Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Desyssoping mechanisms

There's been some talk on this page in the last week or two about the need for a system for removing people from the adminship. Earlier, someone suggested that all adminships have a sunset clause that requires admins to be reconsidered once per year. This was widely opposed as unworkable (given that there are 800+ admins) and undesireable, since it would mean that admins have to think more about politics than policy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one, however, who's seen admins who have behaved very badly and who, if the community had known how they were going to act, would never have passed the RfA process. I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that there should be some mechanism by which the community, whose consensus bestowed sysoppery, might take it away. (There is, to my mind, a strange assymetry to our system in that it is community concensus that creates admins, but only ArbCom that can undo this).

What I see as a potential mechanism (which I'd like to hear your thoughts on) would be a two-stage process. First, a petition-like stage which would require that if a certain number of wikipedians-of-good standing (say 25? 50? some proportion of admin's RFA vote? recent admin vote?) sign on as requesting a review, the admin in question would be submitted to a new RfA process (or perhaps a RfA-like process). Perhaps an ArbCom/Jimbo approval to follow? Anyway, tell me what you think. Bucketsofg✐ 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's up to once a week, I see. Kim Bruning 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a page containing links to all the proposal pages and archived talk pages where we've discussed these things. We can use a Wikilink to such a page to respond to these now-weekly proposals. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Bucketsofg. I suggested this same type of system on the admin accountability proposal page. joturn e r 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Should have known that something similar had been suggested. Given the number who are against having a community-based mechanism in the discussion you link, my guess is that any change is a dead letter. Bucketsofg✐ 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. If an admin's actions are bad enough to warrant desysopping, take it to the ArbCom. I haven't seen any indication that they're overloaded with desysopping requests—so until there's an indication that they can't handle it, they seem to be the logical route. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, many of the accusations of rouge admin performance are based on the fact that there is disagreement over some fundamental policies of Wikipedia, and how those policies should be enforced, and how fast such enforcement should be (fast gives the appearance of being recklessly out of process). It is important to have people who understand the finer points of policy and process to make the desysop decisions, to distinguish between real rouge performance and the mere appearance of rogueness, and ArbCom fits the bill nicely. NoSeptember ^talk 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Were any actions taken based on the feedback, Jo ? "Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins", for instance, was voted 40-18. Tintin (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has that authority, as does Danny of the WP:OFFICE. Stewards have the technical ability, though they exercise it rarely and only in clear-cut cases (obviously insane or compromised account). The recent examples I can think of ended up before ArbCom for review anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has that authority as well, and I imagine they could pass an injunction fairly quickly if truly needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In an emergency, where there is question of an admins actions, the developers will desysop; they will, in some cases, do so more quickly than stewards will. There are plenty of mechanisms to have someone desysopped (including several of us who have home and mobile phone numbers of stewards and developers) if they really need to be; the fact of the matter is, there are very few cases where someone should be desysopped without an arbitration case or direct-intervention from Jimbo. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And this is when we ask how many developers and stewards you have been caught stalking :), seriously though I agree with Essjay that there are plenty of fallbacks in place and adding a new one would cause more problems that it would solve. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm swear not stalking..."DANNY! MARRY ME! PLEEEEEEEEASE!" </stalker> Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"That's hot!" Ok... seriously, is there actually a problem here about not being able to get hold of devs or stewards? ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this emergency desysopping has only been used on Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason before. So there's no big deal if we don't have a formal quick desysopping process. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo desysopped several (ungefahr 5?) people recently during the pedophile controversy. So there have been more than just Ævar. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He did, indeed, in fact, his only actions as a steward have been to desysop people in his capacity as "the safety valve." However, they weren't really security-related desysoppings (Avar's was, irreversible image deletions were taking place, and there was no response to requests to explain), but rather, desysoppings to stop a wheel war from sucking in more people. There wasn't any reason to thing any permanent damage would be done to the project (permanent damage meaning things like permanent loss of images, or irreversible page history merges, or DOS consequences from deleting huge pages, etc.); the real danger was that we could lose valuable contributors due to the heated actions that were being taken. So, "social" security concerns, not "technical" security concerns. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

new angle

I agree with all that's been said so far, but I had a different idea: we should have a mechanism to desysop admins that have gone on the record in saying that they are leaving Wikipedia and they do not intend to return. I mean, if the person has decided to kick the bucket once and for all, there seems to be no purpose in keeping the flag for that account, which may also end up compromised sometime in the future. Recently, Carbonite announced that he was leaving, and requested to be desysopped, but Radiant also left and the account still has sysop status. I would think some time would be allowed to pass, so that it can be confirmed that the user wasn't just blowing off steam and had no intention to actually leave the project — say, after a couple of months without editing following the statement that s/he was leaving? Redux 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of months is a tad too short. Ta bu shi da yu announced he wanted to leave last year, but came back after 2 months or so. Kimchi.sg 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping was used in the case of the Great Pedophile Userbox Wheel War (or GPUWW). Basically, a few of us arbcomers who were around notified Jimbo that an emergency was brewing, and based on the recommendations we gave him, he desysopped them until we could address it in a case. Raul654 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The original post by Bucketsofg was not about such emergencies but about those are invicil and who if they stood for an RfA now, would be soundly defeated. Tintin (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally, a user who makes a personal choice to leave, and actually does leaves, doesn't come back any time soon — leave it to Ta bu shi da yu to subvert that rule ;). If there are more common cases of users who state for the record that they are leaving for good and return after a couple of months or so, then we could wait a longer period, naturally (although it is also possible that the account be desysopped for security reasons and, if the user ever returns, s/he could request to be resysopped upon his or her return). I believe Raul was referring to Carbonite's situation. If I recall correctly, Carbonite declined an offer to be resysopped, saying that he had actually requested to be desysopped already, that he was leaving and had no intention of changing his mind. Carbonite's been inactive since February 11 (or so), but there's no issue there because the account has had the admin flag removed. To return to my other example, Radiant has been inactive since February 7, that is, over three months (closer to four months by now). Since the user left a very clear statement that he was leaving, retaining the admin status for the account seems pointless at best. Any accounts with admin access in a similar situation should be desysopped, but we don't have a system in place to make this happen — and it's not just admins: Optim left Wikipedia in March of 2004 with a clear statement that he was leaving for good. It took us nearly two years to remove his Bureaucrat access, and the account still holds admin access, despite being inactive for 2 years and 2 months (at the time of this post). Redux 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Zoe gone for a year before returning? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to remove access for any position held by inactive users except those that could be misused covertly or unreversably if they fell in the wrong hands (namely, developers and checkusers). There is no real risk with admins or bureaucrats. Creating a new policy for a non-issue seems unnecessary. NoSeptember ^talk 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But did Zoe go on the record to say something like I'm leaving for good? Because that's the instance I'm talking about. I don't know: it's been said time and again that, although almost every admin activity can be reverted, misuse of the tools consistently can cause a lot of trouble around. In this case, it would be about a possible compromise in the account that has been abandoned by the [ex?]user. And in any case, it would serve us to keep things in check: an admin is a trusted user who has the tools in order to do maintenance work, even if just occasionaly. A user who has left for good, and left a clear statement to that effect, is not going to be using the tools, and it's not as if desysopping an account is a laborous opperation that requires rebooting the servers. It's particularly simple when it comes to applying objective criteria (user declared that s/he was leaving for good / user did leave — not edited anymore) to someone who's not even interested in the project (let alone Adminship) anymore. Quite simply, it doesn't hurt anyone, it keeps the admin community "up to date" and it may even prevent occasional/eventual problems. Remembering: we could make it so that the [extremely] rare departed users who end up returning can request resysopping of their accounts (subject to some kind of community approval, maybe RfA-like) upon their return. Redux 15:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

They can say whatever they want, but unless they specifically request to be desysopped, why should we act as if they had? When was the last time an inactive admin went on a destructive spree? And if it happened, wouldn't we just take care of it promptly like any other problem admin? NoSeptember ^talk 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that when an Administrator, who is supposed to be a dedicated user, declares of his or her own will, for reasons that are his or her own, the s/he is leaving Wikipedia, and then actually leaves, that would pretty much mean that they forfeit any kind of privilege (not the best word, but it's late where I am...) that they had had bestowed upon them as dedicated users, which they are not anymore, by choice. Redux 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm...I left for a month at the end of last year...Should I be included in your list of undedicated users? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And, what if someone was forced to leave for 6 months because of, say, health problems that they didn't want to share with the whole world? Just let sleeping dogs lie. If they come back, great! If they don't, they aren't hurting anyone. If they come back to hurt someone, they can then be blocked and ArbCommed. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, again, I'm referring exclusively to users who go on the record saying that they are leaving for good for reasons that are their own (most say they're "outraged" by something, or just that they've "lost interest"). This does not apply to users who take extended wikibreaks or users that vanish misteriously (the latter because we could never be sure of what happened). Redux 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but often people decide to come back, and then what? Make them go through the RfA process again? Who is is hurting to leave these users be? I just don't see much of a point. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid computer... something went awry and submitted the page without my wanting to. My first missed edit summary in like 7 or 8 months! Argh! Harumph! Oh well, the new streak starts now. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of users who have left on the terms I've just mentioned that decided to come back. And the proposal includes a waiting period designed to make sure that the disgruntled Admin wasn't just blowing off steam in the wake of a very unpleasant episode. Consider this rhetorical question: would you support the RfA of a user who had gone on the record saying that they no longer care for the project (and meant it)? This is why the proposal would apply only to this particular situation. Hey, let's desysop Mark for forgetting the edit summary! ;) Redux 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they really meant it, and they aren't coming back, what is so egregious as to desysop them? If they really meant it, they aren't coming back to cause trouble, so rather than create some new policy or procedure, why not just move them to the "Inactive Administrators" list and forget about them? Why do they need to be desysoped? Is their tool retention injurious to anyone? And I would understand about the missing summary thing :-( Addendum: And for the record, I didn't "forget" it, some combination of keys and clicks caused it to submit before I had finished writing it... I had written "ore", but wanted to write "More" and somehting got messed up. I know it doesn't matter to anyone, but I was so proud, and it was some freak thing (i.e. not "forgetting") --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that it's injurious. It's a point of order. After all, Adminship is not an entitlement, and this should not apply just to users who are not yet admins but want to be. It serves no purpose for the community to have an admin who has said in so many words that s/he doesn't want to be involved with the project anymore. In the odd case that the user should return after a long period (exceeding the waiting period in the proposal), s/he would (should?) have to go through some kind of process to regain admin access (maybe an abbreviated RfA?). It's only fair: if one leaves saying one doesn't cares about the project anymore, then it would be expected that some kind of evidence be provided that the user has gone back on this entirely before Adminship can be restored. Plus, an account with admin access that's been abandoned, left unattended, it's a liability. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day.... Redux 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know of users who have left on the terms I've just mentioned that decided to come back." Hello Redux, nice to meet you, my name is Essjay. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you state for the record (on a wikipedia page — possibly your user page — and not IRC or something) that you were leaving for good and you didn't want to have anything to do with the project anymore? And if you did, you came back a month later, which would be well within the "observation period" before anyone would have suggested that you be desysopped on these terms had this proposal been in effect at the time. That is: nothing would have happened. Redux 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Quite a few people can attest to the fact that I did. I had no intention of returning, and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for about four very close friends I've made here who spent a month having email conversations with me, and my partner, who spent a month trying to convince me that it was worthwhile to do (the same partner who's vote in my RfB was described as "worthless").

My point in this is to point out what people tend to forget: Be very careful what you say, because you don't know who you're talking about when you make a blanket statement. Your comment about admins who leave being undedicated did include me, because it was a blanket statement directed at everyone who fits the criteria stated (desire to permanently leave, coupled with the corresponding action), and it did hurt me, because I don't think I or a lot of the others who fit in the same group you painted with a single brush deserve to be described as "undedicated." I'm not angry, I'm not going to scream and yell, but I am hurt by it; I don't think that was your intent at all, it was an unfortunate consequence of a very broad blanket statement.

My hope was that you would recognize the hint given, specifically, that you were treading into territory where you were very likly to unknowingly hurt and/or offend a lot of people who do a lot of work to keep this site running. It's fine to put forth a proposal, it's fine to support desysopping people, and it's great that you've put a lot of thought into it and made consideration for special cases. The comments in question left the realm of the proposal, however, to make a blanket claim: Any admin who decides to leave the project, and does so, is not a dedicated user. That covers a lot of people, and it hurts.

Just to clarify: It has nothing to do with whether or not the proposal would have applied in my or anyone else's case; it is about the fact that we were included in the group labeled "undedicated users." Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I've hurt anyone's feelings, that was certainly not my intention. I'm always very careful with how a word my remarks, exactly because this method of communication makes misunderstandings very easy to happen. Since I seem to have fallen short this time, I would like to clarify a couple of things: 1) From the very beginning, the idea included a waiting period to make sure that the user would follow through with the decision to leave Wikipedia. Everyone and anyone is entitled to venting steam, obviously, and in the process we can do and/or say things that we wish we hadn't once we cool off, or at least we reconsider what we've said, and it no longer represents our views. It would be preposterous to suggest that someone should be desysopped immediately after posting a note saying that they were leaving, simply because there's no way to make sure that this is a final decision — and obviously, such a decision is not usually made in a completely serene state of mind; most users do it in the aftermath of a very unpleasant situation; 2) Let me clarify something, I did not mean that anyone who has ever left Wikipedia is an "undedicated user". A user who leaves, but decides to return, doesn't become less dedicated because s/he once thought of leaving, or left for a while. It's not like we're getting paid here. And as for the user that left and didn't return, this doesn't cancel the user's past as a valued member of this community. I never saw this proposal as any kind of judgement on the character of anyone who's left. However, and logically, a user who is gone cannot be a dedicated user while s/he is gone — and if they're never returning... Doesn't mean that they weren't, or that they couldn't be again. The comment in question, and all of my comments in this thread, is referring to users who left of their own will and, this is central, stayed gone: taking the already-used example of Optim: he was a great user, and very dedicated; but when I refer to him, I must say that he was a dedicated user, not that he is, since he's gone,and for over two years now. The proposal is to desysop users who are gone and are extremely unlikely to return, but if they happened to return, they would be entitled to seek resysopping of their accounts, naturally. And the idea that they'd need to go through a revalidation process (RfA-like?) is just a suggestion at this point. Maybe no revalidation would be necessary. The user could simply post at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and link to his successful RfA and the user rights log showing his sysopping following it (proof that he was an admin). And again, this would all be in the odd possibility that the user did return — remembering: this is not about a user who said s/he was leaving but didn't, or returned relatively soon after, this would be users who declared they were leaving and didn't return for an impressive amount of time (six months? a year?).
Once again, I apologize for any offense or discomfort that any comment of mine might have caused. Sorry, this got a little long :P Redux 06:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real risk of abuse of old admin accounts, and the costs appear to outweight the benefits IMO. A desysoped admin would still have to rerequest the mop (even if only at the 'crats noticeboard), and this can take time. An admin willing to take up the slack immediately should be able to, and there's no real proof that old admin accounts have gone berserk. (Though this will undoubtedly happen eventually, the chances of it are very remote.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this idea of desysopping people who say they they may leave the project will yield any benefits. I am amazed to see how often suggestions involving all kind of rules attempting to fix what ain't broken show up on this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving aside the "clear statement" that someone is not returning which I find problematic, and bump the whole thing up to year. Simply, if an admin doesn't edit for twelve months, they get desysopped. And not as a punitive thing but rather to reflect that changes in policy need to be absorbed if such a person came back. An admin returning today after twelve months would think AfD is still VfD, not have a clue about WP:PROD, be unaware of changes to CSD criteria (and the debates behind them), and also know nothing about semi-protect. Perfectly reasonable to say "edit for a month or two and then re-apply if you want". Marskell 08:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are minor issues which don't merit desysoping. AfD had a name change, but that's as far as the changes went. (I stopped closing VfDs/AfDs for 1.5 years, and when I came back adjusting to the situation was a snap.) PROD is self-explanatory, and an admin who didn't get it would have the good sense not to muck with it. The CSD criteria may be a bit problematic, but most admins would have the good sense to provide a reason for speedying articles to prevent confusion amongst those unaware of the CSDs. (And besides, what harm would an admin unaware of the new CSDs do? At worst, she'd avoid speedying articles we're allowed to.) And semi-protection? The interface is self-explanatory. A returning admin would just go "Cool, new features!" (The interface doesn't call it "semi-protect", btw - it gives a self-explanatory title listing classes of users which will be banned from editing the page.) None of these changes are fundamental enough to make it worth forcing an admin to go through RfA again. If most admins use common sense and act with the encyclopaedia's interests at heart (WP:IAR/WP:SNOW), things will be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, with a waiting period anywhere between six months and a year before desysopping a "departed" admin, the cases of returning Admins (desysopped) would be quite rare. I would also say that this proposal has nothing to do with "trying to fix what is not broken". It's not broken, but nor is it perfect. I don't believe anyone here claims that it is. The purpose is to try to improve the system, and we need not wait until it's on the verge of collapse before we make any kind of change in the status quo.
I maintain that the only people affected by this would be admins who went on the record saying that they were leaving and did not edit anymore, i.e. they left for good (verified by not editing for an impressive amount of time). I wouldn't support desysopping a user who has just stopped editing without any kind of explanation, because, as others have already brought up, there could be any reason for that (sickness, overwhelming "real life" obligations, etc). It's quite different from a user who leaves with a statement like "yes, I'm leaving for good because I've lost all faith in the project". Once we verify that the user is indeed gone, this becomes an extreme case where maintaining Adminship for the account has no purpose. Desysopping in this situation is not complicated or laborous. The criteria are objective and the procedure, not really complicated. Still, it could be a useful step to leave a warning message in the user's talk page, something like "this account is about to be desysopped due to (...)", so that there would still be one last chance in the unlikely case that the user was considering returning.
Again, I'd like to make it clear that the proposal is not to simply desysop inactive users. Only those who left with a declaration that they were indeed leaving for good for whatever reason and, most importantly, stayed gone. Redux 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"We need not wait until it's on the verge of collapse before we make any kind of change in the status quo". In short, Wikipedia is in grave motal danger, and only rules, and yet more rules, are the only thing which can save her. :)

I believe it is rules, rather than anything else are the greatest problem, they may simply suffocate this project. You may be right, a time may come when a rogue admin or compromised admin account may inflict irreversible damage to Wikipedia, such as deleting a huge amount of pictures which were not cached by the server. But that's unlikely. I think we are fine the way we are, and attempts at "perfection" usually make things worse, not better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe that not treating adminship like an entitlement would be instruction creep — as a further note: our article on instruction creep is at Meta; on Meta, an admin can be desysopped simply for being inactive for a relatively short period of time; The page on Meta administrators also states that sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. By no measure is that regarded as instruction creep (or else there's a grave double standard at work over there, something which I don't believe anyone would claim). It is a question of policy. As I said in a response to Mark earlier, even if nothing bad is about to happen, there's still a question of logic and organization. This proposal seemed — to me, obviously — rather reasonable because it would concern only an extreme case. I still have other great arguments, but since there seems to be no interest in actually implementing the proposal (except for my own :P), I believe this can be dropped. Redux 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see taking admin accounts away from these inactive users as something to pursue. The only real effect I figure it would have is it might deter them from coming back, and we don't want that. I'm much more interested in the idea of having policy enforcement by the community regarding active admins. Everyking 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see my name mentioned here. :) Yes, I was gone for more than a year. I took a long break, got a life (so much for that), and poked around again on Wikipedia, noticing that the person who had made life a living hell for me around here was no longer participating as frequently. I felt the time was right to come back. I don't see why somebody who has had the community's support to become an admin loses that support if they take a break for a while. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to de-admin someone after a few months of inactivity. There is a small security risk in having an empty empowered account lying around unmonitored. Once an admin comes back, it gives them a chance to get back into the groove of any new quarks that are going on. That person should have plenty of community support and it shouldn’t be a big deal making the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercoop (talk • contribs)

No, no. It wasn't meant to desysop people who take a break. Only users who declare that they are leaving for good and do indeed leave — as verified by extended absense, for months, or a year, but the user would have had to have made an inequivocal declaration that s/he was leaving for good, with no intention to return for whatever reason. Breaks and "misterious disappearances" were not covered by this proposal. Just to clarify, since the proposal is not going anywhere anyway. Redux 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True - I was trying to address the concerns in the entire thread. An admin that leaves is certainly inviting hackers to brute force that users account. However, I would go further and say that after two months of being inactive, that Admin is removed from the admin list. If that users returns within a year or two then automatically re-admin that person. After a year or two, too many things can change and that would require getting back into the groove and going through a new RfA. (make sure I sign it this time) --Supercoop 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this discussion has wanned, but perhaps there could be some middle ground. What if instead of desysopping anyone, the accounts were just blocked (hear me out) with a note placed on their talk page to the effect of "your dormant admin account may have been a liablility, and was therefore blocked. If you would like to be reinstated place {{adminunblock}} (or whatever) on your talk page and it will be dealt with." That way we don't have an admin come back and just start deleting things, etc. The actual process could be changed up a bit, but perhaps the idea is valid. Comments? --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of not removing sysop rights unless some transgression has occurred. Is there an actual case where this rule would have been useful? Or is this just a rule for the sake of it? Stephen B Streater 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A standard block has no effect on an administrator. The only way to shut off their sysop powers is to remove those powers. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So are there any cases where this would have been used? Stephen B Streater 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean if there are cases of admins that have been inactive for an impressive amount of time? Several, if not many. But as Ingoolemo said, technically, a standard block is not effective on an administrator. Redux 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No - I mean cases where an absent admin has returned to wreak havoc. Stephen B Streater 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. I was confusing what the devs had put in place. Didn't the devs a while back put a feature in so that admins who were blocked couldn't use rollback? Well, I guess I thought that meant they couldn't perform other admin functions as well. But of course. My mistake. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I can't remember any instance, but the underlying purpose would be prevention, not punishment. Besides, as I see it, the real danger would be that an account that has been abandoned is an account that could be hacked. That is to say, a different individual behind the wheel. Someone who never earned adminship having instant access to the tools. I mean, if my account was hacked tomorrow, I'd notice immediately, since I log in at least once a day. I would take steps to resolving the situation, but a person who's left completely would not be here to inform us that it is not him or her opperating the account. Once more, I must bring back the notion that the original proposal I presented would affect only accounts whose owners had made an inequivocal declaration that they were leaving with no intention to return, and did indeed leave (impressive absence, i.e. no editing for a long time). I believe it would be reasonable to assume that an account in that situation has been left completely unatended. And, from the logical point of view, there's the lack of purpose in maintaining admin access for an abandoned account. Redux 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit this is convincing. I would like a simple re-admin procedure for former admins to reflect their previous contributions and likely helpful future contributions. Stephen B Streater 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Review

My apologies if this has been brought up before, or already exists, but what about an administrator review? Within six months, a new admin is brought under review by a pre-selected group of experienced admins/bureaucrats, and they discuss what this user has done since they were sysopped, and whether that user should continue being an admin. They will be reviewed again in six months, and all active admins will be reviewed once a year after that. Emergency reviews can be held as well. I think this would help keep the number of rouge admins to a minimum. Thoughts? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution looking for a problem. Show me evidence that we need to spend our volunteer's time on this proposal. FloNight ^talk 12:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at admin disputes at Rfc and ArbCom, I think you'll see where I'm coming from. Plus there have been concerns over Admin actions in the Userbox debate as well. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and handled by ArbCom for the most part. Also, such a body would have to review >900 admins per year. That's a huge body of work for little gain. I agree; this is a solution looking for a problem. --Durin 12:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How would this review have prevented such disputes? We're letting the wedge cases define how we deal with the vast majority of admins whose actions are uncontroversial. In any case, unofficial reviews of individual actions often go on at AN or ANI; I see no need to bureaucratise this. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We didn't elect bureaucrats to be ArbCom members (except those few who we actually did elect to both positions). Keep bureaucrats for the front end job of creating admins, and leave it to ArbCom or Jimbo to uncreate them. NoSeptember ^talk 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...I don't think D-Day suggested 'crats would be in charge of desysoping. Anyway, I'd favour giving them such powers for emergency disputes, but as Essjay and Raul have noted above, it seems it'd be easier to attract Jimbo's, a steward's, or a dev's attention. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the more people who have emergency desysop powers, the more problematic it will be. Even Danny and Jimbo did not perfectly coordinate the Eloquence situation. There is always someone around as it is now. NoSeptember ^talk 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with ArbCom? Is there something about it that doesn't work and I'm completely missing? As far as I can tell, a system of Admin review already exists - people complain, take it to ArbCom, they review it and act accordingly. If ArbCom is somehow broken, then that's a completely different discussion and should be held over there. --Tango 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the complaint is that the arbcom doesn't get a case till long over it's gone over the edge and it takes a blatant act of insanity or massive violation of policies and guidelines before the arbcom or anyone else for that matter acts. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If people have a problem with that, why don't they bring cases to ArbCom sooner? Are ArbCom actually refusing to hear the cases, or are they not being told about them? --Tango 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little of both, for good reasons the arbcom is afraid of accepting cases too early when there are better solutions possible and instead it seems like they're accepting some of them only after the damage has been done. On the other hand people are also reluctant to bring up arbcom cases until all else has failed so the arbcom either doesn't know about it or they more likely know about it due to discussions on AN, AN/I, or any number of another places but can't do anything about it until it's brought up officially as a case. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While there's certainly a perception that that is the case, I think reality is very different. Name me one blatant mop abuser who hasn't been hauled in front of the arbcom. Also, the arbcom can (and often does) issue temporary injunctions during the period of the case which prevent further action(s) being taken, so if a case is accepted, the accused admin will typically be placed on admin action parole or something of the sort for the duration of the case. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the prospect of reviewing the nearly 1,000 admins on Wikipedia every 6 months would be a full-time job. Beyond that, is there really a need? Do you feel there are a sizable amount of inept admins that are running around blocking and deleting out of control? Furthermore, this would ~~start to encourage~~ further encourage people to play politics, which there is enough of already. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, this proposal is to scrap tenure for admins and up- a system which has both considerable benefits and drawbacks (much as in the academic world). I haven't seen a persuasive toting up of the pros and cons in favor of making the switch. --maru (talk) contribs 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the end, this (and most proposeals like it) are probably all created with the same very small set of admin in mind. As much as I call for volountary admin reform, three cases (or five, or pick your own small number) almost certainly isn't enough reason to re-wash every other good, average, or null admin. Working the existing system combined with ArbCom being slightly more willing to slap down is probably all that is required. - brenneman ^{L} 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But... I LIKE Rouge admins. Kim Bruning 03:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin roles currently have too much power with few checks and balances. That's why cabals thrive. Admin tenure should be limited to 6 months only. Not more than 2 consecutive tenures should be allowed. Self-nominations are unacceptable. Admins who go on long wikibreaks should be tagged and their privileges reduced. Atleast two nominations must be necessary to enter RfA. Anwar 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some users have dynamic IPs which would mean it's all too easy to vote more than once. Thus no anon IPs should be allowed to vote. Admins have checks and balances, that's what arbitration is for. Most do not abuse their power, for example, Gurubrahma, Nichalp and the numerous other Indian admins have not blocked you for your violation of NPA. Self-noms are good because a user can pick the correct time to become an admin, for example, if they are nominated at a time where they don't think they want to become an admin, they can always self-nom at a more appropriate time. Lastly, there is no policy stating that WP:Admins cannot have a life outside Wiki, so if they want to take a break, they should be allowed to, it's not as if they are going to be abusing their powers while on break. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Demandation

You know, I am still waiting for my own Adminship!
All the sweet and good edits I have been doing!
I need a adminship, when I have one, I can be get the respect I need!

>x<ino 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're really serious about that, then simply follow the instructions. Given your past and on-going conflicts with other users, I personally doubt that an attempt would be successful though. -- g026r 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. These 4 lines scream to me "Do not make me an admin, I'm immature." Period. You don't become an admin to "get respect", you have to be respected before you become one. Kimchi.sg 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I feel somewhat the same way, but I don't feel the need for more respect from other users. Whatever they give me (if they do...) is fine with me. Also, "be get the respect" is awful grammar. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Several reasons I would vote no if you were nom'ed: "Demandation" is not a word; this edit violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; and it seems that the only reason you want to be a mod stems from these three edits. Want respect? We'll give it when you earn it. Want adminship? Show us that it's about the encyclopedia, not about you. RadioKirk talk to me 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more reasons why Xino will not be an admin any time soon... RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino is this some kind of joke? Sonic Hog 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the RfC regarding Xino, which contains a somewhat clearer description of his behaviour than the links already presented. I'm guessing Xino wants to become an admin so he can block and/or ignore other users, and myself. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly explains a lot, thank you. On the other hand, this edit provides new insight into User:HappyVR... RadioKirk talk to me 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: it certainly does. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And what would you all think, feel and say when I am a admin? It will be a L.O.L in your face and asses.

And as for you RandyWang, you can suck that RfC in your cheap skinny ass!

>x<ino 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? What exactly are you planning to do "when I am a admin"? RadioKirk talk to me 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm- the way we've been voting on "indecorous language" issues, you might want to rephrase . . . Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 09:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino, your case has been submitted for arbitration. Now may not be the most appropriate time to make personal attacks - particularly, it may be a bad idea to suggest that I suck anything, RfC or otherwise. Furthermore, as others have said: if you'd like to become an admin, and believe that you'd be successful, why don't you request adminship for yourself? RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino was blocked indefinitely after this edit. Conscious 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Demandation. You know, I like that word. I may have to start using it. "My demandations have not been met, prepare to face my wrath!" User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ut oh. Zoe and a new shiny word. :-) Kim Bruning 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All your demandation are belong to us! --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates for Adminiship

Are these templates valid? I remember such things being deleted on TfD several times before:

70.51.9.190 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be invalid they're perfectly acceptable and are quite informative in knowing who isn't an admin but wants to be one. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if someone needs to advertise their hope to be an admin, they're not ready. Either wait for someone to nominate you, ask someone to nominate you, or nominate yourself. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, perhaps {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} would be inappropriate either, considering that no one has to accept nomination, and the RfA doesn't even gets listed unless the potential candidate accepts. In theory, no one needs to post that they "don't want to be an administrator" via a template. Redux 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people who use the anti-administrator template due it less as an informative action that they don't want to be an admin and more of a sign of protest against adminship and the admin process itself... just from where I've seen that template used. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they do any harm, but they don't serve any real purpose. It's basically the same as asking someone to nominate you, which I don't like - you might as well nominate yourself and they can vote support, because it's the same thing. It's just an attempt to manipulate RfA since a lot of people are more critical of self-noms. --Tango 10:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess maybe some people who would like to be admins but don't feel they are ready would find the templates useful, but that's about it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They might also be useful for someone who is often confused with an admin, would, as Johleemk says, like to be one someday, but is not for whatever reason, ready or able to stand for RfA. I can imagine that the 30th "You aren't an admin? Would you like to be?" message probably leads one to really appreciate such a template. For the most part, they aren't hurting anyone, they're not being forced on anyone, and nobody is required to look at them (for that matter, if someone *really* hates it, we can set a div id for it and clear it out via thier CSS). In most cases like this, it's better to just leave it alone, rather than stir people up by telling them what they can and can't have; I don't think any of us can really argue that it's hurting Wikipedia, and certainly not anywhere near as much as a revival/ratcheting up of the user template war would. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case revise the wording to "No, I am not an administrator yet. Yes, I would like to be one. Stop asking!" :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels

Can a 'crat please close this? It wasn't on the main RFA page and needless to say the candidate will not pass. DG X 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was BOLD and delisted this as WP:SNOW and probable trolling. But yes, a crat should probably close it, or perhaps just delete it. --Doc ^ask? 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And probably shouldn't have been. There's no reason to believe this user was trolling. He's not a vandal, and does not fit the profile of WoW. Further, he's been blocked before for his username, and appealed the block and was cleared. He's not the most active contributor in the world, and his attempt at RfA was misguided, but this has never been grounds for deleting an RfA before. If you're going to delete this RfA, then you should also delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ShootJar, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RAbbott, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kbandy, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joan53. All of those were RfAs for editors with fewer edits than User:Jesus On Wheels and were posted during this month. There's no more evidence to presume Jesus on Wheels is a troll than those other editors. Failing the presentation of any evidence that he is, in fact, a vandal and/or troll, I will undelete this RfA. --Durin 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Restore and archive. RadioKirk talk to me 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Undelete it. --Tango 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I heartily endorse this event or product. While he's been warned about the dangers of having a username like that, he should still be allowed the rights of a normal editor, albeit one who will tend to be watched a little more (like another user who had "WOW" in his name, WOW junkie or something like that). In fact, as of now, he is still indef blocked for his name. Looks like the blocking admin isn't online right now, but I don't know if I want to wheel war over this. I'm going to post on WP:AN about this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've undeleted. I don't know exactly what archiving old RfAs entails, so I've not done that. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies#J. --Durin 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, duly chastized. Will find something else to do. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's constructive criticism, meant in good faith. Please take it as such. I well recognize that bureaucrats tend to be targets of complaints. The above isn't a complaint per se, but more a request that we handle that situation differently. --Durin 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the wiki concept working at its best - Essjay boldly deleted it, it turned out concensus disagreed, someone undeleted it and no harm was done. Perfect. The whole point of a wiki is that nobody is perfect, so we work together to achieve something closer to perfection. --Tango 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Durin 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad so many agree. I guess I'm off the hook for reversing this bureaucrat action without telling anyone ;-) (yes, this is tongue in cheek) NoSeptember ^talk 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm filing an RfAr against you. How dare you do that! :) --Durin 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did confess. Let's just throw some rotten vegetables and eggs while chanting some catchy wiki-song. ;) Redux 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Snowballing

I was just wondering yesterday if any RfA had ever met the 80% OPPOSE mark. Right now there are two that have gone way beyond. One candidate does not respond. The other is RIGHT and refuses to withdraw. Why would the ‘crats not pull such lopsided RfA’s? :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of RfAs have had more than 80% oppose. Quite a number have had 100% oppose. There's been 60 since June of 2005 that have had 100% oppose. Of those 60, 23 have had 10 or more oppose votes. In general, there are a number of reasons to not withdraw clearly failing RfAs (see User:Durin/Withdraw policy for some). Some bureaucrats choose to withdraw clearly failing RfAs anyways. --Durin 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed earlier but I really feel there should be a basic standard for RFA candidates. Probably like 1000+ edits and atleast a month of Wikipedia activity. Otherwise we have WP:SNOW cases like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piemanmoo occuring all the time. Thanks. Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed more times than we can count. The general consensus has not been supportive enough of such ideas to implement them. Also note that WP:SNOW is not policy. --Durin 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:User:Durin/Withdraw policy That's pretty much what I thought. I just feel sorry for the guy who is so caught up in his own rightness that he won't withdraw. Hopefully, he will listen and use it all constructively. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally pull any RfA that has more than 10 votes, and 75% or more oppose. I will, however, leave a nomination for a bit if it hasn't had much time up, as there could be some issue that can be resolved and things will straighten out. I'm the only bureaucrat I've seen lately doing this on a regular basis; I don't know if the others aren't comfortable doing so, or if I just end up getting there first, or if I'm just not seeing them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove them early, but only if there are enough supporting factors that I can be confident they have no chance of succeeding. I consider most of the points Durin has outlined, and if there is evidence that the user and the community will not benefit from leaving it open, I close early. For example, a nominee with very little experience and recent vandalism, being blocked, or incivility or similar in the Rfa or extreme examples elsewhere. So typically that's going to involve few or no supports from at least somewhat experienced wikipedians and lots of opposes from similar. If those factors aren't too severe, I'll leave it for a while until the lack of a chance for success is clear, but in very obvious vandal nominations, I've closed them pretty quickly. - Taxman ^Talk 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with the view that leaving them open is more beneficial than closing early, especially if it means losing good contributors, which it often does. RfA is not Wikipedia:Requests for Review of my general worth as a contributor and perhaps adminship but I really don't think so but great if it happens. It's for requesting adminship, period, and that's all it should be doing. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been accumulating evidence on the page I referenced above showing that some users are upset about early removal. I'd like to see similar evidence (Yes, I know it exists) that we're forcing users away by leaving RfAs up, rather than making the presumption that it always happens. Personally, I still do not see the harm in asking the user to please withdraw, rather than slamming the door in their face in non-obvious vandalism cases. --Durin 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While it's not a heavily used program at this point, users who are looking for feedback might be directed to Wikipedia:Editor review instead of using RFA for that feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Why hasnt a bureaucrat closed Joturner's RFA? Its now twelve hours overtime, and oppose votes are now piling on from all directions. However if discounting the votes that were made after the ending time, he should be promoted, right? (It has been done in the past). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the BCrat's noticeboard for relevent discussion. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Cool3's RfA

Just alerting RfA watchers regarding ongoing sockpuppetry at Cool3's RfA; copying the note I left there below:

This RfA has been voted on by three users with under a dozen edits -- Y-y-yoda (vote), David-wright (vote), Vandal buster 288 (vote) -- one of which has the same userpage styling as Cool3's previous RfA nominator (compare User:ErnestIsTheMan with User:Vandal buster 288).

~ PseudoSudo 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we shouldn't jump to conclusions that the nominee is the one with sock puppets; another RfA also had an issue and was confirmed via CheckUser that the candidate had nothing to do with it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

For the record, I note that the aforementioned userpage styling is common among new users and retract any connection I may have implied regarding Cool3's involvement in the matter. ~ PseudoSudo 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way... this is linked to the Exicornt vandal and EddieSegoura, from what I understand of it. See also WP:ANI. NSL E _(T+C) at 06:09 UTC (2006-05-26)

In this, Checkuser confirmed sockpuppets. See the report here. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Code problems

I just noticed a few minuutes ago that all of a sudden, an unknown force (can't find anyone in the history) nowikied the "Discuss Here" edit link so that it wouldn't work. I was wondering if I'm just going crazy or if some new software or something is being implemented. Thanks, Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 13:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's working fine now. I'm not aware of any reason that could have caused a temporary problem. Maybe your browser is rebelling against you? ;) Redux 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because all of them had mysterious <nowiki>s in the edit link. When I edited that out, it went away. Strange. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I had thought that whatever it was had gone away on its own. Now, going through the histories, I see you fixed it. Very strange indeed. If it was a transcluded template, I'd say someone had edited it, but that's not the case. It's as if someone had edited each RfA to add the nowiki code, but the history doesn't show it. I'll have to ponder a bit more about this one. But it is odd. Redux 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you know, Wikipedia is haunted. you just had a sighting ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Spooky. <8O Redux 15:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the code Wikipedia runs on changed or something, and it just did that involuntarily. I'm no programming whiz, but as all of them changed at the same time and there is no history of it, I'm thinking something internal. Notified Rob Church to see what he thinks. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not odd, it just appears that people are forgetting to follow step 2 as per WP:RFA/N. So, it's not that the <nowiki>'s were put in, it's that the nominator forgot to take them out in the first place. (And I don't think you can take them out in the original {{rfa}} template, as if you do, the subst's for date/time/and name will be done at that point, which isn't what we want) Regards, MartinRe 16:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that that's what happened here, though. If the nominators/candidates had forgotten to adapt the code, the links would have been missing from the start. But they weren't. It was all fine until all the links were disabled at once, it seems. As Master of Puppets said, this was most likely something internal that inserted the code in all the links simultaneously — or it's the ghosts of Wikipedia playing a trick on us *shivers* ;) Redux 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Very curious. I did notice something when I was glancing through the histories, namely that {{fullurl: acts differently in depending on if it's in called in /w or /wiki (e.g. [1] vs {{Rfa}}, even though they are the same version. I'm guessing from the examples in m:Help:Variable that a {{fullurl: with parameters will adjust the url from /wiki to /w in order to edit, so I don't know what it's supposed to do on a page that's already /w. (it currently breaks the link, which is what was reported here, so I wonder if they are connected. I must keep an eye on the technical list archives, I hate unsolved riddles! :) Regards, MartinRe 00:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely this. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Brion explains it all. Again. Thanks Titoxd, for solving the mistery. Seems Wikipedia is not haunted after all. Or is it?? Redux 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate voter reporting bot

I've wrapped up my RfA Analysis tool (see the archive) in a bot. Basically, it uses the same functions as the tool to analyze all current RfAs at specific intervals (once every 3 hours or so), and posts the results at User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report, in a similar fashion to User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. It doesn't make any edits elsewhere, and all the nominations are downloaded in a single export operation, so server load shouldn't be too high. I have two uses for the report in mind: transclusion in Wikipedia:RFA summary, or watchlisting by users interested in weeding out duplicate votes. I also hope it will be useful for bureaucrats. The bot isn't automatically triggered at the moment - may I have some feedback before embarking on that? Cheers, Tangot a ngo 15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on your code base, it might make sense to merge our two products and do everything at once? I am presently doing everything in Python. Dragons flight 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but unfortunately I'm using PHP. I'm wondering whether it's possible for my bot to fill in the extra columns (Possible duplicate voters and Details) after your bot's done its work. In any case, the code for my RfA Analysis library (which the toolserver tool and the bot share) is available here. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't merge, then run your bots at different times (one at the top of the hour, one at the bottom of the hour, for example) so we can always get up to date info :-). NoSeptember ^talk 16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But if you do that, the bot that runs at the bottom of each hour and that at the top of the following hour will be way too close together (except for the top of the very first hour). I don't suppose we need so many updates.. Redux 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New RfAs (in their first day of listing) pick up votes very quickly, and one never knows just when one wants to check the current status of RfAs. So why not have frequent updates? It's not a big strain on the servers. NoSeptember ^talk 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Make it live. I like it! --Durin 17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say you have done a wonderful job creating this tool. There must be a bunch of relieved bureaucrats sitting now that they don't need to go over every RFA with a magnifying glass. Anyway there are still a few places the tools goes haywire, although I don't think there can be much you can do about it.

Here in Zappa.jake's RFA User:TBC's (3rd) oppose vote gets a "Sig not found" as he has written out a list of reasons to oppose.
Here in Compuerjoe's RFA User:Admrboltz's sig (12th Support) just doesn't register. I guess this is because of his sig having some formatting problems.
Here in Bookofjude's RFA User:Mboverload's vote (124th Support) gives the dreaded "Sig not found" as he didn't sign his initial comment but indented another comment & then signed it.

Anyway I hope you don't mind me nitpicking here, but I feel you have made a fine tool here & I really want to help you make it better. The bot is an excellent development. I've already added a link of that to my page. Although does the orignal tool also have a replication lag? Because I wall analysing Axiomm's RFA & as of now (17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)) it says that I'm the only neutral voter, whereas actually User:Gurch has also voted neutral. Anyway thanks again. Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So, this has all been a plot to fool us into thinking we don't need bureaucrats anymore. Aha! It won't work, a bot can never take over the job of a bureaucrat. This evil plot will never succeed ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Once you get the format perfect and all the bugs out, why not create a historical page of all past RfAs? You can get a list from here, and we can link the page to this and this. NoSeptember ^talk 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Who do you guys think would win in a fight? Tango's bot or Dragons' bot? I say Superman! Wait... Redux 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"Triangle Man, Triangle Man Triangle Man hates Particle Man They have a fight, Triangle wins Triangle man." --Durin 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tango? Rhymes with mango. Sounds yummy. Dragons flight 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. Srikeit, thank you for your continued interest in RfA Analysis :) I've fixed Admrboltz's signature handling issue. I'm well aware of the other two errors - they're caused by the user inserting a newline before their signature. I am not sure whether to deal with this as they could easily well be comments by different people - especially in Mboverload's case, the extra indentation appears as if somebody else added the comment in response to the original one. As for someone like TBC who writes a lot on one RfA, it's unlikely that they will accidentally vote again on the same one. (Yes yes, these are poor excuses ;)) An "unsure but possibility of duplicate vote" flag might be in order.

As for the lag Srikeit cites, there is no replication lag with the toolserver tool. (it doesn't use the toolserver database) I'm not sure what caused the issue - if it happens again, please let me know.

NoSeptember: A historical version of all RfAs sounds interesting. But, as you say, I'll need to fix up the signature handling before doing that. P.S. I've moved the source to [2] - live versions of the source will appear there now -- Tangot a ngo 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just voted in Brendenhull2's RFA. The tool has not yet registered my vote as of now (05:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)) [3]. Check it out quick you may catch it! ;) Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Source retrieval function changed to use Special:Export. The lag should be fixed. (I hope) — Tangot a ngo 06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

New reports will now use shades of colours to represent the various percentages. A list of colours is available here. - Tangot a ngo 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Reports are now being updated every 28 minutes past the hour. (Because Dragons flight's summary seems to be updated at 58 past). I'll also be working on some of the remaining kinks with the signature detection. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting icons

Apparently voting icons are appearing on RfAs (e.g. Image:Symbol support vote.svg). They seem relatively rare right now, but if AfD is any indication, and I'm sure it is, they'll be all over the place in a few days. On AfD they were pretty effectively nipped in the bud as soon as they started becoming omnipresent. I do recall they've been rejected in the past... I think people might want to think twice before jumping on this bandwagon. --W.marsh 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder for those who weren't here the last time icons were brought up—here's why icons are discouraged at RfA:

They're annoying to editors with slower computers (adding hundreds of graphics to a long page can make page rendering and scrolling take a very long time, or just crash altogether).
They're an unnecessary use of bandwidth. User-side caching tends to limit the impact here, but why use it when we don't have to?
Icons are pointless on this page, since votes are already sorted into support/oppose/neutral sections.
Focusing on the voting aspect of the RfA rather than the discussion is discouraged from a philosophical standpoint.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

On the plus side they are pleasing to the eye, like oasis among the bare sands of plain text. Grue 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Once every vote has them, they will be far from pleasing or an oasis among the sands filled with murky waters of blue, green and red mathematical symbols used to denote one's approval or disapproval of a particular candidate. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate them. Let's get rid of them, quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to RFA, but I'm already against them. They bring out some comments more than others (but not in a way which depends on the merit of the comments), and don't work properly on my mobile phone. Stephen B Streater 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I think the interesting names are OK because they are not aligned on the left hand side a the start of each comment. Stephen B Streater 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note - why do we say Support when it's already under a support header? "Strong Support" and "Weak Support" might be useful (people disagree), but "Support" adds absolutely nothing... I don't think there's any real way to change it - "old habits die hard"... How did it start, anyway? Just a hang over from pages that don't separate votes? --Tango 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It has always been part of RfA tradition! Maybe if we stop, just writing a reason for support/oppose then the four tildes, it will spread across all users! Gizza^Chat ^© 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't break tradition! :-) Just keep the bold text and abolish the voting icons. They are really annoying. —M e ts501^talk 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, who says the "vote" has to be bolded? There's no reason to, in fact, except to encourage the idea that RFA is a straight numbers count. Nobody has to add any sort of formatting to their comment.--Sean Black 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I too am opposed to a widespread use (or any use, for that matter, although sparse use is...sufferable) of those icons, but how could we prevent its widespread effectively without entering the much-dreaded helm of instruction creep? Redux 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the only solution that doesn't involve instruction creep would be to wait and hope they don't become widespread. I don't see any other way to avoid it... F e tofs ^Hello! 02:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I never bold support or oppose, if I use those words at all. Instead, I leave a brief comment or explain the rationale for my vote. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove every voting icon you see and leave a message on the user's talk page telling them to knock it off. There aren't too many of them doing it yet. --Cyde↔Weys 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't mind them; as long as everyone is not doing it, its ok. But I agree with Fetofs; we should probably just wait until the trend dies off. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Try making requests and you'd get more results. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Try addressing others in a manner that you yourself would like to be addressed. I don't think anyone likes demands, myself included. — Natha n ^(talk) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with Fetofs. This discussion itself lets people know that the use of these voting icons is discouraged. The users viewing this, in most probability, will not use them in the future. Rather than getting into a conflict, we can wait for the trend to wear off. It isn't very widespread now anyway. Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You pointed out my ideas better than myself :) F e tofs ^Hello! 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful, when purging, to be nice in the way you do it. Those icons *are* standard other places, like Commons, and people who are more familiar with RfA there may use them by default, without realizing the vehement opposition of this community. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they seem to be used everywhere except English Wikipedia. Grue 09:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not that standard on Commons, AFAIK. Most places where I've come across them, at the most half of all votes have them. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of Template:Administrators/Requests_and_votes, the Commons equivalent of RfA...I see almost 100% use. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that because Commons is intended to have all sorts of different languages on it? There, a symbol makes sense. Here, we all speak English and know what "support" means, so why add the icon? —BorgHunter (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd shy away from actually removing them from existing comments. Altering of signed comments really is an extreme step, and I know I don't take it very well. However, a nice clear note on the user's talk page about why it's not-so-good has almost always worked for me. I've had on more than a few occasions people I left such notes with turn around and ask other people not to use voting symbols. No reason to play the hard man and get people's backs up when there's no reason to. - brenneman ^{L} 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the icons are being used only sporadically around here as of yet. There's no reason for us to start worrying too much about it now. Unless it becomes a real issue, with a significative number of people using them to post here, we needn't be coming up with orchestrated manners of dissuading those few who do for whatever reason lest it becomes instruction creep. There doesn't appear to be reason for us to go as far as altering other users' comments at this point. Redux 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support And how about this one? It's pure HTML. I mean, is it a problem with images or with making it pretty at all? Misza 13 ^{T C} 12:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice, but for me this is really a matter less of reading but of writing. I don't want to have to remember any more code than the three apostrophes in order to be able to vote anywhere. '''Support''' is just the maximum number of keystrokes I'm willing to invest, and I'd hate to have to remember anything more, be it the name of a template, or the name of an image, or html code, whatever. And I want to see clean text in the edit window too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea was never to make icons mandatory for participating in RfA. It was in the sense of whether icons should be banned or tolerated, but the bottom line is that there is no fix format for participating in RfA. The three apostrophes themselves are about tradition, or praxis, but no one has to bold the first word of the entry for it to count. Trying to impose a format for participating would be classic instruction creep. Redux 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See my response to Grue above. It looks tacky and gets on your nerves once every vote has it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of images next to the votes anyway? The bolded Support or Oppose should be sufficient. It seems quite contradictory to me to discourage the use of images in signatures partially since they clutter the page, but allow vote images that, well, clutter the page. joturn e r 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

-

I can't believe, 4 years after the arrival of broadband, Wikipedia is still worried about bandwidth. Nathan is an angel.

+

Anwar 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I, and presumably you, and many Wikipedia users are fortunate enough to have broadband. Plenty of people don't. There's no reason to make it harder for non-broadband users to participate in RfA. I agree, "support" or "oppose" is more than sufficient. FreplySpang 15:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But its not an image, just harmless DHTML. So bandwidth issues are irrelevant here. Anwar 03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to your "4 years after the arrival of broadband" comment. I'll leave it for someone who knows to comment on whether the harmless DHTML is, in fact, harmless. I will say that I prefer that RFA (and other support/oppose type pages) be free of that kind of visual clutter. FreplySpang 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm anything but. You really should re-evaluate that before certain other people jump on you for making that very comment. — Natha n ^(talk) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

(+)Support
(-)Oppose
(=)Neutral

--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is just as much about the tackiness and annoying factor of such icons as it is about bandwidth factors. Coming up with different DHTML/CSS-based icons isn't going to change much. Johnleemk | Talk 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Even as the icons becomes smaller, they still don't add any significant purpose to the RfA. If anything it distracts people. I believe decorations should be left for userpages only. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Johnleemk here. Big icons, whether image-based or HTML/CSS-based, take up too much space and distrupt line heights. If anything, they should be semantically defined, for example like <support>I support ~~~~</support>, or <vote type="support">I support</vote> via a MediaWiki extension, so that users can turn them off or change their appearance as they please. This is in line with the current trend of switching to XHTML and XML. As for bandwidth, I don't think the issue is getting less important; on the contrary, it will be more important than ever as the Internet gets more and more crowded. - Tangot a ngo 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That could be done easilly enough with {{support}} and {{oppose}} templates and custom CSS, I expect. I'm not an expert, though. --Tango 10:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with voting icons is that you would be using voting icons on something that is not supposed to be a vote. Kim Bruning 11:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well put Kim. Besides, we were not discussing let's not use icons because they don't look good, we were discussing let's not use icons because they are not in keeping with RfA. I don't suppose that new shapes and colors will alter that, since the essence remains the same. Redux 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they're a bad idea no matter how implemented. Our 'crats are good but there is a subtle subliminal effect at work if some comments are "louder" than others in how they are presented. Speaking of loud, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalya for an example of these symbols at their (IMHO) most obnoxious, the've been made bigger and throw the lines of text off. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bandwidth is an issue if you sometimes read Wikipedia on a mobile phone, as you have to pay for all data sent. The real issue for me though is that it makes some comments stand out more, to the detriment of others, and independently of the instrinsic value of the aforementioned comment. Stephen B Streater 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So, I've read the comments either way and, for me, I just plain don't like having icons in the middle of text for no good reason. If RfA's a discussion, then discuss, not decorate, hm? (I know, sounds strange coming from me.) On the other hand, the "support/oppose" boldening is nice because it draws your eye to the beginning of that user's arguments for their position, plus for those users who don't seem to be able to indent, it helps seperate sections. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution to everyone's problems:

For those who don't want icons

For those who don't want icons, support looks like: Support

<span class=votesupport>'''Support'''</span>

For those who do

Put the following code in your monobook.css (doesn't have to be monobook):

/* Voting */

.votesupport {

   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}

.voteoppose {

   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}

.voteneutral {

   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}

Also,

Also, this is not limited to <span> tags. So, you could also use <div> tags. (NOTE: If you use <div> tags for voting, to see the div tags properly you will have to add more parameters to the above code.)

Signature

Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be against this style sheet tricks. I suggest that, as it used to be until now, a support vote looks like

'''Support'''

or any other way a supporter may feel like voting. If people wanting eye candy can/would like to do any stylesheet/javascript/etc tricks to make any '''Support''' string show up as a perty icon for them, nothing can stop them. But introducint a new span class, class=votesupport, is somethign which makes no sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Look out!!! It's about to bite your head off! Oh no! It's The Instruction Creeposaurus!!! joturn e r 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Early Close Guideline Proposal

I have drafted a guideline that will help bureaucrats make decisions about when RfA's should be closed early. This is in response to the community becoming divided as to whether bureaucrats should close RfAs early and at what stage they should be closed. The proposal is here. DarthVad e r 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for quasi-protection

(Apologies, but I feel like because this proposal tangentially deals with RfA, I should bring it up here. Thanks!) Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappa.jake

(Have made this subsection an indented section of the QPP due to possible application of QPP to cases like this in future...)

I've taken the step of semiprotecting this RFA, due to ongoing AOL IP vandalism that continually forges signatures and votes. It's gone on since the start of this RFA. The last time I did this (Quadell's RFB), I was criticised, but here I don't think there's a better way to deal with this vandalism. NSL E _(T+C) at 03:49 UTC (2006-05-28)

I don't think the result will be controversial on this RfA either way. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Closure of RFAs by non-bureaucrats

I would like to point out that, although it has become rare, non-bureaucrats are permitted and indeed encouraged to close nominations that clearly lack community support. They are also permitted to close borderline cases after several days have elapsed and no bureaucrat has chosen to promote (though currently this never happens). Bureaucrats are given the exclusive authority to promote successful candidates. While we can and often do remove failing nominations, the community at large still has the right to do this as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this should be the case, I strongly remember several rounds of arguments with a substantial number of people vocally declaring that no one but bureaucrats should close noms. For example, Raul654 said: "I am adamantly against non-bureacrats deciding that there was no consensus. That's what the bureacrats were elected specifically to do." Some previous discussions: [4][5][6][7]. This debate included rewriting the RFA guidelines to say that only bureaucrats should close except in cases of vandalism/newbie nonsense.

Well, despite the fact that I respect Raul654 greatly, I must take issue with his assertion that bureaucrats were elected specifically to [determine that there is no consensus]. While that is indeed an important qualification for the job, it is not bureaucrats solely who may make such determinations, and at the time the process was set up in the first place, it was made very clear that the only difference between bureaucrats and others was that bureaucrats are entrusted to promote and accordingly have the technical capacity to do so. Tacit assignment of additional exclusive duties that were previously the purview of the community as a whole is a bad thing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I fully support granting latitude to non-bureaucrats to remove clearly failed noms, but as it stands right now I know that I will get yelled at for doing so, so I have refrained from closing anything for the last nine months or so.Dragons flight 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sniffle*. My one little addition to this process was Dragon flight's link above and I think it's worked fairly well. Maybe you think it too didactic, but there has been peace in this little part of the process. And do note it wasn't a re-write out of nowhere--it was a specific response to the discussions cited. Put more simply, to remove it would probably be to invite another weekly "I'm annoyed about this" thread. We have enough of those. Marskell 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's a problem with non-buros closing noms, how about a compromise? Any admin can close a nom that's gone the full time and has less than 65% support. 65% is sufficiently below the lower limit of buro's discretion to take into account any mistakes someone not fully qualified might make and should be lower enough that no buro would decide to let the nom go into extra time, and limiting it to admins should ensure that it's done in good faith. The worst that can happen is someone has to go through RfA a 2nd time before getting promoted. Of course, I'm not sure there is really a problem needing to be fixed here - the buros seem to keep up with the workload pretty well. --Tango 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. What would this solve, and why? If there is some problem with RfAs closing late, and there clearly isn't, then just vet some more candidates for bureaucrat. -Splash^talk 00:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mm, I'm not sure I like the percentage thing. It encourages the idea that it's strictly a numbers game instead of a discussion. If I were up for RfA and there were ten people with Support and one person comments in Oppose: This user was recently found to be vandalizing Wikipedia via sockpuppets, see WP:RFCU. I'd rather hope that the Bureaucrat in question would look at these claims and deny my RfA or wait for more voters to show up and suggest to the first ten that maybe they should re-examine the facts of the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not really agree that the current situation tallys with UC's assessment. That may, perhaps, have once theoretically been the case. But several rounds of discussion, available in the archives have established that there is at best not-wide-enough support for random editors "off the street" to determine the outcome of an RfA. There is not really even sufficient support for non-bureaucrats to "snowball" an RfA. That the only difference in being a crat is having a new button is not at all borne out by the intense, sometimes brutal, scrutiny afforded by an RfB, and the skilled determination of which way the wind blows in a most sensitive process has come to (right, imo) rest with a small group of users who we trust in both judgement and security. Encouraging just anyone to close an RfA (particularly when we are not running behind schedule in the least) seems an odd thing to do; and inventing compromises for a situation that doesn't exist is then unnecessary. -Splash^talk 00:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we having so many of these pass by that we need to extend this? Am I missing masses of nominations that are staying up the full seven days and then not being closed? I see no problem with non-bureaucrats removing obvious, dramatic failures (4/25/19) early, but why do we need to push it into the territory of "normal" nominations? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In Jimbo's utopian Wikipedia, adminship may be "no big deal", but here at en.wikipedia.org, it has turned out that adminship is a pretty big deal. Good trusted contributors get turned away all the time because (I theorize) admins abusing their power has made people wary. Similarly, while it may have been the case when the system was set up that Bureaucrats are theoretically no big deal either, and their only difference is the presence of an extra button, in practice here in the real 'pedia, Bureaucrats are entrusted to do a thorny issue that is a big deal. Let's leave it to them. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This has already resulted in this closure of a non-blatantly-clear RfA by a non-crat, on the grounds that things were a few hours late and just-anyone who fancies it can close an RfA. (Numerically, I suppose it was <75% etc etc, but this is easily non-snowballable.) Clearly (to me anyway), this is not right. That particular close has already been reverted and re-closed by a crat. We really can't have non-crats ruling on the very thing (unclear RfAs) that crats are created to deal with. -Splash^talk 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

69.9% is not close. SushiGeek 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And? No one said it was a close vote. What they said is that you're not a crat, and furthermore voted oppose in the RfA. Those are both true, aren't they? -lethe ^{talk +} 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree with Splash on this one. I believe this started from a smaller context and, pardon the pun, snowballed into something a lot bigger. I mean, there were instances where users who are not Bureaucrats would close RfAs, but those were very specific instances, often when the RfA itself was a hoax or just short of it (e.g., if someone nominated Willy on Wheels for adminship). From there, it turned into a situation where if there is something sufficiently (by what standards?) "wrong" with a RfA, anyone could close it. While this might work sporadically, it will create more problems than it will solve. Recent example: Robchurch protested against the manner in which his RfA was closed because it was closed as unsuccessful by a user who had opposed in the RfA. I suppose it would be best to keep it simple: let the Bureaucrats do their job, that's why they get the big bucks :S Redux 01:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with normal users closing really obvious failures, i.e. RfAs with very few votes and/or large opposition. If opposes significantly outnumber supports, there is little scope for failure of judgement. But early closing or closing by someone who voted (either way) should probably be left to bureaucrats. I would suggest to apply common sense and not pile on more explicit rules...--Stephan Schulz 08:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not been suggested that we pile on more rules. The rule has stood for seven months. If it's a choice between explicit and vague, the former is better. "Non bureaucrats are never empowered to decide consensus, except when it's very obvious(?)". Again, all this will create is another useless talk thread every couple of weeks. "No" is much clearer "maybe". Marskell 09:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If buros aren't allowed to close RfA's they've voted in (I'm pretty sure that's the case), then non-buros certainly shouldn't be able to. I can't see any reason to even debate that point. --Tango 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can close RfAs they have participated in. It is only on the close RfAs where they should be conscious of the appearance of a conflict of interest and avoid doing so. Likewise, it is fine for non-bureaucrats to close obviously failing nominations, even if they have participated, but it should be "very" obvious, and if it is over 50% I recommend not touching it. NoSeptember ^talk 11:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The rule is simple: the more contentious the decision, the more senior and experienced the person who makes it should be. I agree with what Lethe said: the RC nomination was potentially close. The bc may have chosen to take account of the merit of the various arguments before closing, rather than just their number. Many RfAs are not remotely close, and people wouldn't care who closed the (though a non-participant is a good start). Stephen B Streater 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New: when should I start?

I have been using wikipedia for months, but registered only yesterday, and have around 60/70 edits only. When I shall be ready to participate in RfA? Please give me an idea. Thanks. --Bootblack 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:GRFA and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. Also, showing a lot of early interest in becoming an admin is a red-flag for many people. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're voting, start at about 125 edits. If you're running, wait until about 2,500 good edits if you're nominating yourself, or until somebody else nominates you. SushiGeek 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I mis-communicated. I meant as regards my participation in the voting process. I never thought of standing for the job of an administrator - with 2 days as a registered user and with hardly 100 edits, only a fool shall think of the same. Right now, I want to know about by ability to vote in the RfA. --Bootblack 17:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bunchofgrapes&diff=prev&oldid=55598612 Thank you. --Bootblack 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ha! My bad. (We've seen a lot of fools by that definition around here, I'm afraid -- very glad to see you aren't one.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I am a real fool to do this

to an administrator: . You shall find me a difficult student to adminisrter. BTW, the day I reach 1,000 edits, I shall vote some one: let me see who shall be the "unlucky" person - I mean the "lucky" one! --Bootblack 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You can vote far sooner than 1000 edits. You just need enough so people know you aren't a fake account. --Tango 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A note: you shouldn't join the waterfall. Having 50 people before you voting to support a user doesn't mean they are all right (CSCWEM's second nomination comes to mind). You need to read all the comments posted before, examine the user's background, and determine which (if any) of the previous comments fit what you think about the user. It is always better to explain why you are voting. With time you will develop your own "minimun requirements" for new administrators; be sure it is just. In my case, I only vote for administrators I know and can vouch, either positive or negatively, as currently I don't have the time to examine backgrounds. -- ReyBrujo 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh tosh, how was CSCWEM a bad candidate in his second nom? --Rory096 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the user should not vote for the side that has the majority "just because", as it is possible they are not right, either about the candidate suitability or about the technical aspects of the nomination. In his case, his nomination was 59-0 when he accepted. I am assuming good faith in all possible cases (whether he did not know about his nomination until 10 days later, he had a 10 day wikibreak and found himself nominated when returned, or guessing it was right not to accept the nomination for 10 days). However, someone who does not contribute to RFAs and suddenly finds a 59-0 nomination may consider supporting (or oppossing, had the votation been 0-30) for the sake of joining the majority ("1 vote more or less won't hurt"). It was a technical point, sure, and CSCWEM was (again, AGF) innocent, but (for me) an extremely valid one, pointed by someone who took a second to review the situation and did not just vote for the sake of voting.

Disclaimer: I believe CSCWEM is one of the best Wikipedia contributors, and several times I have pressed the "Save page" button to see he had already done that. It was just a comment to enforce the user to make his own decisions, whether they match the majority or not. -- ReyBrujo 05:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanding some on Tango's comment, which is quite right: there is no minimal number of edits (editcountitis can be fatal...) for anyone to be able to start participating in the RfA process. What you need is just to establish yourself as a solid contributor, not because we have a rule written somewhere, but because it is all about trust here. We need to know that any given account represents one individual (no sock puppets or meat puppets) and that this person will be participating for legitimate reasons. Don't focus on counting your edits, but rather on doing a good job in the project. The rest should pretty much take care of itself. Redux 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A user should dive in and start voting whenever they are ready to. Since one vote won't affect the outcome 95% of the time, it is a good way for us to get to know you. The few times your vote would affect the outcome, it will be discounted if you are truly too new, but within a week of active participation, you won't be truly new anymore, and if your opinions are expressed with thoughtfulness, they will be respected. NoSeptember ^talk 11:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Background colors on closed RfAs

Is there an intended meaning to background colors? Consider mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lar... no background color, no box around it. Then consider Joturner's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner 2 Grey background color, with a box around it... The consider Rob's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch 4 Pink background color, with a box around it too. I'm just wondering if there's a convention here (margins, failed vs succeeded? something else??) that I'm not aware of or if this is just an artifact of whoever closed it or ?? PLEASE NOTE: no criticism intended!!! Just asking... ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I concluded some time ago that they, and their presence or absence, are secret signals to the Cabal. -Splash^talk 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

They are all generated by the templates {{rfap}} (for a successful nomination) and {{rfab}} (for an unsuccessful nomination). People have recently been altering the background colours in an attempt to make it clearer that voting has closed. As the templates are substituted, the closed nominations bear whichever colour the template was using when the nomination was closed. Warofdreams talk 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

{{rfap}}'s background color has only been changed twice (and never to pink), and {{rfab}}'s background has never been changed. So, how do you explain the pink? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Color saturation in computer screen settings? I.e., nothing to do with the template itself. It's a possibility. Redux 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, instead of pink, I mean #fff5f5. It has never been changed to #fff5f5. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be {{rfaf}}, not {{rfab}}, for a failed nomination. That's the template with the pink background. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two templates: Template:Rfap for nominations that passed, and Template:Rfaf for nominations that failed. Rfaf has been altered to be pink, rfap to be blue. I set them both to be gray originally, because I didn't think anybody would be bothered by a gray background (the pink, and to a degree, the blue, hurt my eyes, but I'll fix that via CSS on my end). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Colors were there back in 2005 and then they went away, and now they are back. For the record, I am a proud owner of a colorless RfA :-). NoSeptember ^talk 11:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin recall has landed

See Category:Administrators open to recall. Haukur 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were to understand this correctly, we are asking every admin to add themselves to the list on "moral" grounds saying that not adding oneself to the list would qualify them as rogue admin and hence they would be seen as bad-faith admins (implied, and not directly stated). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how I view the proposal. I refused to be emotionally or morally blackmailed into adding my name to a list like that. I'm quite sure that the creators of the idea will point out that it wasn't meant to put that kind of pressure on admins, but in reality it does and I won't be part of it. A lot more than 6 people made me an admin, and it will take a lot more than that for me to accept de-adminning (other than Jimbo or arbcom of course.)pschemp | talk 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it WOULD take a lot more than 6 people to deadmin you. The 6 people are more like, at least the way I take it, a signal that there is desire to look into it, not the number needed to deadmin you. Further, since our default here is no consensus == no change, (and again, the way I would do myself) I'd do an RfC and if it wasn't a clear consensus that I'd screwed up, no change. Please don't look at this as blackmail, either, because (again, in my view) that's not what it is intended to be. It's intended to be saying that you consider yourself not above being held accountable. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And those who don't immediately jump to place this cat on their userpages, therefore, do consider themselves above being held accountable. I know that's not what you meant, but that's exactly how it sounds.

I don't object to being held accountable for my actions. I don't even object to losing sysophood — who knows, it might be enough of a kick in the pants to get me back to editing more regularly, which is why we're all here in the first place, right? But I'm not about to put something on my userpage saying I've joined yet another clique, and I'm not about to watch the inevitable insinuations that those who don't are bad Wikipedians. This is an idea that really needed a lot more thought. Thoughts like "I know! How about we scrap this idea?" fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bingos. This is as bad as putting a userbox on my user page that declares my religion. Instead its, hey, I'm a believer in the Accountable Admin religion, and the insinuation is that because you have not publically declared, that you are not. I do realize that the intent of the creation of the category was not to guilt people into joining, but it already reeks of that, and in practice, that is what will happen. That result can't be escaped because we are human. Its not anyone else's business exactly how I feel accountable to the project, but the unintended consequence of this proposal is that it puts pressure on people to state that. There is no reason to create yet another thing to split and divide wikipedians. pschemp | talk 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious, why do you feel it is no-one's business how you feel accountable to the project? Haukur 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I am already accountable to the project in the same way all admins are when given the position for the community. There is no need to go around publicly declaring what already is. pschemp | talk 18:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough but it's not a matter of declaring yourself accountable, it's a matter of saying that you're not necessarily going to force people to drag you to ArbComm before you're willing to listen to what they have to say. (in a more formal way than just reading what they say on your talk page...) If it's a fad, if it's a bad idea, no one else will do it and those of us that did will remove ourselves from the category, and that will be that. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think recall itself is a good thing, unless it's tied to abuse of admin powers. It wouldn't be good for it to be a popularity contest—I'm pretty sure I wouldn't survive this, just because I've got a sufficient number of people who don't like me, even though no one accuses me of abusing admin powers. Everyking 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally would not object to having my name put on that list, but I agree with Ambuj that those who would object may be looked down upon, which doesn't really seem right. --tomf688 (talk - email) 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We pay admins to be unpopular. We don't want them to be chucked out just because of that. It's breaking the rules which should lead to re-evaluation - and Arbitration can fix that already. Also, a lot of admins had more than 6 oppose votes when they were elected - before they had a chance to make tough decisions. Stephen B Streater 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) is to have a broad framework for individual admins to customize according to their lights. So if you will stand for confirmation if you get X people who accuse you of abusing admin tools then go ahead and do that. Haukur 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Lights? Please clarify.pschemp | talk 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lights==preferences or tastes. Mine are at the top of my user talk page, and I suggest people take a look. If this initiative stratifies things then it's not good I guess. But, Stephen, it will take a lot more than 6 people to actually remove someone in this process if they style after how I styled it. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should also make a category for those who do not want to add themselves to the recall category, but do not feel comfortable either with the implied against-recall notion when they do not, so that they can make clear they are not a rouge admin either? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lar, are you going to publish your criteria for "good standing" in advance? I think that if you are happy to "stand trial" for a perceived dereliction of duty, you would also be happy to alter your behaviour once the consensus was established. A new RfA will bring up every skeleton or slightly misjudged decision, and aggrieved parties will all come to vote - it would be a much tougher challenge than the first go. Perhaps a big majority should be required to remove an Admin. But I'm happy that you see yourself as accountable. Stephen B Streater 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not sure I'd publish them in advance actually, haven't decided, the in advance suggests gaming the system though. 500 edits is bandied about on the talk page. Remember that ArbComm still is a check on this, if an admin were asked to do this after pledging to, the 6 people asking were "reasonable" people, and the admin refused, that would seem to weigh against them in a subsequent arbcomm, wouldn't it... I have to go soon, have a flight to catch, so may not get back to this for a while. But here's the thing.. the process now for censuring admins seems to be very step function... nothing at all, then elephant gun. This is trying to introduce another step. Unlike a straight RfC which we have seen admins ignore, this (maybe because the person said in advance they'd heed it so the community would hold them to it), would carry more weight. If 6 serious people did turn up and say I'd been a total wanker, and here is why, I'd have to take that seriously whether I published criteria in advance for what "serious" meant, or not, and if it were 6 people whose main contributions were carrying out disruptions first suggested on WR and harassing good editors, I'd ignore them, again whether they fit published criteria or not. Maybe it's a bad idea but at least it's being talked about. As for KimvdLinde's suggestion of another category, sure, why not? What would you call it though? It would need a careful name so that it captured the discomfort with this idea without casting aspersions on either this idea or on NOT doing it. Sorry if that was a bit of a ramble, but again, the idea at least at first is to just say, hey, I'm willing to be accountable, I am willing to listen and you don't have to do an ArbComm to get my attention. If it caught on and 90% of all admins did it, that would presumably tell you something about the other 10%... but the something it would tell you is "they don't want to do that" not "they are all bad admins"... because in my view, people who don't want to do it are NOT bad people. They just choose not to do it. Heck, one of my noms speaks out about it above, and, IMHO at least, she's a great admin. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, every admin is accountable. Regardless. You get privileges to assist the community, if you turn out not to be worthy of them you should loose them. It is frankly not up to the admins themselves to say whether they are accountable, they just are. Consequently, I think the category is redundant. Just my $0.02 Eurocents. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Kim has summarised my feelings exactly. We are already accountable, and there are already mechanisms in place to deal with those who abuse their position. What's the point of adding another? It makes much more sense to make the current process more efficient, rather than add an entirely new one. pschemp | talk 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose this because it seems to be an idea arrived at without community consensus and is plain absurd. Many admins get elected with more than 6 opposers. If everytime they just play the appoint-disappoint game, we would deviate from the reason we exist — To create an encyclopedia. A more saner (though still not acceptable as devoid of community consensus) option would be to start the process when there are 8 opposers, 5 of whom supported the admin concerned in the admin's RfA. This means that only when does a candidate "breaks" the trust of those who already trust him, should such a process be started. If they can't get such 5 people, try Request for Comments/Arbitration. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A noble idea, accountability is very important, but this just isn't the way to go about it. More community involvement in sanctioning errant admin behaviour is needed. The community approves admin requests after all, so should be able to un-approve, but this is not it (don't ask me what is). And while we're not on the topic of RfA colours, can I change mine to "light cactus", kind of two shades removed from #E4EBE4 :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, more community involvement is required. This is a way, it is thought, to foster that... Suggest changes in it if you like, because straight RfC doesn't seem to work very well... turns into a witchhunt with no real change in the person, because the person is totally on the defensive... it's sprung on them as it were. Heck, I dunno... ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how much better this idea is than the original one, especially for older admins like myself. I was promoted with less than two dozen votes, and only half of those who supported me are regularly active anymore. Therefore it would be a much bigger deal, at least percentage wise, if five of those were to question my actions than if someone who was promoted with 150 support votes was questioned by five of theirs. Due to the nature of Adminship I still remain unconvinced that ArbCom is not the way to go if someone misbehaves too badly. That being said, I am sure I would resign my position if I got a lot of angry messages on my talk page; I would have thought, however, that it would be the nature of the complaints, rather than the volume, that would convince me to resign or reapply. Rje 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been here as long as many of you, but I didn't think this was how we make new proposals. I thought we outlined the idea, discussed it and tried to reach a concensus on it. We don't collect lists of names. I still don't get what's wrong with ArbCom - if they aren't strict enough, then we should have a discussion about that, not try and create yet another idea for removing rogue admins. --Tango 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps people are somewhat right that there is a little pressure to place yourself in this category, but, looking at it as a binary view, I guess you are either open to being recalled or you aren't. The exact method of being recalled can get discussed, expounded and moved forward however you want, but at the end of the day, you're either openb to being recalled or you're not. I thought about adding myself to this or not over a copuile of days, and then realised that's the nub of the issue; that if the community feel I don't deserve to be an admin anymore, I'm not going to be one. I'm not going to force people to add themselves to this category, but I think people should examine why they don't. To me, not adding myself ultimately meant I was prepared to fight tooth and nail for my admin powers, which I have always argued are no big deal. If they are no big deal, I must be prepared to lose them, and to lose them with grace. If I have become the sort of admin who believes they have a right to be one, then I don't think I'm the sort of admin Wikipedia needs. That was my thinking on the matter, anyway. It's granted by the community, and should remain in the grant of the community. As to questions of how policy is formed, this is certainly one way to create a policy, and if anyone is concerned at the lack of consensus or prior discussion, I suggest they look at Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. Hiding Talk 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't really expect this kind of heated response. This wasn't meant to be a huge deal, it's just a little voluntary effort to increase the accountability of participating admins. We're not saying ArbCom isn't doing their job and this category is by no means intended to replace it. But the ArbCom is intended as a last resort - what we're saying is that we'll take complaints seriously before they reach the ArbCom level. Many people have expressed frustration in the past regarding admin accountability (see Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll for example) and this is one experiment to move us forward on that issue. I personally think the "admins should be unpopular" idea is a bit mistaken. Admins might be unpopular among trolls and vandals, certainly, but they shouldn't be unpopular among fellow Wikipedians and the great majority aren't. Haukur 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a non-admin, I really like this idea, and while I don't think any less of people who wouldn't want to sign up to this (for wahtever reason), it does reaffirm my trust in the ones who do. (Full disclosure: I currently know of no admins I'd like to recall).

Here's the truth, as I see it: the statement that "adminship is not a big deal" is currently wishful thinking (at best). Everything I have seen so far points to the fact that many people very much want to become admins, that adminship is, like it or not, an important status symbol. I don't think this is healthy, but it's the way things are right now.

I also suspect that this idea would be much more popular with non-admins in general; we're probably looking at a case of selection bias here, since this discussion page is, I believe, mostly read by admins. --Ashenai 16:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress

Oi vey. I must say, I didn't expect objections to be quite this heated, not to be from this quarter. There's no denying that I hoped this would catch on to the degree that some form of it it eventually became policy. Not because of "guilting" or "shaming." My number-one favorite wikipedian has gently declined, and I certainly don't think any less of him. I'd optimistically thought that for the vast majority of administrators would sign on without too much hesitation, and that it would become (in some form) just "what we did."

In the current conception, there are three barriers to re-setting the bit: six signatures, the personal choice to re-run, and the re-RfA itself.
- Despite what we seem to be saying, that first hurdle is a big one. I ruffle feathers on an almost daily basis: Closing AfDs as other than votes, slashing and burning dubious links, culling fair use images, etc etc. I haven't yet managed to get and keep six people mad at the same time.
- Going with the presumption that I'd not back out, I'm confident that I'd get the required numbers at RfA again. Admittedly the big problem I had last time hasn't gotten any better, but I think I've also demonstrated that I can be trusted.
We make policy on the fly all the time. Sometimes it goes nowhere, sometimes it takes awhile to take off, sometimes it kicks us in the pants and makes us say, "Gee, we actually want to do the opposite of that."
- If you don't like the category, change it. Add some caveats, make some notes, nominate it on CfD. That's what we do here, we work things out.
- Even better, drop by the talk page. Say why you don't like it, and try to have an open mind about what those who do like it have to say.
However appropiate or not anyone may think this implimentation is, surely it can't have escaped notice that the "appointed for life" aspect of adminship is one of the things that is a non-stop topic. I think the word commonly used is "perineum."
- Who is it going to be used on, really? I know most (800+) admins will never have to worry as they are niether abusive with the tools nor rude enough to have burning coals of resentment somewhere.
- Everyking *nod of head in his direction* has been mentioned several times as a possible first "victim." To be frank, I just don't think he's got that level of ill-will that he'd even get the six sigs.
- Let's not be shy, let's actually say whom we think would get screwed over if this became policy. At least then we'd be talking about something concrete.

brenneman ^{L} 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly thing, that's what this recall is. Another fad. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Griffjam closed early

0/17/0. Closed early with sufficient pileup. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And in its place...

User:03Rotpar who didn't have a single edit to his/her name prior to creating his (malformed) RfA has attempted to add his/her own RfA. After multiple editors, including myself, removed his RfA (multiple times, obviously), he posted to my talk page the following:

i know im kinda new hear but i really want to try for admin even if i fail. thanks 03Rotpar 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one will jump on me if I saw that this RfA is bound to fail, but it is. How are we supposed to deal with this. This page is for requesting adminship, not just doing something just because. I don't want to bite this newcomer (or any other), but I think we need to send the message that this is purely for serious requests for adminship; if someone wants some feedback on their editing abilities, they should be directed to Wikipedia:Editor review. But I have a feeling that if I (or anyone else) were to continue to remove this RfA, he/she will just repeatedly re-add it. joturn e r 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If they really want to add it then what little harm that will come from leaving it there for a while is much better than edit warring over the main page. I would suggest only ever removing any rfa nom once in total, with a polite note to the user as to why it might be a bad idea. If they persist, then it's likely to be quickly snowballed and closed, but that which would give a clearer signal in my view than than if it was removed because it was "bound to fail". It's one thing telling someone they have 0% chance of passing, and another to tell them they're not allowed to run at all. Regards, MartinRe 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think 0 edits is slightly different than usual. I'm all in favour of all editors being able to run for adminship, but someone with 0 edits isn't an editor, by definition. Also, if you're going with WP:SNOW, it applies in this case before anyone has voted on it - no-one that should be taken into account will support someone with 0 edits (them voting support is reason enough not to take them into account). --Tango 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is where do you draw the line? no edits? 10 edits, 100? We've had some editors with quite low numbers put themselves forward recently, and while they were suggested to withdraw, no one forced them to do so, whereas in this case, 03Rotpar was basically told he'd be blocked if he didn't accept the forced withdrawal, which seems a little on the harsh side to me. Regards, MartinRe 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I draw the line at 0 edits. That was the whole point of my comment... --Tango 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/03Rotpar, will someone close it down now? DG X 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete it if no one objects, per this edit. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I also found an old one which noone has noticed; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/04nunhucks. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)