Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 5 January 2008

Archives

For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see /Archives. RFA discussions before June 2003 took place on a mailing list. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

• ]

Addition of language to 'Expressing opinions'

I have recently noticed that some users add their opinions to RfA with only a minute or two between their contributions. While I will assume good faith here, it would seem that users doing so have not put in as much consideration as I am sure the canidate would welcome. Personally, I don't feel as though you can review a canidate in less that ten minutes and I often take longer. It could be done in less time, of course, but regardless of the time one feels is necessary I feel as though we all agree that careful consideration should be taken when voting in RfA. I have seen comments to this end but did not find any language dictating it on the main page. As such, I propose a small addition to the 'Expressing opinions' section on the main RfA page asking users to be take time and consideration in their forming of opinions about users. Being only a sentence, I do not really think WP:CREEP is a consideration and can not think of any other reason one might think of not to add such a notice. At any rate, opinions? SorryGuy  Talk  03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think it will make a difference for the people who don't take the time to look? Myself, I usually wait a couple of days before voting even if I've reviewed recent contributions - just in case someone who knows better brings up something troubling. But you can't really force people to be cautious if they aren't inclined to be so already (even an enforced delay or something would just make people wait and then vote without looking ;-P) Avruchtalk 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one could make a quick decision to oppose if it's pretty obvious the candidate isn't yet admin quality. I sometimes support based on others comments, and if I'm already familiar with the candidate. There'd be no need to review everything when you know already. Majorly (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of thats presuming that the editor hasnt already had extensive contact with the editor over an extended period of time. Gnangarra 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing about instruction creep: it sneaks in, sentence by sentence :) Actually, I would think RfA would be better if voters took more time to review candidates, but I don't like this idea, because regardless of length, it's telling people how to vote. J-ſtan_{User page} 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted flippin' 3 times) :It depends on the user, I suppose. If I have worked with and am very familiar with an admin candidate, there's usually little doubt in my mind as to their ability as an admin. On the other hand, if I'm unfamiliar, I usually take some more time to look at their background. I don't see how an extra sentence could hurt, but on the other hand, some people are quicker reviewers than others. Besides, we can strike our !vote if something else arises later. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I of course understand that there are exceptions to what I brought up and that occasionally quick decisions occur and are justified. I also understand that one sentence likely will not effect a user's actions, however it does allow community consensus, because I think we all agree that some care should be taken, to be presented in a pseudo-official manner. Maybe I am being overly bureaucratic. SorryGuy  Talk  04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some care should be taken, definitely, but people should vote how they want to vote. Bureaucrats can determine which votes are frivolous enough to be discounted, or at least given less weight. Drive-by votes that appear to be frivolous would be taken into account, but as Majorly said, you don't always have to examine recent contribs. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Only a sentence, but instruction creep is made up of mere sentences. A better solution here would be to accost the offending users politely and ask whether they really think have done justice to the candidate. — Dan | talk 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's almost nothing we can do about people who don't give RfA the amount of time we feel necessary. That's a good thing, as "what we feel" is largely arbitrary, what is acceptable to me might be too short to someone else, and too long to yet another person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a really arbitrary thing. It's possible that someone who comments 3 minutes apart on every (or most) RfA(s) on the page has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the candidates, then placing their comments all at the same time. I've done it... Keilana_(recall) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed, and a new proposal

I have closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, as I suggested should be done above. Since I don't know how this process is supposed to work, I may have done it wrong. If my closing comments belong at the bottom of the page and not the top, then anyone is free to move them.

Based on a suggestion at the RFC by TomStar81 and Warlordjohncarter, I have started a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Please comment on that proposal's talk page.

I hope everyone will understand that my decision to close the RFC is not "the last word". My goal was to summarize the suggestions that were made, and to observe that none of these suggestions has garnered consensus. Further discussion is welcome, as always, in the usual forums. With best wishes for a happy new year, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the idea, but isn't the whole '!voting' process supposed to equally be a discussion? So this proposal is really about extending the process, and having the first two days of the discussion not count towards the result? Would we be obligated to allow otherwise snowable closes to stay open for the full first 48 hours? (Maybe 'obligated' isn't the right word here). I think the consensus is that controversial RfAs can be unpleasant, but does that necessarily translate to 'process is broken and needs radical change'? Avruchtalk 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, thinking about it more - while it has the chance to add acrimony to the process (by extending difficult RfAs into the wild blue yonder), it might be worth a couple of test flights. Still, are RfA results wrong often enough (or really ever) that we need to make the process more difficult and constrained? Avruchtalk 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't think it should extend the period an RfA is open. It might be better to have the RfA remain 7 days, 2 days for discussion, and 7 for voting. Any questionable activity would come to light in that time period, and any obvious snow closes could be shut down early, without pile-on opposes. Maybe there should be a discussion section, and once RfAs pass that, they can be moved to the active RfA area. J-ſtan_{User page} 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time there is a real discussion on an RFA, it is in the oppose section. People rarely feel the need to discuss the positive aspects of a candidate. This could lead to the initial discussions being overwhelmingly negative and cause inappropriate SNOW closures or have an undue influence on people commenting. Mr.Z-man 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite helping the candidate, this may actually harm the candidate. It would probably cause the community to look into the candidate's history much further and more thoroughly. I'm not sure whether this period would be a good thing as it has been said that en wikipidia needs more admins. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why should we settle for mediocrity? It is the responsibility of the !voters to look in at the candidate and make the best choice. bibliomaniac15 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We need better admins, not more. This proposal is a good one. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Forcing more questions and longer RFAs won't make better admins, this is fruitless bureacracy and I oppose it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I doubt that 2 days of discussion would come with a different consensus than our current system. Seven days is plenty, and two days does not make a difference. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this up at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When making 'new' proposals, it is often useful to check that it is not, in fact, an old one. Such as, for example, WP:DFA which is functionally identical to this 'idea'. Splash - tk 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Canley

Query: Why does the page say that it's scheduled to end on the 4th? Shouldn't it be the 8th? Did I miss something? J-ſtan_{User page} 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was created on December 28 which would make January 4th 7 days later. But since it wasn't accepted and posted until the 1st, it should be the 8th. Metros (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense. AGK's nom statement is even dated for the first. Would anyone oppose to it being changed? If it was only like 5 or 6 days, it wouldn't be such a problem, but 3 days is a bit short. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been fixed already. Avruchtalk 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We're good, we're good. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When {{RfA}} is substituted it displays the date 7 days from the creation of the page, and so it isn't 7 days from the time of acceptance, which is why the date needs to be fixed up a second time. Nothing to get worked up over, really. Spebi 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you spot a problem like that on an RFA, should do no harm just to fix it. -- Anonymous Dissident 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

leaving shortly after promotion

Just stumbled upon Monotonehell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who seems to have essentially not edited since very shortly after their successful RfA. I didn't find anything as to why, but I wondered whether this is a common phenomenon? I dorfbaer I talk I 17:12, January 2, 2008

A lot of admins unfortunately seem to see adminship as a trophy - once they get the tools they stop as they've achieved their goals (I'm not suggesting that this is the reason in this case, and there's probably a legitimate reason for it) - we see this happen quite often actually. Once someone sees what the tools are like (and realise that they're nothing special), they give up. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are also other factors at play, as well; not long after I was promoted to admin on Commons, I had a lot of real-world stuff come up, which made me look (effectively) like I'd all but abandoned my post. There could have been a change/loss of job, a death in the family, or for that matter, a death of the editor... though I do think Ryan's got an excellent point, I'm just providing morose alternatives. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question seems to have edited last month, so he's probably just busy. J-ſtan_{User page} 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it was a single edit in three months. Ryan's point more or less reflects my own thoughts (which is why I posted here). OTOH, serious RL issues would of course be another plausible explanation as to the abruptness with which the contribs end and why there is nothing like a wikibreak notice (or some message to another user). However, I suppose inactive admins are not doing any harm, it's just curious to see someone leave directly after their RfA. I always wondered whether there actually exists some kind of "beaten the game" attitude with regard to becoming an admin. As a wikisymptom, it would imo be even more disturbing than the perception (held by a minority) that some are in it for power-hunger etc (see also WP:MMORPG). I dorfbaer I talk I 17:47, January 2, 2008

Such as the power hunger displayed in self-noms? :) I couldn't resist, sorry! J-ſtan_{User page} 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was quoting Kurt Weber (although his regular opposing RfAs is IMHO idiotic, the associated general concerns he and others hold are more than justified). The answer to such a situation (people playing "become-an-admin" for whatever reason: "just so" as well as power-hunger), as usual, seems to me to make sysopping as well de-sysopping a lot easier. Straight votes, 50% support for a sysopping/de-sysopping request to succeed. Would reduce possible grudges, because people may change their status far more often. No idiotic lengthy discussions. Three days for an RfA/"RfDA". So easy. But I'm dreaming again. RfA will never be reformed (because it's not flawed/there can be no consensus to change it/all proposed alternatives are much worse/etcpp). I dorfbaer I talk I 18:09, January 2, 2008

Perhaps a little odd, but admins are not required to ever use their tools so I think we should just let it go. No harm. 1 != 2 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the possible implication of people editing (and successfully so, at times) so as to become an admin which worries me. In contrast to Kurt Weber, I don't see this as a reason to run around and oppose every self-nom (because I do not agree with the validity/viability of the self-nom criterion). I'm inclined to view it as a symptom of what is wrong about the current RfA process. I know you and many others disagree that anything needs to change, and it won't, but I thought bringing it up could do no harm as well. I dorfbaer I talk I 18:15, January 2, 2008

You know, I think as a rule, we have to assume good faith with candidates. We don't know if they'll use the tools, but I'd rather them not use the tools than to cause disruption with them. J-ſtan_{User page} 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there are a not insignificant number of school-age admin candidates, for instance, who might consider that being able to say that they are a wikipedia administrator would look good on a future application for higher/further education. Showing responsibility and all that jazz. As to the more specific point about people editing so as to become an admin, well that happens all the time doesn't it? How many admin candidates have you seen advised to keep their heads down and not to disagree with anyone for at least the 3 months preceding a nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because once you become an admin, people seem to disagree with you much more often(er?). J-ſtan_{User page} 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of the requirements for an admin candidate should be that they must have had at least one disagreement with another editor in the preceding 3 months. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find the idea not half bad. Dorfklatsch 19:40, January 3, 2008

I wrote a nice story about a MUD where anyone who was selected King of the Neidar Clan would mysteriously disappear, but the computer crashed :-( Anyways, people look for new goals. I enjoyed dealing with copyright violations, and that made me become an admin. But shortly after, I was interested in dealing with spam, and became temporary administrator in several small wikis to help purge that. Then, I was interested in Commons and getting images for articles lacking them. Now I am back to Misplaced Pages as an editor. That is the good thing about this place: there will always be someone else to cover you up ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He could just be on winter break. Not everyone has internet access at home. Although I think some people think adminship is a bit more intense than it actually is... I'm not saying they see it as a trophy, they just get a bit intimidated by editing as an admin, thinking they'll be held to a higher standard. I remember feeling it way back when, like the admin cabal was going to pounce on me the first time I screwed anything up. Becoming an admin could just cause someone to not feel like editing any more... it doesn't have to mean they saw it just as a trophy. --W.marsh 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alexfusco5

While going around, I found this RFA that was declined. Do I delete it? bibliomaniac15 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you should ask Alexfusco5 what they want done with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked Alexfusco5, he said to delete it, and Keilana deleted it. All done. :) Acalamari 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice use of diffs there Acalamari. Rt. 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Acalamari 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA's of inexperienced users, yet again

I just snow-closed WP:Requests for adminship/mr kc, perhaps slightly out-of-step with this discussion, but it truly had no chance, and some of the opposes struck me as almost mean. The poor guy has been here less than a month, and has less than 250 edits. Do we really need to very strongly oppose someone for offering to help out?

These three points have all been discussed before, but have been archived. Perhaps someone less lazy than me can find links to the archived discussions. But it might bear repeating again:

1. Don't be mean. Extremely new users filing for RFA are only trying to help, and they don't know they don't belong in an RFA precisely because they're new. Oppose if you must, but I can't for the life of me imagine how a Strong oppose or Very strong oppose helps anyone.
2. There's no ticking time bomb; we don't need to transclude someone else's self-nom RFA without talking to them first. Whether they indicated "acceptance" of their own nom or not, they may not have wanted it published yet, and might have been experimenting.
3. EVula/Tango's suggestion a while back (I'll find a link in a sec) that there should be a very clear message, right near the button you push to create a nomination, that you should have 1000 (or 1500, or 2000, or whatever we decide) edits to nominate someone (even yourself) seemed to me to have had consensus, but it died and was archived and nothing happened. I think it should be re-visited. Not buried somewhere in the instructions, or in the handbook thing, but right there next to the button. It will spare quite a few feelings, I think.

--barneca (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as I've stated many times before) - some of the opposes here sound like the user almost felt obliged to comment - it was clear it wasn't going to pass, so efforts should have been made to helping along and give him area's he could work on. There was no need for a "Very strong oppose" here - what's the guy done to deserve that? Nothing, he's just a little keen. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you guys, too; people being nasty at RfA is now becoming out of hand. I see at least 4 users a week treating new users at RfA as if they're something on the bottom of their shoe. However, I have also seen countless discussions like this, but it is never enforced, that is another significant problem... Qst 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a recommendation for 1000 edits is a great idea. I was surprised at how many people in the last discussion thought the number should be lower. I think we should even include basic instructions on how to check your edit count ("Go to the button called my preferences...."). These snow closes do nobody any good. It doesn't even need to be a new rule, just a strong suggestion next to the button. That way, the exceptions to the rule, the people who are already administrators at four other wikipedias and can knapp flint with a blindfold on, don't have jump through any hoops. I also think that some basic way to keep RfAs that are sitting around looking like obvious tests from being transcluded by uninvolved people would be a great idea, but I don't have any ideas free of instruction creep. Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is a rule somewhere, people to whom it obviously shouldn't apply can simply IAR. In fact, that would be a perfect example of IAR. But I agree there's no need for a policy decision somewhere, just an edit to the instructions that sticks. Instruction creep is a legitimate concern, but we shouldn't let fear of instruction creep get in the way of actual improvements. --barneca (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on making a comment about that on the user's RfA. It's completely unnecessary. And by the way, I came up with the idea for having 1000 edits to nominate :) Just kidding! But I do think it's a good idea, and I like Barneca's idea of not letting WP:CREEP get in the way of improving the RfA procedure. Remember, Tango's suggestion was for server count, not just edit count. J-ſtan_{User page} 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RfAs like Mr kc's are good reasons why we need to find a way to prevent clearly inexperienced users (whose actions are almost always done in good-faith) from submitting RfAs, and getting bitten as a result. What was achieved in that RfA other than telling Mr kc how inexperienced he is? (Which was not even an achievement anyway.) I'm glad to see that some encouraging messages have been left on Mr kc's talk page. Even if we don't set an edit count limit or something like that, I do believe that the RfAs of users like Mr kc's should be closed as soon as possible to prevent biting, and after the closing, a friendly talk page posting full of helpful advice should be given to the candidate in question, explaining to them what they should do. That to me seems far more sensible than strongly opposing new/ish users and telling them how inexperienced they are. Nothing good ever comes out of blasting candidates like that. Acalamari 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I just changed Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate to what I'm suggesting (see instruction #1 of set of instructions), so you can see how it looks (I reverted back right away, as there's no consensus yet, I just wanted to see how it would look). If, in spite of this new instruction, a new editor files an RFA, I'd suggest an immediate close, citing "per Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate#Instructions" rather than "per WP:SNOW", followed by gentle helpful advice on their talk page. Any ideas how to emphasize that this is an absolute minimum, and that editors with 1001 edits realistically have no chance of passing an RFA either, in 10 additional words or less? --barneca (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that protecting discouraging well-meaning yet ignorant folks from proceeding is the main goal, so I thought making it a little more prominent was the way to go. Here's my suggestion. The number "1000" can be changed to "4000" or any more realistic number if that seems like a better idea, although if a higher number is picked than text along the lines of "there is no minimum number of edits for adminship, this is just a reasonable suggestion" should perhaps be added. I think this will reduce the snow candidates without creating an edit count rule. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not 4000. 1000 is good, although maybe changing the section about self noms to maybe 2000 would be better, as that's where the majority of snow-closes comes from. By the way, I've opened up a discussion at WT:SNOW suggesting a move. It seems kind of bitey to tell an RfA candidate that their nomination didn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of passing. Please participate if you're interested. J-ſtan_{User page} 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, but change must to should, because this is a recommendation, not a requirement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again a newbie gets bitten when they apply, and once again the suggested solution is to stop them from applying, rather than sanctioning those who are biting. Fantastic. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I think there was a fair amount of sanctioning taking place above. But since you can't force RfA voters to be nice, it's not a terrible idea to politely discourage--but not forbid--new editors from requesting adminship--not even because people are going to be nasty (which they will be), but because the request won't be successful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note to the self-nomination instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate to try to discourage inexperienced editors from requesting adminship. It creates no new rules--it seems to me that any new rule is unlikely to achieve consensus. Darkspots (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins and the right to vanish

• See the discussion of 25 July 2007 (UTC) for older talk on this topic.

User Keilana is an admin, yet doesn't appear to have a successful RfA under that name, although I'm open to being corrected on that. His user page says he has invoked his 'right to vanish' so presumably he passed his RfA under another name. Shouldn't he have to undergo another RfA in that case? I'm not implying he did anything wrong and I don't know, or want to know, the circumstances of what made his earlier incarnation want to vanish but it seems strange that someone can escape their history in this way and stay an admin. If this has been dealt with elsewhere then fair enough but it did catch my eye. How many admins passed their RfA under another name? What's to stop people abusing this system? Once again can I make it crystal clear that I'm NOT accusing Keilana of anything dubious, I'm just using this case as an example. Admins get that position on the basis of their record of edits, if the record goes then how come the admin status stays? Nick mallory (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll undergo another RfA right now if you want. I'll self-nom. Just ask on my talk page, and it'll be done. I'm utterly serious about that. If you don't think that that was a good idea, then by all means, ask for reconfirmation. Keilana_(recall) 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this was in good faith. I think this thread may have became more involved with your case though, considering that Nick was talking about it generally (I think?). Rudget. 15:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:ADMIN:

"If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat privately and producing satisfactory evidence of being the same user, provided you did not originally request desysopping under controversial circumstances. This will not guarantee privacy, however, as new accounts which are granted sysop rights without an RfA tend to attract attention and speculation."

It's shady, but it's explicitly allowed. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, I really dislike the idea of vanishing and then coming back with admin rights. However, since I can actually verify the former identity in this case, I can't complain. -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Keilana is a woman. Secondly, It's quite within the rules of Right to Vanish to request your sysop bit back when moving to a new name. Other admins have done it. I also happen to know who she is and can state that she did not leave her previous nick under a cloud and there were no unusual circumstances involved - Alison 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If "there were no unsual circumstances," I'm sure she wouldn't have abandoned her first account. Perhaps you mean that this admin did not behave controversially, which is one of the prerequisites to getting the mop under an new account w/o an RfA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Keilana has not abandoned any account of hers at all. She has not jumped from one account to another, she has kept the same account the whole time and none of her user rights levels have been altered. Can we drop the Keilana example, please? As for "unusual circumstances", such do not always take place on-wiki. Many circumstances arise in real life that may force one user to change accounts for the sake of their own safety. Dropping one account, getting a new one, and asking for the bit back is completely fine. It's up to the bureaucrats to decide to sysop, remember. Spebi 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing two (slightly?) different things. The WP:ADMIN passage I quoted seems to refer to new accounts. To the OP, if a user simply changes his or her name (which Spebi says is the case here) than you can view their earliest contributions and even see what user name they used to previously sign their talk pages. It should all be in their contributions. Strictly speaking, changing your user name isn't really vanishing, is it?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not something to discuss here. If you have an issue with Keilana's previous identity or how she has stated that she edited under a different name (note name, not account), take it up with her, preferably via e-mail. Spebi 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the general issue "of right to vanish" and sysop rights; I'm not particularly interested in the specific editor the OP named.Also, I feel it's a bit glib to say that getting a new account, complete with sysop privileges is "completely fine."--unless by fine you merely mean allowed. Some legitimate editors don't feel it's "fine," and I sympathize with them, though I also understand the reasons why it's allowed; the inherent shadiness/secrecy of this sort of thing will invariably make some editors uncomfortable, especially those who prefer to know to know whom they're dealing with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people want to get adminship back immediately anyway. If you do that, someone will find out your previous identity, and that someone is going to be a person who doesn't particularly like the idea of admins vanishing and then coming back with adminship intact. Why would you trust such a person to not reveal what they found? -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that experienced editors (rather than newbies) will be more nervous when they hear about admin changes of identity, and experienced editors should probably realize that such changes are hard to conceal. Different people have different ideas of 'vanishing', and sometimes even a thin disguise will be felt beneficial by an editor who wants to keep their name out of sight. One person wanted to keep his name out of Google searches and his recent change (though paper-thin) probably had that effect. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - admins who have vanished are perfectly able to be re-granted their rights. So it has always been. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this has found its way into policy, I have very, very little trust in any of these anono-admins, especially the ones who try to make it impossible to find out what identity they went through RFA as. Your reputation is important, if you want a new one... I really think you need to just make a new account and start from scratch, rather than get the perks but none of the baggage you accumulated. --W.marsh 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Almost every day I encounter a "new" admin, who is actually an old admin reinvented. One of them even prevented me adding a redirect from their old id to the new (with the old userpage being red but protected thanks to some Mediawiki trick). They wipe their history clean but keep the sysop bit; they have admin rights but no identity. It seems shady to me and runs counter to the system of trust on which adminship is based. Of course there are special cases (admin was harassed for example, or revealed too much real life personal info) but when it's a vanity name change, the user should redirect their old pages to the new and have clear disclosure on their new user page, or surrender the sysop bit, imho. Probably the latter: an RfA is no big deal for a good admin . --kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how it's run. As I've stated before, if anyone comes to me and wants me to step down, I have looser criteria than most. And some are not vanity name changes, they have legit reasons to go. Keilana_(recall) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Every time this happens people complain, but nobody attempts to change the policy that allows it. Please respect this person privacy, if you wish to change policy do it at the policy page, not by drawing attention to a specific person. 1 != 2 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just talking about the amount of confidence I have in the actions of anono-admins, which is nearly none. That's just how it is... policy can't legislate me into feeling confident about the actions of someone who has no reputation, who I've never heard of. If you don't like that... you can always go through RFA again on whatever identity you think you can stick with for a while, then you will probably gain the confidence of people like me. --W.marsh 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)