrated through previous edits, just vote against them. If you think it's too much work to personally do this, then I'd suggest it's perhaps not that important to you. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, they can do that. That might be a valid solution too. :-) Some people have very active social behaviour on the wiki, and you already know all about them, or it's very easy to figure them out from their edit summaries. Others are quiet and unassuming, and for those especially, adding this question would be quite useful! Kim Bruning 12:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it mildly amusing that this horrendous piece of instruction creep is being proposed...in order to tell people to avoid instruction creep? Not to mention that I've never heard of WP:TRI before! Ambi 12:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean, replace one of the questions with a question about tri? :-P And I *do* have a sense of humor, yes. Well people tell me I do... sometimes, right? That and it's not like the intent of asking wasn't to draw people's attention to the policy summary in question O:-)
 * I'm not immediately proposing one thing or the other, rather I'd like constructive criticism and maybe creative ideas on how to further my goal (if folks have time for me at least, that is) :-) Kim Bruning 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Kim, I don't understand what the goal is. Can you give an example of the problem you are trying to correct? Maurreen (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like for all admins understand wikipedia policy before they become admins. The policy trifecta (WP:TRI) is our most succinct summary, but also the trickiest to grasp. If you can apply the policy trifecta correctly, I think you're suited to be an admin. The problem is that currently we have a couple of admins who do *not* actually understand the trifecta, or indeed understand how wikipedia policy is made at all. At least the trifecta contains a clue for that :-) Kim Bruning 23:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Being, as some people know, a humourless jerk, I feel the need to point out that the "dick" in "Don't be a dick" is offensive in some cultures (as, of course, is "jerk"). While I entirely endorse the intent of DBAD, I remain uncomfortable at weaving it into our established policy, which is the effect of this proposal. Furthermore, a trick question feels like an inappropriate hurdle for someone of whom we also ask "assume good faith". Perhaps a more straightforward approach would be to ask "What is your opinion of the proposal that RfA candidates should write a 750 word essay on WP:TRI?" &mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno, hurdles can sometimes be good. But your suggestion might be going somewhere. Care to expand on it? Kim Bruning 00:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

IMO, Five pillars is a better summarization of the character of Wikipedia as a whole, and doesn't include the potentially troublesome WP:DICK, at least not directly. Regardless, I think the idea of needing to demonstrate one's understanding of even a set of foundational principles in order to be a valid candidate for adminship is a bit redundant. A candidate's worthiness for adminship ought to be obvious partially from his/her answers to the "standard questions" (which could, of course, be tweaked or lengthened) but primarily from voters' due diligence in researching the candidate's contribution history. Trick questions are simply a bad idea, and what's to prevent a candidate from viewing this very page and learning that the question is a trick question? android 79  00:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, 5P is a better summarisation of WP as a whole, forsure, but TRI is more specifically suited to admin tasks :-) I've been talking about the standard questions all this time, I'd like to tweak them to give a better view of the candidate (They weren't etched in stone by the Hand Of God, you know! besides, then there'd have to be 10 ;-) ). Since there is no "correct answer", candidates peeking here can't hurt! Kim Bruning 00:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A template to make it easier
Hi. Although I didn't want to do it myself (I'm currently up for adminship), I noticed that many people, when nominated, want to invite some people, who know them, to participate (arguably, vote to support). So I thought about a template that would make it easier for those who wish to, do it. Here's the code I propose:  Hi. I am currently up for adminship. If you would like to participate in my RfA, please visit the vote page. Thank you. The code might need fixing, I'm not used to writing them. I'm also looking for insight on two aspects: 1)Do you think that even creating this would be overkill? 2)Obviously, even if the code is perfect, the wording is also up for consideration. I thought this would be a good idea. I'm not dead set on it though. But if it passes, it could be called "Template:AdminVote". Thoughts? Suggestions? Regards, Redux 18:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There are those who think such requests are bad form, to the extent that they vote against the candidate on the principle that they're trying too hard to be an admin (and thus must be bad in some way). I fear that making such a template might make the unwary admin candidate think that such asking is an uncontroversial practice, which it isn't, and so might tarnish their reputation unnecessarily. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 18:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * True. As I said, I myself did not contact anyone directly to request that they vote for me.  Exactly, I thought it would be bad form, not because I'd be trying too hard though, but because I felt that, by inviting [directly] a selection of people to vote, I'd be influencing the outcome, and this, I thought, could not be (I only have a note on my own talk page, and it's not too flashy).  But, correct me if I'm wrong, technically there isn't any rules prohibiting such an invite, and I've seen people do it.  If this was created, I suppose it would be linked in the RfA page, as a tool usable by candidates.  We could then insert a very visible disclaimer informing people of the pros and cons of using the template (that is, of directly inviting users to vote).  I'm thinking that, many people that a candidate might know are likely very much unaware of the proceedings to becoming an Admin, so they are unlikely to look down on the invite.  Of course, if there's anything in the rules that forbid or limit invitations to vote, or if this is currently being discussed (I'm not aware of it), then this absolutely shouldn't be created.  Redux 19:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Slight rewording: of course I know the rules don't forbid it. Redux 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think if one wants to invite others to vote on their RFA, they can do whatever they want, regardless of how it may appear to others. However, the creation of such a template would imply that WP encourages such an activity which, IMO, shouldn't be done. --Deathphoenix 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A very good point. Although the disclaimer could solve it.  And, I forgot to mention, it would/should also be implemented at the top of the template's talk page.  Very visible, as I said.  It would be about making easier the lives of those who want to invite people, so long as it is absolutely clear that they do it at their own risk.  The RfAs that I've seen more recently, granted I don't police all RfAs, where the candidate invited people to vote didn't seem to indicate that it had backfired on the nominee.  That's why I even proposed this.  This reminds me of when you're about to delete a virus/spybot that your antivirus caught: you always get that notice Attention!  You are about to delete a file that might be essential for the system.  Proceed at your own risk.  Sort of like that.  Redux 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if we don't create the template (and it looks like we won't), just for my own curiosity: how is the code looking? If it had been implemented, do you guys think that it would have needed any fixing/improving? Redux 02:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new template for nominating
I know that at least two other users tried to update the Candidate questions template and got reverted 1 and 2, but I have fixed the general problem with naming of sub-sections.

See my proposed solution: RFA addition template.
 * To use:  Username  (not specifially with name of RFAC).
 * In use: see here.

I welcome any suggestions or changes (you can edit the page). &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 22:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the reason for not using headings for the different sections is that it expands the ToC too much. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats true, and hiding it would make it difficult to scroll down. Mainly just trying to make it easier to vote, granted section editing doesnt really alleviate edit conflicts, but helps.  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  22:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the ToC won't end up too big if you use headings. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 00:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, I am inclined to believe you. Although it seems it would make it longer, the actual comments make the page very long. With sub-headings, you can goto the vote section rather quickly, and dont' have to scroll down through all the other votes or comments to vote.  Sometimes by the time i get to the "comments" section while editing, someone else has already edited and you get an edit conflict.  This way there is no scrolling through the entire RFA of a user while editing.    &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
IMO User:Aule was a sockpuppet whose single edit alleging rascism from me forced me into abandoning my Request for admin. I have asked for a sockpuppet check, and am waiting on that. Having seen 2 editors leave during or immediately after their Admin request, and seeing the way some users appear to use it as an excuse to attack other users, I have serious doubts about the validity of the process, SqueakBox 00:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Bureaucrats, being responsible for closing the RfAs will surely be able to spot a sock a mile off, and simply discard their vote, even though the aim is consensus rather than an election. That alone probably not have harmed your RfA. In fact, a recent RfA (Saquatch's I think) attracted several socks, and they were still promoted: some users (semi-jokingly) concluded Sasquatch must have been doing a good job to attract so many socks! -Splash 00:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Splash is correct, we try to be careful about socks. The broader issues you raise are important ones, however, in that editors whose RFAs are frustrating often leave the project, to the detriment of us all. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I also withdrew my nomination in order not to get frustrated to the point of leaving. I wasn't looking for adminship, but felt it would have been improper to refuse. I feel other users used it as an excuse to launch attacks against me (not Rhodite) which were uncalled for and just spoilt my day. They wouldn't have launched the attacks otherwise, ie nothing to create an Rfc or complain at an admin page because I am not a bad user. An admin complaining about my edits to batpedia felt like pure trolling as this has nothing to do with wikipedia. I won't be trying again, SqueakBox 03:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't trolling. In addition to issues brought up by other users that I felt were valid, including personal attacks and POV pushing, I felt that your edits to Batpedia were attempts to get your views about Haile Selassie and Javier Solana expressed in a less stringent environment. Also, your edits there reflected some kind of anti-Italian sentiment, I gathered. I think you should continue to edit at Wikipedia because this project cherishes editors of all kinds, regardless of their opinions, but at this time I do not feel you would be an even-handed administrator. Andre ( talk ) 03:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

My grandfather was Italian. I wasn't trying to promote anything at batpedia. Look at the context in which I made my edits. I still don't feel bringing it up was appropriate. Allegations of rascism are ridiculous, and make me question the motivations of anyone accusing me, without the slightest evidence I might add. I perceived your criticisms were very much designed to get me off Wikipedia, regardless of your actual motivation. I took a hell of a lot from Zapatancas and his SquealingPig ally, break your dead dog's arse, your wife is a transexual etc. In contrast my comments have been very mild. No admins are around supporting me with this troll. I am not inhuman, what can I do. Leave wikipedia as so many people seem to want, SqueakBox 03:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well Aule has withdrawn his rascism charges, though the damage is mostly done. I live in a society where being white marks me out as being different. I have been seriously attacked for that. I am in a mixed race marriage. i abhor rascism. hence my withdrawing of the Rfc before more offensive and ridiculous accusations were made against me. There seems to be something in the admin election process encouraging this, andf making people leave. I hope it changes, hence my comments here. Just because I was up for admin doesn't give people the right to attack me, and I have been attacked far too often here already, SqueakBox 04:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I never said you were racist, but I did feel that your edits on Batpedia were made seriously. You do, in fact, espouse the ideals of Rastafarianism, don't you? This would include everything you added to Batpedia, and you did call Italian colonists "wicked" and the country of Italy "blighted" in your edits. I apologize if you were offended, though; I mean you no harm. I merely do not feel that you are by any means admin material, right now. Andre ( talk ) 04:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * A "bald head" cannot be Rasta. Have a look at SB's pix.  "Scissors and comb" are forbidden.  Guettarda 04:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be good to know why I am not admin material in your eyes. Re Rastafari see User talk:Trey Stone. I get very frustrated that the roll back is not more freely available. It makes me not want to bother reverting vandalism. With a slow connection and a long article it can be a nightmare. As I say if I had been looking for adminship it would be different. I wish I hadn't accepted the nomination. I think the whole 2 tier system is flawed but that is just an opinion. We are advised to act and think like admins. I have been doing this for a while, and will not change, SqueakBox 04:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of MarkSweep's nomination.
Two users, probably sockpuppets of the same person, JiangsSockpuppetMarkSweep and MarkSweepIsCommunist, have been adding fake oppose votes to MarkSweep's nomination. JiangsSockpuppetMarkSweep also vandalized the user talk page of Instantnood, a supporter of MarkSweep (see Instantnood's talk page history). Could someone please block them? Ryan 07:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Bothe were obvious username blocks even without the vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)