Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 160

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Majorly in topic Edit stats
Archive 155←Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162→Archive 165

I'm really going to close this talk page... [Rant warning: TLDR summary at the end]

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

...if you all don't stop posting new ways to "fix" RfA, ways to solve the "problem" of decreasing admin count, etc. The RfA process works fine and there's no problem with periodic fluctuations in activity. I wouldn't even consider it an issue if we went weeks, months, years without additional admins as long as the work of the encyclopedia is being done. If we start finding out that backlogs are getting enormous and the vandals are running amok, we can address it then. The RfA process as a whole is a routine, "no big deal" check for determining community consensus for who is not crazy, who can walk the basic walk of responsibility and talk the talk of wiki-jargon and civility, and who can put in the time to fill arbitrarily large activity guidelines to prove they have the time and the motivation. Admins have to be civil and not rub people the wrong way; this is the whole point of RfA seeming too hard to pass in some cases -- if they can make peace with their opposers they have atoned for whatever caused them to oppose originally. Multiple RfAs are also no big deal, just like I took my driver's license exam twice and passed the second time, or my RfB the third time. And if anyone is really so stressed out by not having a few extra buttons, they can just create a new account and start from scratch, sticking to only politically correct, productive, harmonious and civil editing. Hopefully by the 5000 edit mark or whatever we're requiring for admins these days, it'll become a habit. The point is, all of this will work itself out as long as people keep editing the encyclopedia, not spend time discussing the process here. Otherwise we'll only discourage potential admins from entering a perceived mire of bureaucratic red tape and politicking. So from now on, stop posting on Talk:RfA in an effort to improve the process, shoot the shit, or improve your political stature and/or position you for the next hat on your quest of hat collection. There's nothing to change, nothing to fix, and everything you have to add is a solution in search of a problem. Let's wait until it's broke to fix it, shall we? Your opinions nonwithstanding, the work of the encyclopedia and the results of admin activity are our only yardsticks for success, not how many admins we have. Lots of admin work is now performed by bots or scripts, or is not necessary due to changes in protection policies and perhaps a decrease of the novelty of Wikipedia vandalism. For now it seems like admins are doing the job fine.

TLDR summary: If you agree with this, DON'T REPLY TO IT. The whole point is to stop posting on this page and let the RfA process be as simple and apolitical as changing usernames.

If anyone posts reply to this agreeing with it, I'm going to whack you with a clue stick. Andre (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. We comment here because people oppose for silly reasons. The RFA process as a whole is fine though.--Pattont/c 12:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with what Andrevan said (*gets ready to be hit*) Dendodge TalkContribs 13:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with almost everything Andrevan said, but what I find curious is that despite trying to stop discussion on fixing RFA it comes from someone who believes that "The RfA process as a whole is a routine, "no big deal" check for determining community consensus for who is not crazy, who can walk the basic walk of responsibility and talk the talk of wiki-jargon and civility,". I wish it still were something similar to that. I think that the positive things that have come from this page are that the problems of RFA are being discussed and some participants in the discussion might be rethinking their RFA !voting criteria as a result. As for the idea that the RFA process is not broken and that the drought of the last ten months is merely one of those "periodic fluctuations in activity", can anyone give an example of a previous periodic fluctuation before the one we've been in since April 08, that has lows as deep as Sept 08 and Jan 09? WereSpielChequers 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
TBH, I don't know whether I agree or not - I just wanted to say that I did to annoy him =P Dendodge TalkContribs 14:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
And therefore you instantly promoted to being one of the parts of the problem of this page. Congratulations. Giggy (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC) My final post to this place. Please close it. I'm part of the problem too.

←Andre, let me ask some questions as part of my short-term job to collect opinions on what qualities of candidates you're looking for. Some people believe that we should be looking to ease up on requirements whenever we can, as long as we're reasonably certain we won't get burned by the candidate; other people say that there's no particular reason we should strive to set the standards as low as they will possibly go, we'll be fine with something approximating the current standards. You say: "I wouldn't even consider it an issue if we went weeks, months, years without additional admins...", but you also say "...prove they have the time and the motivation. Admins have to be civil and not rub people the wrong way". That sounds like you're in the second camp when it comes to "not rubbing people the wrong way", but you aren't looking for the candidates to already have experience in admin areas, and you don't mind if a candidate runs several times, is that right? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The community sets the standards. There's no way to tell people how to think or what their standards should be, so we can't "ease up." If people are bothered enough by a candidate to oppose, they will oppose regardless of what we tell them. I never said the candidate shouldn't have experience, as we've seen that is the way they prove they have the dedication and the free time to be an admin. But running several times is an integral part of the process and should be encouraged. Andre (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Andre, that's pretty clearly false. Obviously there is a way to tell people how to think and what their standards should be, since it's done all the time. Of course, doing so poisons the atmosphere at RFA, and then the same people who're doing so complain about the atmosphere and try to fix it by releasing more poison ... well, that lesson is apparently a difficult one. WilyD 16:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, man. Andre (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Err, people are regularly told how to think and what their standards should (more often: shouldn't) be. It's just that they can't be forced to adhere to that, so instead we get a combatitive, adversarial atmosphere. WilyD 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"RFA is the worst system for promoting users to administrators, except all others that have been proposed". Churchill may have said something similar once. Dirty thief. --Deskana (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I love it. Andre (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
What Churchill actually said was: "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Note the very significant "have been tried", and ponder on why it's so difficult to try anything new here on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we should try fascism. Apterygial 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Errh well we know that doesn't work, book burners are about as far from the Wiki ideal as I can imagine. But pure democracy would be very different from our current hybrid system which has elements of meritocracy, Blackballing, uplift and apparently MMORPG (though I have to take the last on trust as its not quite in my personal expertise). Specifically for this page, if the threshold for RFA was 50% would everyone vote the same way that they now !vote? I'm frequently amongst the 50-70% who've supported candidates who would be admins if we were a democracy, but moving from consensus to democracy is one RFA reform that I'm not minded to support. WereSpielChequers 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. We could try elements of fascism: disproportionate pride in our encyclopedia, the want to take over other people's websites... RFA does tend to venerate the idea of the perfect Wikipedian, if you get my meaning... Apterygial 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bun39

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments12 people in discussion

I came across his request for adminship and saw it was removed from the main RFA page. The user has now apparantly retired due to not becoming an administrator, (see User:Bun39 and User talk:Bun39). I was wondering shouldn't their request either be re-added to the list or be deleted, or should it just be left? Eddie6705 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick read of Bun39's Talk page indicates this was handled appropriately; no correction required. Townlake (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Has been deleted by User:GlassCobra. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That was perhaps the funniest talk page I've ever read. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...maybe I should have tried that.:)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yay, he's back already, so pleased I am. — R2 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think someone needs to change the entry for "permanently". Perhaps something along the lines of "an indefinite amount lasting somewhere around five and a half hours"? Really, though, this is ridiculous. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Not quite back yet apparently.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48 hours, he'll be back on stage at 19:20 3 February 2009 (UTC), I'm selling tickets, you want one let me know on my talkpage and send me a check for $100.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I gave him a brief overview of my admin criteria and basically dared him to do what it takes to get the admin bit legitimately in 2009. Here's hoping he rises to the challenge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If he actually manages to do what you've listed, he has my support. Maybe. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
He is Time magazine person of the year 2006, it shouldn't be that hard for him.--Pattont/c 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is possibly the funniest thing I've yet seen on-wiki, but is a good example of how to politely deal with someone who hasn't just grabbed the wrong end of the stick but by now has left the branch, tree and park entirely and is wandering central London asking random people to give him the tools. Personally I've never felt 'give me something or I'll leave and stop ranting at people to give me stuff' to be a very effective form of negotiation, but maybe that is just me. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the whole talk page, the only question I have is "Why is this guy not indefinitely blocked?" I think his allotment of good faith has been exhausted. He is quite obviously here for no reason other than to disrupt. Trusilver 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that when I saw the talk page. He has been going right up to the edge and then backing down for months; methinks tis time to help him over the edge of the cliff. Anyone want to do the honours? I guess that could be our 'third way'; a way to avoid giving him the tools AND make him retire :P.Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you push people over the edge, they may come back as vandalizing sockpuppets. Far better to encourage him towards productive editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything to be gained in blocking him just yet-- I see him as essentially harmless. I do not believe the disruption is intentional. There is a maturity issue there, I think. Perhaps someone very young. Perhaps one day he'll grow into a constructive editor. If we block him, that opportunity will be lost. As David says. . . .Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked another week, for more disruption, and now he's retired again, so he won't be back again.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any aspiring admins who'd like to earn some brownie points?

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

There are a whole bunch of articles that need to be checked for copyright violations here. Anyone care to help? (Someone already posted a request for assistance at WP:AN. That has gone mostly unanswered, but I figured there are a bunch of people here who would be willing to do some grunt work.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No we can't inane discussion rules!!!!---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 15:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll get started on it, where should I report my findings? Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Strike out pages that you have done with. List completely tainted revisions on WP:CP using instructions as directed on {{copyvio}}. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Straw poll about RFAs from people with things to hide in their past

Latest comment: 15 years ago57 comments26 people in discussion
Person no longer intends to seek adminship, no need to speculate about his past.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of you have wondered why I haven't transcluded Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidwr.

It has to do with my historical blocks. The admin committeeArbCOM wants me to come clean on what the other accounts were so that everything is transparent. This is understandable. They don't want to be seen as endorsing secrecy. However, doing so would have off-wiki ramifications, as some of the edits are not only embarrassing on-wiki but the topics I edited were controversial and I took some positions on issues that people I know off-wiki or both on- and off-wiki would not approve of, to put it mildly. It's simply not worth risking real-world relationships over something I regret.NOTE: Dave meant ArbCOM, not admin committee, so I fixed that for him---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 15:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, how many years is reasonable before the benefits of allowing editors to put their past behind them without going public about what that past is outweighs the benefits of transparency? Obviously this is a case by case basis, but for the sake of argument, assume worst-case Wiki-behavior, and that the person's on-wiki behavior indicated that at the time of the edits, he held attitudes that were very unpopular. For the sake of example, suppose my other account indicated I held attitudes similar to David Duke, Richard Williamson (bishop), or Adolf Hitler, and that my on-wiki edits with one of those accounts had been to push a point of view which I believed was neutral but in fact was way outside mainstream society. Obviously, if my friends and family and employers knew I was a racist or an anti-Semite as recently as 1 1/2 years ago it would have grave off-wiki consequences. Even after 5 years it would be a large risk to say "5 years ago I believed xxxx." After 10 or 15, people are much more likely to say "the past is the past" or "why are you bothering to tell me this?" My issue isn't kill-the-Jews-anti-Semitism, but it's about as unpopular.

However, 10 years is an eternity, Wikipedia may not exist then.

The question is, how long is long enough before 70-80% of active Wikipedians would not object to an administrator candidate who had a checkered long-ago past under another account or accounts and who refused to give details of what that past including the specific edits or the specific account, but did openly admit there serious problem in the past and was willing to discuss the issue in broad terms and it was clear that the offensive editing behavior was long-ago abandoned, or if not completely abandoned [see Virgin Killer discussion elsewhere in this thread], what steps the editor was doing to edit with discipline, and would 70-80% of active Wikipedians be okay with arbcom members and checkusers remaining silent about it? Are we talking 1-2 years or 10-20? We are talking administratorship here, not a Presidential Cabinet post. 19-hour delayed emphasis added and underlined text inserted, as about half of the people are missing the "how long" question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can gather from the above, it's very unlikely I'll be pursuing adminship anytime soon unless something unexpected happens. Right now there are plenty of other ways I can help the project that I haven't done yet, like help write one of these. There will come a time when I'll run out of new things to do, and I'd hope I won't have to wait 10 years to receive for the bit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Personally if such an RfA came up I'd oppose on principle. I dislike the idea of candidates being able to 'pick and mix' what they want the RfA community to know about their past actions. The fact that it is done with ArbCom approval makes no difference; if we support based on the facts presented to us rather than the facts as a whole then we are not !voting for you, we are !voting for some mythical sqeaky-clean davidwr. Administratorship is not a Presidential Cabinet post, no; it is much harder for you to be desysopped for a fuckup than it is for a cabinet member to be forced to resign. Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, this kind of honest feedback helps. This is why I specifically said "assume the worst" for the missing information. It's also why I looked for a number of years before the past would not be important, no matter how bad it was. I'm assuming that for you, the number is somewhere between 10 years and infinity, which for practical purposes is the same thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • One other comment on picking and mixing: This may be happening already. There is nothing but personal honor and respect for the system to stop someone from being disruptive, getting banned, then changing his attitude, ISP, and editing style under a new identity and getting the bit. We have over 1500 admins. While there may not be anyone who successfully returned without permission after a ban, it could happen, and the older Wikipedia gets, the more likely one will sneak through. However, if he was sincere about changing, this won't be an issue. If it was a plot to "be good for a year and get super powers" then it's not the end of the world and he'll probably be very disappointed in just how "not super" his "powers" are. I think the worst he can do without being seen as disruptive is see deleted edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I could live with two years, but I'd probably be more picky and less willing to give the benefit of the doubt about the subsequent edits. This is partly because I believe in second chances, and partly because of the purely practical matter that if the editor in question had taken a break and simply started a new account, after two years we'd be none the wiser. I'd be much happier though if we were given outline details of the offence - and an assurance that some experienced users here were aware of the past and happy with the reform. WereSpielChequers 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Disclose everything, and explain what you need to. It's all coming out anyway. Damage control.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess the tell all isn't realistic. Then I would say that just don't sweat it. You're a respected editor, adminship can be more trouble than it is worth. When you feel comfortable, and I think Kingturtle's test is good, give it a try. Personally, I would say two years clean record would forgive everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Except, of course, that Wikipedia editors are not your family, and if you start looking at them as such I'll be opposing you for that. Giggy (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would prefer a candidate who said "I have bad things in my past that I don't want to reveal" to one who has those things in the past and just doesn't reveal them. Whether we find out about the latter is just luck. If I liked everything else about the candidate, I think a year would be enough for me. Deb (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • From what I have heard from comments from Checkusers, there are blocked and even banned editors who are current regular editors and administrators. I think, that as long as you have made penance for at least a year, which you have and more, then you have shown your dedication to Wikipedia and NPOV. Perhaps you could be willing to self-ban yourself from administrator actions on Jewish-related articles, broadly construed? And placing yourself in CAT:AOR might now be a bad idea either. I would feel fine supporting you then. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You think former vandals, Pov pushers and trolls should contribute in secret for at least a year before we accept them as constructive editors? What if we find someone who's been making good edits for on a new account for a week but used to be a vandal? Would you want him blocked? That's ridiculous IMO.--Pattont/c 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If it is early enough in a wiki-career, then I would discount it. What you do in the first few months of a wiki-life is not usually indicative of what you do later anyway. But if someone pushes a POV for that long as David had said he did, a year might be extremely excessive. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you were sentenced by ArbCom and you served your time, and if you've been using only one account since you came back into the fold, then bygones should be bygones. You did your time. I don't need to know about the past. But I also don't know what you said, what the context was and who you said it to. You may really have hurt some people here. It would be a profound experience for you to come clean to your family about your past, apologize directly to any people here who were affected, and then come clean to the community. Look at how the public views Barry Bonds, who never confessed the truth, and how the public views Jason Giambi, who came clean. Big difference. Do you still support the statements you made under the other account? Have you grown or learned something since then? Kingturtle (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • At the risk of prompting another torrent of abuse from his merry band of sockpuppets, you might want to read Shalom's RFA to get a taste of the kind of thing to expect. (A lot of to opposition won't apply in your case as S was still "offending" up to the point of the RFA, but the general thrust remains the same.) That said, I do agree with Wehwalt and Kingturtle above that you should probably disclose everything – it's a lot better for you to release it at the time and place of your choosing than to suddenly find yourself plastered across ED. The Wikipedia community is generally quite forgiving but hates having facts hidden from it, in my experience. – iridescent 14:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it you have a few options;

  1. Tell all.
  2. Tell nothing and wait for it to all come out anyway.
  3. Get a friend to oversight your post to this page, then deny anything ever happened.
  4. Create a new account and become an admin in 6 months.
  5. Just forget about adminship; the project won't die without your help.

With the number of people who, for better or for worse, spend the vast majority of their time looking for sockpuppets (for fun and profit), the chances of you getting away with it, especially now that you've asked people to keep an eye on you, are ridiculously low. Your best bet is to do what all non-admins should do, and that is option five. Giggy (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC) No, the project won't die. If nobody runs for adminship, eventually changes will have to be made, and these changes will benefit the project in the long run even if it means kicking out a few shoddy but popular admins now.

  • Number 1 is currently not an option and may never be. #3 is a joke I hope. #2 and #4 are not options because they would feel slimy. I don't operate that way. #5 is viable but less than ideal. At some point in the future - 2010, 2019, or some date in between, I hope option #6 "tell some" is a viable option. By being up front now that "something" happened, and making it clear that the reasons I can't "tell all" are off-wiki not on-, I hope to get some of the discussion out of the way now, "at a time of my own choosing." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (Yeah, number three was an FT2-related joke.) I personally think number six would never be a viable option, but others may disagree with me, as is their right. I also think it would be better to have this whole discussion when (in your opinion) it's time to "tell some", but again that's up to you ultimately. Giggy (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some observations (and edit-conflict-reducing section break)

Some observations, based on my experience of watching and participating in a couple of years of RfAs:

  • Some RfAs for candidates with dodgy back records pass easily
  • Some RfAs for candidates with dodgy back records are as doomed as a lame wildebeest
  • The difference between them is sometimes hard to perceive, but anything likely to be an ongoing issue is a definite precursor of failure
  • Not being upfront about the dodgy back record is an almost certain ticket to inglorious failure, should the issue be revealed, even with the RfA in the eleventh hour.

--Dweller (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC) PS What "admin committee"?

He meant ArbCOM... As the person who nominated him, he recently sent me the details, or more accurately instructions on how to find those details of the events he is discussing... Would it make a difference if a few established people were to say that they reviewed his edits, and agree with his concerns about privacy, but don't think it should hold him back? I don't know if I'd say that, I haven't reviewed the edits yet, but would it make a difference?---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. I find Wikipedians to be a curious bunch and I suspect they'll either root it out for themselves or they'll turn up their noses. But what do I know? It's an unusual idea. To have its best chance of success, the "established people" would need to be really well respected for the idea to have any chance of success. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NB None of the above reflects my personal opinion, but my perception of how RfA has worked in the past. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea of a few "established" people reviewing the edits and feeding back to the community on wether they are problematical or not is terrible on many, many levels. Pedro :  Chat  15:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I think it'd fail, but (erm, like I said) it might be successful. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why this was a reply to BM Spartacus, hence why I (erm) indented it further forward under your comment. Pedro :  Chat  15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
<scratches head> I thought that meant it was a reply to me?!?!? Anyway, no problemo now that all is clear. [I need a coffee]. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, that would be like a red rag to a bull, a terrible idea on every conceivable level. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To return to David's original question, I usually look at 6 months of problem free editing as the amount of time I need for a support. With the level of problems described, I would want a year without the behavior resurfacing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I feel I'd likely support an RfA from Davidwr because his excellent and intelligent recent contributions have impressed me. I was unaware of any dodgy past before this discussion, and I saw no evidence from his recent contributions to suggest he remains a nutcase. I have to say though, that a full revelation of any past nutjobbery is always going to be preferable to silence - part of the reason I was so happy to support Rootology's recent RfA is because of his frank and intelligent detailing of why he got banned in the first place. Explaining why others had a problem with you is an excellent way of demonstrating that you're now over that problem, and can view the situation objectively. That said though, in this case enough time has passed, and enough sensible stuff has been produced, that I could happily support regardless of what the specifics of the unidentified offenses are. ~ mazca t|c 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    For my personal amusement, I am imagining that you were indef-blocked for being the world president of the Resurrect Hitler By Drowning Kittens in Bleach Society, and uncivilly defending your society's viewpoint across Wikipedia. ~ mazca t|c 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a very forgiving, good-faith assuming guy, so my opinion is probably a minority one. But if ArbCom allowed an editor to return after being banned and if they have done so without expecting the editor to reveal the banning reasons, I would argue that the past cannot be held as a reason against adminship. We should not measure admins to any other standard than we measure normal users, at least not for things in the past. So if you are allowed to edit without divulging your past, you should also be allowed to become an admin. After all, if those problems that lead to banning were still existing, then we would see them in your editing and oppose you for that. SoWhy 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "We should not measure admins to any other standard than we measure normal users, at least not for things in the past." So you're quite sanguine about holding admins and normal users to account for things in the future? Just trying to understand. ;) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, part of RFA is about predicting future behavior. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Do you happen to know anyone who's any good at preducting the future? RfA is about assessing past performance, not crystal ball gazing. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • (maybe this user --> User:Clairaudient madame...no-one has called themselves User:Clairvoyant yet...what a cool username..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
            • No, what davidwr is saying is that RFA is about whether we trust a candidate to act as an admin the same way he did as an editor. And no, I didn't say that either, although my phrasing was quite unclear. Of course past behavior can be taken into account at an RFA - after all, that's how we judge a candidate. But if ArbCom, having blocked the user, was convinced that the things done are not likely to happen again and if the candidate has not shown any signs of it happening again, then let the past be the past. SoWhy 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
              • However, I can think of several areas where, based on past experience of an editor, one could say with confidence that – no matter what they promise – it will probably never be wise to give them the mop. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Roger: This comment is off-topic for WP:RFA, but it relates to your comment: I've had the unfortunate experience to meet a few such people off-wiki. The ones I've run into tend to have issues with inability to learn, impatience/impulse-control/maturity, inabilty to empathize, blindness to the effects of what they say or do on others, inability to keep secrets, or similar character flaws. However, even with these people, I wouldn't say "never," because people can change. For most jobs, 2 years of verifiable living without the issues listed above, plus a couple more years of verifiable reduced levels of those issues below their initial levels, should be enough to convince me the person is a new man at least as far as his behavior is concerned. Alternatively, a demonstrated commitment to self-improvement that has been ongoing for several months, preferably a year, might substitute. For example, I wouldn't count a recovering alcoholic's alcohol-related problems against him if he'd been in AA for a year and it was clear that since sobering up he was no longer having those problems. Likewise, if someone told me he was a recovered alcoholic and had a good 2 years of history to back up that claim, I'd consider him without AA attendance. After 10 years, I probably wouldn't even inquire. For jobs where the past mis-behavior is specifically relevant, such as a burglar seeking a job as a bank teller, or someone with a record of lying applying to be a tax advisor, I'd delve deeper to make sure the former character flaw really was former. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • Horses for courses I suppose. I'd say that a conviction for extortion and armed robbery was almost a prerequisite for a tax inspector's position, for instance. Here on wikipedia though, everyone is expected to be purer than the driven snow. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Davidwr's statements on the gist of the nut-jobbery: Without going into details, the gist was libertarian POV-pushing of certain social issues. Before being allowed back, I had a chat with the arbitrator who unblocked me. He was satisfied enough to lift the block on a single account, subject to certain conditions including no POV-pushing. This meant two things: I had to look in the mirror and realize that what I believe is "neutral" is not necessarily what wikipedia's consensus history defines as neutral, and it is the latter that must be adhered to. It also means that it's not healthy for me to edit, or admin, or in some cases even read topics that are likely to push my buttons. Initially, this wasn't easy. The temptation to read and edit in those areas was high. After a few months it got a lot easier, but when things make the news or wiki-news, such as the December UK ISP censorship, I do jump in. I do have to be careful. Thinking back to December, there were things I would've said but didn't, and probably a thing or two that I did say that Wikipedia would've been better off if I hadn't said. I can't say I will never make a disruptive comment again, but I can say that my level of unchecked, ignore-wiki-neutrality posts will be close to zero, as it has been since my return. I've also had some real-world experiences similar to, but thankfully much less dangerous, than the guy who stared down the tanks in Tienanmen square. A reporter followed up with him about 10-15 years afterwards and basically he wanted to forget it ever happened. He just wanted to move on with his life. Of all the people in China now, he's probably among the least likely to stand up to the government. In a similar way, I'm much more cautious than I was even 2 years ago for standing up for what I believe when I know my viewpoint is unpopular. There are also things I once believed but no longer believe as strongly. Call that lack of a backbone, call it self-preservation, or call it the maturity of knowing you aren't the center of the universe, either way, the outcome is the same: Whether I get the bit or not, the things that got me into trouble in 2007 are well behind me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not saying I wouldn't support an RfA with a secret past but I would certainly be less likely to do so. I would almost certainly oppose an RfA with a secret past if only a small handful of editors were made aware of that past (unless the candidate offered to make the details available to any editor with 'good standing'). --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 18:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    The tienanmen square guy's identity is unknown: Tank Man ViridaeTalk 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. I just read that. What I heard about him was probably no more verifiable than the other rumors surrounding what happened to him. I probably should've checked that before using it as an analogy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe I know the issue to which you're referring, if my memory serves me, and I can fully understand why you would be reluctant for it to be raked over again in the current social climate. My question though would if your views on the issue have changed, why did they change, and why were your family, friends and work colleagues, not already aware of your libertarian ideas? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With your history, I would oppose. I am willing to forgive old sins and I am fine with your ban lifted and you editing again, but adminship requires trust. To make an analogy: If you commit burglaries, you will will go to prison. When you have served your times you are a free man and your crimes are forgiven. With good behavior you can get out sooner. Still, you will have trouble working as a security guard. We need more admins, but I would rather take someone unexperienced than someone with a bad past. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your recent history, but without being able to make my own judgment of what happened "before", I wouldn't be able to support. There may come a time when I'll look back and say Eh, the past doesn't matter, but I couldn't tell you how long that would take. --Kbdank71 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is likely to come out. I looked at the ArbCom decisions for May 2007 and did not see anything on point, but I am not experienced in the ways of ArbCom. There are better diggers than I, plus people who were involved with such things then. I think, safe to say it will come out. Assume it will, and act accordingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you've given enough information that people are likely to be able to suss out your history, I'd suggest you come completely clean sometime well in advance of posting a nomination. Even having done that, you'll need to link and recap during the request itself in order to have a good chance of success (unless the information is a lot worse than you make it seem, in which case you should just learn to be OK with not being an admin). Avruch T 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Avruch. If you want to keep the information private (more or less), that's probably still possible ... because if you don't run, people won't feel any need to talk about it publicly. If you want to run, then disclose it well in advance, because at this point, it will come out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I suspect that they are right... you've revealed enough that people will probably figure out who you are if you chose to run... remember the detective work that people did with Enigma to figure out his anonymous account... people are detectives, and nothing gets people more curious than an Enigma... I mean, a challenge ;-)---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 06:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and at least two people in this discussion are indicating they know what you're talking about. They've been pretty good about not saying anything, but in the scrutiny of a RfA, someone will either say something or dig it up, and then the cat will be most thoroughly out of the bag. I think that is the answer. If you don't want it revealed, drop it now and ask for this thread to be archived, and I think people will respect that and go about their business. If not, well, I would not be in the least surprised if someone is less respectful and posts whatever it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Between this discussion and some emails, I came to the conclusion yesterday that 1) adminship is very likely not in my near-term future, and 2) although some people are willing to let the past be the past, a significant number of editors, probably well over 30%, need to see all the accounts no matter how long ago they were abandoned or blocked. Significantly more, close to 100%, want to see the accounts. When the circumstances that prevented me from being open in the first place change, if I'm still interested in adminship then I'll put the accounts on the table and let people make their own judgments. Until then I'll just keep editing and encouraging those who would make good admins to run. I probably won't be the last Wikipedian to ask this question about himself, so I'll probably archive this myself this weekend, after constructive comments die out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the RFA process

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:MULTIPLE#Using_multiple_accounts discuss legitimate uses of multiple accounts. These need to be edited to warn users that if they do this, it's expected that they will reveal the account before running for any position that requires community support. If they were to run successfully without doing so, and the accounts were later connected, some editors would feel betrayed even if there was nothing that would've affected their request associated with that account. Such editors should consider the trade-offs between using multiple accounts and simply not editing areas that require segregation and security. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The point here, I suppose, is that if the accounts are used legitimately there is no concern. However, if one account engaged in extreme behaviour, while the others were deliberately kept squeaky clean, then the community certainly does need to know about it as some kinds of behaviour are invariably unacceptable. I'll give several examples of unacceptable behaviours but stress here that these are examples only. The crunch question is whether an editor in apparently good standing should be allowed to keep quiet about a single purpose sock account that was being used exclusively to serially:
  1. out other editors
  2. or sexually harass other editors
  3. or express extreme racist views
  4. or attack, threaten or intimidate other editors
  5. or engage in high profile advocacy for extreme behaviour?
These are very different issues to blockings for a bit of vandalism or incivility and the community really does need the whole picture in order to make an informed decision. The issue is whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools and, perhaps more importantly, whether a risk exists that the candidate might use the tools for their own ends. In the circumstances, it is much more important that the encyclopedia be protected than individual editors with extreme behaviours feel betrayed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The applicable policy here is WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, which prohibits operating two accounts – Jekyll and Hyde accounts? – for the purposes of avoiding scrutiny. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Re: the list: I guess it boils down to this: Will access to deleted edits, the ability to delete edits, the ability to block and unblock users, access to admin-only discussion fora, and the (incorrect) perception by some that an admin deserves more respect than the same editor would get without the bit, enable 1) someone to act in way that causes to another editor, either on- or off-wiki or 2) allow the person to exert control over an article or policy beyond that of a normal editor in a way that is contrary to consensus?? And if yes, given his previous and recent behavior as a guide, what is the likelihood that the person will actually abuse the tools?
Did I miss anything?
In any case, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:MULTIPLE#Using_multiple_accounts should be clarified, as the scrutiny section combined with the security section gives the impression that as long as you can claim real-world security issues, and you truly segregate your accounts so patterns of disruption aren't spread across multiple accounts, you are in the clear from a sock-abuse point of view. In my case I blew any benefit from that interpretation when I abused my signature line on this account, but it's still a problem with the text as written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO, someone who has abused the system before is likelier to do it again than someone who has never done iot.
Sysops do have access to sensitive material, and do have a position of trust, which means the role can be abused by the predatory, the manipulative and the sociopathic.
The focus of the policies is protecting the encyclopedia and tens of thousands of editors (including the young and the vulnerable) rather than offering a rehabilitive route.
The sock policies are not intended to segregate accounts, regardless of what they have done, to the extent you wish. Some behavours are very deep-rooted and form part of the editor's personality: these are almost impossible to change.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS election has started!

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Must say, I was the first one to vote, not to brag. :-)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 01:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed not :) (I can't vote. [Sulk]) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Haste makes waste. Tsk, tsk. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistic

Latest comment: 15 years ago55 comments26 people in discussion

Interesting statistic: 675 (41.6%) admins are inactive according to Wikipedia:List of administrators (inactive being defined as 30 or less edits over the last 3 months). I guess while the basic questions for requests for adminiship are "what do you plan to do?", "what have you done so far?" and "have you been in conflicts?" remain in the list of questions asked, I wonder if anyone has actually questioned if the admin was actually going to do what they say and produce on Wikipedia or are they just going to disappear.. — Moe ε 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noted this anecdotally several times, such as one editor/admin with whom I had dealings this week, who had almost exactly 5000 edits when he got the mop in April of 2007, and since then has only added about 475. Another admin, one for whom I've expressed admiration, had about 14,500 when he got the mop in August of 2007, and since then has had only about 2000 edits—and only 82 edits in the past six months. So what's it all about? I suppose that, for some people, getting the mop is like some type of pinacle, and that, having gotten it, the thrill is gone. But more likely, I think, is that most of these people who become inactive find that they don't enjoy the work of an admin, or that, despite the glowing comments that editors made about their work at their RfA, they find that their prior achievements don't always translate into achievement as an admin. But now that they're promoted, what are they to do? Ignore their new duties? They can, but these are good people, who don't want to ignore requests for assistance. Logically, someone in this situation should ask to be voluntarily desysopped, but as the Peter Principle makes clear, that's just not easy to do.
One possible solution would be to have the position of admin start off with a one-year term. At the end of the year, in order to keep the mop, the admin would have to . . . simply request that she keep it. If after one year she asks to keep it, then it's hers forever, unless she abuses the power or chooses to give it up.
If this policy was implemented for the explicit reason that it was a "way out" for those who did not enjoy wielding the mop, then the stigma of being desysopped would dissipate. What would be the benefit? Number one, we might hang on to editors who really just like working articles. Number two, more people might be interested in applying for the mop, people who probably are ready, but aren't sure that they want to take this on.
Of course, we all also know that some people simply get too busy in the real world, and that others just get tired of Wikipedia. But I don't think that accounts for all of this phenomenon. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Endorse: Automatic mop-removal unless you want to keep it - I like that idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I never really understood the roadblock or aversion to the concept of desysopping defunct administrators. It could easy be restored at BN if the user ever returned. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Then again, the real question is "what's the big deal with inactive admins retaining the bit"? Surely not security reasons. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand, the suggestion was not to desysop because they are inactive. You're right, there's no harm in that at all. If you read the post carefully (a challenge, given how verbose I can be) you will see that the reason was for the proposal was for the benefit of the new admin. Unschool 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that it is largely an attritional thing. Many users' edit counts - myself included - spike dramatically in the months prior to gaining adminship. After promotion I think such users often either burn out or return to lower levels of editing. The other point to be made is that the average interest period for a significant contributor may well be longer than the average time it takes to be promoted (i.e. they would probably have dropped out due to loss of interest whether they were an admin or not). It should also be borne in mind that a large number of admins appear to be in their late teens/early twenties - real life has a way of drastically reducing the ammount of free time that such people have for editing. There perhaps is some merit to the argument that people don't enjoy being an admin, but I wouldn't overstate it. They are not compelled to use the tools once they've been granted - they can continue editing without performing any admin actions if they so wish. It would be more interesting to see how many of the "active" admins are actually "active admins", if you get my meaning. I am an active user, but I perform very few actions these days; I suspect that I am not the only one. If this was all a problem - if the vandalism situation got out of hand, or as bad as it used to be - I think people would stop being so picky about good candidates at RfA. Rje (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The principle of least privilege is a useful security principle. It says you should have the tools needed to do your job when you are doing it and no more. In some companies, if someone goes on leave or even a long vacation, they leave their keys with their manager and have their computer credentials suspended until they get back. At the very least, absence-based de-sysopping and other routine absense-based permission-reductions force returning people to affirmatively claim "I'm back, and yes, I want to do more than just edit." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the principle. How would it improve security though? One would assume that, with a company, the manager would know the individual and there would be no issue with them returning the keys. That is not the case here. Simply asking BN for the tools back does not aid security. For all they know it could be a hacker asking for the tools back. In fact, how do we know that any user using an admin account is who we think they are? I really do not see a problem with users having tools that they rarely use, the problem is with people who misuse the tools that they have. I do not think that increasing the bureaucracy and naval-gazing of adminship will help Wikipedia in the long run, it will likely only serve to discourage people who do not anticipate dedicating themselves to vandal-slaying and the like. I firmly believe that adminship should represent that the user is trusted by the community and nothing more. Rje (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Confirming by using the same email as was used before is probably adequate, but when in doubt, Template:User committed identity works too. Both need to be set up beforehand, and both risk loss of the token - either a change in email address or forgetting or losing the item that generated the key. Another way is to automatically email admins a unique token on a regular basis, then ask for that token to be sent back after returning from a break. Again, there is the risk of loss but this will allow 99% of returning admins to re-authenticate at a small downside risk. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
41.6% inactive is really pretty low compared to the percentage of inactive accounts across Wikipedia as a whole, I would think. Dekimasuよ! 09:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe, but it also means that only 59.4% of 852 admins are active, which is not even a thousand. And a big bunch of them don't use the tools. Now compare that to tens of thousands of active accounts and millions of articles - that's pretty scary I think. Check WP:RFPP for example - it's always the same dozen of admins there. Or speedy deletion clearing - you will never see more than say 50 different admins at most jobs. So the comparison might be correct, but it's not really saying anything. SoWhy 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
So, there are ~900 active admins. Compare that against ~18000 active editor accounts (more than 20 edits per month) and it is still ~5% of the active editor community. The numbers strike me as about what one would expect. If we enforce de facto standards such as requiring at least 3000 edits before someone can be an admin then there are only about 9000 accounts ever made that could qualify (of which ~20% are already admins). Dragons flight (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

Wow, haven't we had this discussion before??? Another WP:PEREN subject for RfA? As I said before, there is also the component, that people will often run in an effort to find something new/different. Take a look at my edits before my failed RfB and since... very different. I ran for Admin, in part, because I was tired with what I was doing and wanted something else... then again, when I ran for crat, I blatantaly said that in my RfB that I was looking for a change. I still haven't ruled out semi or full fledged retirement... running for RfB was an attempt to find something different here. (Heck, changing my name is to a certain extent as well.) (NOTE: I won't be retiring any time soon, but I don't know if I'll still be here in 3 months---that depends on RL and whether or not I find something here to keep me interested. I mention it because it is germane to this topic.) But I think a number of people run, when they realize (or think) they've done it all, and want a change... thus it is only natural that they disappear when they discover that adminship isn't the cure.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Now as a counter-point to the above, User ID #1 Damian Yerrick (talk · contribs) is still editing away 8 years later. User ID #2 AxelBoldt (talk · contribs) (also the lowest number admin) is still active. #4 Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) is still editing and coding. So out of the first five registered users, three are still active, and two are sysops. Interesting. MBisanz talk 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I ran for the power and prestige. Truthfully, the high numbers and sudden slowdowns just reflect that once you get the mop you can stop using automated tools to run up your edit count so that you manage to avoid the scrutiny of those voters that take edit count extremely seriously (and are regularly made to look silly by people who get the mop and hit the brakes). I'm much less "productive" now than when I got the mop, but the quality of what I do now is higher (or at least deliberately thoughtful), and I'm less inclined to burn out. True, many admins stop completely, but I think this reflects them burning out because they feel pressured to keep up what was never an honest or realistic pace. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That seems to imply that many RfA candidates put themselves forwards dishonestly, by putting on a charade that they have no intention of maintaining once promoted. Was that your meaning? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about many, but I'm certain there are plenty of candidates who consciously tried to be on "extra good behavior" for some period of time directly before going up for RFA. Were they also trying to appear more active than they could possibly maintain? Impossible to say. Perhaps they were, or perhaps, as often happens, real life called them away. Or maybe they got tired of editing and burnt out. Or perhaps they had accomplished all the goals they had set and couldn't come up with anything else they wanted to do. Useight (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That is my meaning precisely. I blatantly ran up my edits with twinkle in the months between my failed and successful RfAs. As it happens, I also had a crash in activity due to more responsibilities in my life right after passing, so the difference before and after my RfA passed is not representative of my actual activity. Personally, I'm a 100-200 edits a month kind of guy. The fact that when I ran for RfA a handful of editors had bees in their bonnets about an arbitrarily determined minimum edit count simply meant that I had to meet that edit count to get their approval (or to avoid their opposition). In no way is this a reflection of me being a bad admin, or admin candidate. As I have noted previously, I once opposed Useight in an RfA because he screwed up the tally box. There are tons of similarly lame reasons that people oppose candidates, and as such gaming the system is entirely appropriate if it helps you avoid some absurd line of pile-on opposes, and instead gets people to focus on you as a skilled candidate. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It's human nature at work. I recall being opposed by an admin at my last RfA because I asked him why he'd blanked my RfA page. I won't say who the idiot was, but it's not beyond the wit of man to find out if anyone cares. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that guy. Keepscases (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran for RfA because I wanted to help out. Imagine that! :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
How scandalous. bibliomaniac15 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Biblio, do you want to start the RfDA or shall I?---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 03:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an one-off email newsletter with some interesting tidbits, and show of concern on their well-being might nudge a few? After all, almost every admin has their email function enabled. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

In the corporate workplace, it is best practice to remove user access to a system if it is not used in a set number of days (45, 90 or 150 are common). While I would not recommend inactive admins have their access to the project revoked, I would recommend a process of automatic bit removal for inactive admins, dovetailing into the standard re-promotion method we have at WP:BN. Of course, this may result in an initial strain being placed on our stewards, but I envisage that it would only be a temporary measure. Gazimoff 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Stewards won't mind, I assure you. The argument that we can't mass desysop inactive admins because it'll give the stewards a workload is a bad one - stewards became stewards to deal with exactly this kind of thing. Majorly talk 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreement there. Plus strain, pfft. It takes how many clicks of a button to remove sysop privileges? Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be a one time endeavor to remove the bit from a number of people, and somebody could probably write a bot that did it (would probably have to be implemented at a higher level than most have access too, but still the foundation could probably help out there.)---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to try, one more time, to point out that this thread appears to have begun its run following davidwr's boldtype endorsement of my proposal. However, my proposal had nothing to do with desysopping admins for inactivity. My proposal was for another specific and completely unrelated purpose, which I shall not endeavour to explain again, as it was fully explained many, many, posts ago. Unschool 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I would Oppose auto-removing adminship until clear-cut systems are put in place to prevent things such as what happened on WP:BN recently from occurring. Basically a uncontroversial resysop turned into an adhoc review of the user's contributions and it led to the ex-admin in question not getting their tools back because of, I believe, a questionable deletion in 07 and because the user had requested the tool's removal several times. The whole point of an easy-remove system, is that it has an easy-get-back countersystem that is unquestionable within reason (granted, such a system should not be abused; if you're an inch from being desysoped you should be resysopped but then an RfDA should follow, but that was not the case in this situation). Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As long as I'm a bureaucrat I won't allow that. In the case you refer to, I offered to promote the user despite the tide turning against him and previous bureaucrats seeming hesitant. Similarly any uncontroversially desysopped user should be resysopped instantly on returning. I might even suggest that a feature be implemented to automatically resysop on login. Andre (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that situation was a bit of a mess (to put it mildly, and I think I'm in a good position to make that claim). Part of it was the fact that no evidence was provided by the requester as to when they'd had their flag removed, which then left the opening for the superfluous commentary about the editor's past contributions. There were also a couple of name changes thrown into the mix, which didn't help things. Had Secret pointed out that they'd given up the bit in January (via a Meta diff), that entire thread wouldn't have happened. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Secret was desysopped controversially following an immature drama seeking deletion of what was a high profile article, and blocking of his own account. That he was promoted again by Raul654 under a new account following this resignation under a cloud was a big error. The easy remove system is fine as long as it's not abused - which it was by Jaranda, imo, who used it several times. It seems to me that if a user had a controversial history, questionable judgement, and a lot of flipflopping between adminship and not, they shouldn't just be let off the hook and granted it back. The process is a privilege, not a right. Just because Jaranda/Secret resigned on a day they happened to not be involved in some sort of drama, doesn't mean they should be given adminship anyway. Interestingly, Andrevan states above he would ignore the growing consensus against promotion and promote anyway, a serious irreversible error. The fact he is desysopped is an opportunity to see if he's still fit to continue, if reasonable issues are brought up. Instead of resysopping regardless of history (what the hell, he quit on a good day, that's all that matters!) everything should be taken into account. The fact a bureaucrat, Taxman, was the first to question the rerereresysop perhaps strengthens my point: bureaucrats are getting tired of having to deal with Secret's erratic behaviour, and don't want to have to resysop everytime he gets tired of Wikipedia and quits for the umpteenth time. This, doubled with a dodgy resignation in 2007 that should never have resulted in auto-repromotion, seems to make sense to me that the decision to not resysop was absolutely the right one. Any bureaucrat who would promote someone regardless of their history, and against consensus (which Andrevan freely admits), is absolutely unsuited to be a bureaucrat and should step down. Majorly talk 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Chill out, Majorly. A controversial desysop means a desysop as an answer to inappropriate behavior. If you request desysopping you are entitled to be resysopped since a self-requested desysopping that wasn't under pressure or in response to issues raised or inappropriate actions is not under a cloud. The automatic resysop after self-requested desysopping is not a consensus-bound process according to current practice and policy. Andre (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Majorly made an important point which it would be as well for you not to just sweep under the carpet. It does indeed appear that if an administrator is close to being desysoped the escape route is to voluntarily relinquish the bit before the shit hits the fan, confident that it will be returned on request once everything settles down. Hardly a system designed to inspire confidence. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In a case like that it's a clear cut resignation under a cloud, or under controversial circumstances. The case Majorly refers to was never close to desysopping or any kind of disciplinary action whatsoever. It might have caused a reconfirmation RfA to fail, but it was not a case like one you describe. Andre (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to put the carpet back as you found it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
An admin with a history of immaturity, controversy and drama does not have any right to get rererereadminship whenever he or she decides to quit the project for an umpteenth time. Ignoring the surrounding facts (quitting the project in a huff of drama, a dodgy resysopping under a new name despite clearly resigning under a cloud) is thoughtless and irresponsible. You're not a robot. Please put some thought into what you're doing, and understand there is no consensus whatsoever to rerererepromote Secret without an RFA. Majorly talk 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, none of the qualities you mentioned prevent re-adminship, and there is no limit on the number of courtesy resysops allowed for in the process. I am certainly not a robot, Secret was never in danger of being desysopped and as you can see from User:EVula/timeline, he is entitled to a resysop from the result of his 2007 reconfirmation RfA in addition to his original RfA. Andre (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That you don't believe it does shows how clearly you need to step down as a bureaucrat, since you clearly believe promoting people with problematic histories is a good thing. He resigned controversially after his reconfirmation RFA, so that matters very much, despite your insistent believe it doesn't. That you don't think it does, is extremely disappointing. Majorly talk 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If those qualities would prevent adminship, then it seems logical that they ought also to prevent re-adminship. Or are there different standards at work here? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That was a rhetorical question btw, as the answer is very clear. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

 

(Outdent) One for Foxy - from a process design point of view, you generally design around a happy flow: in this case what the smooth path would be. Exceptional cases like the one you described could potentially happen whenever someone requests resysop, and it's for precisely these reasons that we have bearucrats to make judgement calls on this type of situation. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 10:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't make judgment calls in the case of a self-requested resysop. The original RfA that the user passed and the evidence of an uncontroversial desysop is the only requirement; a new consensus doesn't play into it. Andre (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The general question is really about what the proper job of a crat is. Some want crats to just be rubber stamps or vote counters. Some want them to use their own discretion. Considering the near-impossibility of getting rid of incompetent admins, I want crats to use good judgement and not give the bit to those we already know are unsuited to the job. But, others see this as an expansion of crat power, which would require "consensus". Given the near-impossibility of demonstrating "consensus" on some new thing, the only realistic solution I can see is for individual crats to decide to be a bit bold and exercise their own judgement. Friday (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That would require them to think for themselves though, and divert them from their appointed task of searching for the elusive holy grail of "consensus". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that 'crats user their own judgment, at least to some extent, when closing RfAs. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? I was always under the impression that it was a vote, except in very rare instances. When desysopped administrators are nodded through whatever the "consensus", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, take Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rootology for example. In a vote, surely Rootology would have failed, though Rlevse exercised his own judgment to determine an appropriate close. Whether RfA in general is a straight vote is up for interpretation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Good example. Although usually everything above 80% is counted by !votes. I guess the crats can safely assume that such high ratios don't happen if experienced users choose to oppose; although I'd wish every RFA close were with a statement, at least if there were some noteworthy opposes. SoWhy 10:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it would be nice if every RfA had an associated closing statement, even if a short one. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Breaking out my favorite graph (though slightly outdated, these are 06-07 figures), we see that the "discretion range" is vanishingly narrow. One could argue (pretty persuasively IMO) that crats are predominantly vote counters and judge "consensus" only in the rare cases of an external problem (where recent history has not been kind to them) or ~75% outcome. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Anecdotally, the bureaucrats have seemed a lot more muscular in the past six months, with greater use of closing rationales and more use made of discretionary ranges. Not a bad thing. Skomorokh 03:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad thing at all. If the discretion range were closer to 10% than 1% for a while, we might just see some changes in "voting" behavior based on incentives. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit stats

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

The edit stats bot seems to be missing in action. Please can people ensure the edits are pasted on to the talk page? It really helps when creating RFA data... Thanks. Majorly talk 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another note. Wannabe Kate is currently obsolete with the namespace change from "Image" to "File." Consequently, an toolserver edit counter such as X!'s or SQL's should be used instead. bibliomaniac15 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
X!'s does not work... which is a shame, I liked that one.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 23:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
X!'s works for me, it's just painfully slow compared to SQL's. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  Works for me, albeit very slowly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  Works for me---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 05:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Usually X!'s is quite fast, something must be broken with the toolserver's MySQL database I guess. SQL's not that much faster than I remembered it to be and of course SQL's does not make the representations of edit-activity for individual months/namespaces and is thus logically faster than X!'s. SoWhy 10:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of edit count. I just tried it on an editor with a few thousand edits, and it loaded in about 10 seconds. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried both on myself (I've got a bit over 32k). X!'s took significantly longer... though it does give a much more thorough report of all my edits (I like that the kate-esque month-by-month breakdown is there, including a visual representation of the edits in each namespace). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Weird. I just tried my counter and SQL's, and SQL's took quite longer (of course, that was with automated edits). Xclamation point 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG! How will we know who to vote to be our leaders if we don't know their edit counts? Chillum 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to know their edit counts, we just need to know where they choose to spend their time. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The percentages are of course extremely important for you though. Majorly talk 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter and NotNow

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

The new Wikipedia:Abuse filter extension will have features that disallow a user from performing an action, based on variables set in a filter. While the purpose of abuse filter is to stop grawp, there are other applications in which it could be useful. I was thinking about how it could be combined with WP:NOTNOW to help the RFA process. For instance, a filter could be set to disallow creation of pages with the prefix Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/* for users who do not meet a minimum edit count/account age. Sample logic (poorly written), could be If User EditCount < 100 or User Age < 30 days; Then Disallow RFA creation. End result would be fewer NotNow RFAs, which seems like a good idea. MBisanz talk 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great proposition to me. I'm sure it will outrage some, but this seems like an obvious solution. It would not only save RfA-ers from wasting their time, it would also spare the feelings of newbies who don't understand what adminship is all about. faithless (speak) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes - anything that reduces wasted time is to be applauded. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


No, this a bad idea. Here's why. Majorly talk 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Before we go technical here. First we'd need a consensus as to a min mumber of edits/time before people were allowed to file RfAs. It seems to me that the correct, and non-WP:BITE way of starting here would be to have a notice on the RfA page asking people lacking x and y not to file RfAs because there is a consensus they should not. Best to do that nicely first. If we can get that agreement, and people fail to heed it, then, if that is a problem, we can find a technical fix. At the moment this is a solution in seach of a problem in search of a consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, I think that particular example is a poor argument; that was, by all accounts, a very unique situation. I think we can both agree that the average editor coming to WP:RFA with 42 edits isn't in the same league as lustiger_seth. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If editors of a certain persuasion continue to use apparently non-controversial major changes to policy/interface as a wedge to implement a controversial agenda, it will become very difficult to convince doubters of the need for the next major change. The abuse filter was intended to prevent egregious vandalism of articles, not to advance the power, rightly or wrongly, of one social group (RfA regulars) over another (inexperienced editors) (I can't wait to see what "Flagged revisions for certain biographies of living people" turns into). This may seem like a simple improvement, but is a very bad precedent. Skomorokh 22:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, it was only an idea I had when I saw everyone in the thread above this complaining about not have edit count immediately available. But, Scott's point (and Skomorokh's/Majorly's) seems pretty solid. MBisanz talk 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Great idea in theory, but simply not the way to handle RFA's from editors with very low edit count (like me!). We have community norms, NOTNOW and SNOW to deal with these. I appreciate the concept, I really do, but nope. I also agree with Skomorokh's comment that the Flagged Revision thing (architects, surveyors, whatever) will be, err..... interesting. M♠ssing Ace 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah I get that, and thanks for thinking of RfA. Something like this might become acceptable once editors acclimatise more to having filters in place. Skomorokh 22:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

solution in search of a problem (and one that is likely to find false positives). I don't keep watch on the number of SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs, but I'm not sure it is that big of a problem. A much bigger "problem" (though I don't see it is one) is RfAs from people who meets some imagined minimum standard but are nowhere near community norms or have pissed off too many people. They have an RfA, it goes poorly, and they flare out (apologies to Neuro for serving as the example). I'm not sure how many people we get who would otherwise be good contributors who leave because they were allowed to fill out a RfA. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse filter can also log actions to a page, and deliver any message to editor; it would be helpful, and probably accomplish most of what Matt was looking for, to give anyone who creates a page with prefix Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/* an idea of what to expect from the process, and to log it to a watchlistable page so we can see what's coming next at RFA (and perhaps intervene ... I think people generally do the right thing, and a personal touch is better than an automated warning). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are basically asking us to decide what are the minimum nominator criteria not what are the minimum candidate criteria. I think 30 days and 100 edits are fine as a nominator criteria, and I see no problem enforcing that in software. Besides, if a new user wanted to nominate a candidate and that candidate had a reasonable shot, the new user could approach one of the established nominators to create the page. So could someone seeking a self-nom. Lustiger seth, a recent new-en-editor who is now an admin, was nominated by established editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that the "error" presented to the nominator be as non-bitey and as productive as possible. It should say something along the lines of "if you are nominating someone else, read some past RFAs and if you still think they should be nominated, talk to some of the Wikipedia editors who have successfully nominated candidates in the past. If you are seeking adminship for yourself, be aware that it is highly unlikely to succeed at this time, as most nominations for adminship for new editors are declined for the reasons listed in WP:NOTNOW. However, you are welcome to talk to other editors and ask their opinions." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider allowing the page to be created and providing a standard informational message to all self-nominators, but if the nominator is new pre-pending it with a very strong message strongly encouraging the editor to wait before transcluding their nomination. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That could work, or it could be something simple, along the lines of: welcome to RFA, have a seat and we'll be right with you. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Majorly, I'd like to point out that I supported lustiger_seth's RfA, but also that that was an extremely unusual situation, and I doubt anything remotely close to it has happened before or will happen any time soon. I also imagine that if it does, there would be a way of getting around the software restriction (at the very least, they could try and find an established editor willing to nominate them). faithless (speak) 01:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with faithless that that's not likely to happen again soon, although I see Skomorokh's point about the bad precedent. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have created a possible filter at testwiki:Special:AbuseFilter/13. It has been tested, and it works. Xclamation point 03:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_160&oldid=1252465151"