Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geogre (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 27 July 2007 (→What is the problem here?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Feel free to join the discussion on the future of Requests for adminship process at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Everyone's comments are welcome!

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.

• ]

Do you actually need article writing?

For the umpteenth time, an article writing thread:
Okay. I feel like starting another article writing thread. How is article writing related to adminship? In my mind, there is no relationship, except for a few things that only a few people work on.

• Does one need to know how to write an article in order to block a vandal at AIV?
  • No. One needs some common sense, the ability to see that someone is replacing pages with "I like cheese!", and a mouse to click the block button.
• Does one need to know how to write an article in order to determine if a username is inappropriate at UAA?
  • No. Once again, all they need is some common sense and the block button.
• Does one need to know how to write an article in order to close an xFD?
  • No. Though you could say yes, since it's about articles and you should be writing them in order to be deciding whether to keep them or not, it's not needed, because it's not the admin's decision. It's the peoples. All the admin does is determine consensus and decide whether there is consensus to delete or keep the page, and hit the delete button.
• Does one need to know how to write an article in order to handle requests for page protection?
  • No. All they have to do is look at the history, see there's a lot of vandalism or an edit war, and hit the protect button.
• Does one need to know how to write an article in order to do basic admin tasks
  • No. All they need is for the community to trust that they will not delete the main page or block Jimbo.

• If someone who doesn't do a lot of article writing runs for RFA, and in there answer to Q1, they mention nothing that would require article writing experience, should they be promoted?
  • Yes.

All you need to be an admin is competency in the areas in which you intend to use the tools, and common sense not to use the tools in situations and places where you lack experience. Not everyones niche may be article writing. Maybe they just like Misplaced Pages. If someone is good at reporting and reverting vandals, there's no reason why they shouldn't be blocking them. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on some of your points, in particular I think article writing experience is very helpful to determine whether to act on a request for page protection. You have to ask yourself: "Will protecting the article at this point make it easier or harder for the editors involved to work out a compromise?" It's hard to answer questions like that unless you've got some experience writing articles and working out compromises on them. Haukur 20:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the talk page is the best place to work out problems. Secondly, the question you asked, is once again, common sense. To determine if it will make it harder or easier you don't need to be able to write. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Contributing significantly to article writing puts you into a whole sub-community who work on this Misplaced Pages subject point. You take an active part in discussions to help bring the page forward and improve it. You build up interaction skills. You put using references and such-like into practice and that builds up a wealth of knowledge when newer users come to you as an admin asking for assistance. Although I am not yet an admin, I get asked by new users on varying topics, usually article-writing-based because that's what a lot of new users start with when they first start out on Misplaced Pages, and due to my active article participation, I am able to assist them. I would say that extensive article contribution would be most valuable on an RfA. Lradrama 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The job of an admin is not to help a new user though. Anyone can help a new user, as you do yourself. I'm talking about if you need article writing for the things I mentioned above. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent)Yes, it is the job of an admin to help new users. It is the job of all people involved in Misplaced Pages. You can choose to take part in that facet or not, but it is a requirement.

The rest of what you stated above is way too simplistic, and in some cases flat wrong. IMHO, anyone without experience in writing for the project is out of touch with the goals of the project and why the rules of the project need to be enforced. It's not just seen in admin candidates either, but in people who've been admins and stopped participating in writing. The rules exist to serve the project. You are saying that "cop admins" can exist to serve the rules.

Does an admin need to know article writing in order to block a vandal at AIV?

YES! AIV gets reports of spammers. AIV gets reports of sockpuppets. AIV gets reports by people putting reports at AIV in the hopes that some otherwise admin not paying attention will block their antagonist editors. Not all people reported as spammers are spamming. You need to know the EL policies in order to decide. It may require a nuanced judgment, in which case the only place to acquire the wisdom to make that judgment is through article writing and experience. An experienced admin can also make a quick end to a sockpuppet claim, and should also be able to see past the behaviors of warring editors. You don't get that experience by being a cop, you get it by interacting with the editors.

SchmuckyTheCat

SchmuckyTheCat, about half those things can be resolved – as R previously stated – using common sense. I'm not – and I think R is not – saying that WP:COMMONSENSE overrules all policies, but rather most admin-related duties can be solved by using common sense. —« ANIMUM » 02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Potentially controversial actions require more than common sense, however. And shying away from controversy is not something I want to see in an admin candidate. —Kurykh 02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Sometimes more than common sense is needed. -- Anonymous Dissident 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In which case, one could use his or her good judgment, logic, and experience to figure it out. I'm sure those are requirements for every admin candidate. —« ANIMUM » 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, you don't really need mainspace experience as an admin. But you do need to show competence in understanding and applying policy. And in some cases, this is really hard to adequately show without at least some mainspace editing. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And before someone quotes this out of context at me, my "article writing is irrelevant" quote was in response to people complaining that I don't edit articles enough. The proportion of mainspace to other edits is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I'd go through most of the items listed by R/TeckWiz above, and answer "yes" rather than "no" as to whether article-writing experience is needed. For example:

• Handling AIV complaints: What is vandalism? What is a content dispute? Where is the line? A lot of things get reported to AIV which are not vandalism, and without some experience in article-writing I think one would be at a disadvantage in terms of sorting some of them out.
• Usernames... OK, I guess article-writing has nothing to do with that, really.
• Closing XfD: Absolutely article-writing experience is needed. In a close or controversial AfD, it's important to have a sense for how the notability criteria are applied in practice, how much an article can be improved, whether the problems are fixable (e.g. NPOV) or unfixable (notability), and how much weight to accord specific arguments when judging consensus (after all, it's not a vote). Again, I think anyone closing AfD is at a major disadvantage if they lack article-writing and AfD participation experience.
• RFPP: Again, absolutely some experience in editing controversial or edit-war-prone topics would be useful here.

But just my 2 cents. MastCell 02:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For all of these article-writing posts, I am beginning to think the general feel that article writing is something which does not matter too much to potential admin candidates, and that they are trying to get the message across that it is not needed to the !voters. This is probably also happening in the reverse. i think this really needs discussion, proper attention by the community, because, quite frankly, I',m sure I'm not the only one who is tired of these posts. -- Anonymous Dissident 02:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I definately have to agree with AnonymousDissident here. All these debates about whether a candidate needs article-writing experience or not is accomplishing very little. Captain panda 02:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• How is article writing being defined? Writing content-rich prose based on extensive research? Wikification? Removing unsourced statements? Users should "traffic in" mainspace one way or another, but creating over-specific metrics for the sake of creating metrics seems selfish and does not benefit the project. Gracenotes § 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Article writing has the virtue of being the best way to demonstrate a commitment to and interest in the project, not just the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this will turn out like all our other arguments where nothing gets done and everyone is split down the middle, I'm going to sit on the fence here because both sides have good points. How ever I find in most cases if a realy good candidate is at rfa and the only bad thing about them is little article work I normally will support but if its a really bad candidate and the only good think about them is article work I would normaly oppose. In general I think a heathly combination of article work and maintenance and or vandal fighting is a good thing. --Chris

To answer the question, you need to look at several prospects. Say a person who has no edits to article expansion or writing is on adminship. (Unlikely situation, but try to imagine it) Despite that fact, he created the policies and guidelines concerning verifiability, notability, NPOV, and has never made a disruptive or incivil edit. Would you support or oppose? --Dark Falls 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not oppose nominees for lack of article writing, it clearly draws my attention and causes me to look even more critically at their overall contributions. My reason is purely subjective (i.e., I have no proof of my hypothesis) but based on experience I prefer an article-writing editor for certain functions, particularly CSD. If someone tags an article such as "Company X makes billiard balls", an admin who focuses on vandal fighting is likely to zap the article on sight. An article-writing editor may see that same sentence and take another few seconds on Google to discover that the company is the third largest maker of billiard balls in the world and has been in business since 1895. He or she will add a source or two, a couple of links and a category and we'll have a stub that future writers can build on. For me it's not a matter of whether a nominee for admin has the talents or inclination to bring an article to FA, because that talent really does not have a direct relationship to using the tools. Having the curiosity and willingness to save an article (and perhaps draw in the original author rather than alienate him by deleting his article) is the difference between a so-so admin and a good one. If someone has been here long enough to accumulate several thousand edits and has never stumbled upon topics where they feel the urge to improve the article (more than fixing typos and adding tags), I question whether they can really use the tools wisely in areas like CSD. In those cases, I may support someone with a statement that they "will not abuse the tools" but I would not give them my higher compliment that "they will use the tools wisely". Given a choice, I would always prefer a candidate who I believe will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<applause>! Some excellent points there. I agree totally with the sentiment about how an article-writing admin is more likely to take the time to stop and consider a candidate for speedy deletion, rather than just hitting "delete". Carcharoth 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with DS1953 on that one. —« ANIMUM » 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My philosophy on whether to support or not is based on the caption to the image on Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. It says "In deciding whether to give Wikipe-tan a mop, our question should be whether she can clean stuff up, not whether she is a published novelist". This is a good viewpoint, because it shows that you should have some writing experience, but not over the top. A candidate should be judged mostly on their "cleaning" ability, or how they can utilize the inner workings to better the encyclopedia. Think of a school janitor: whether the janitor can teach or not is not a quality on which you can judge their janitorial abilities, but they do have to have some level of intelligence. You have to know how well they are able to cleanup without having the title of janitor. J-stan 01:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Caldorwards4's RfA

I noticed that several users tried to close this RfA as unsuccessful, but they were reverted for some reason. I don't understand what's not obvious about this RfA: more users opposed than supported, and they all had legitimate concerns. There was no problem with a non-bureaucrat closing that RfA. Andre (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have in the past asked non-crats not to close RfAs unless they are (1) snowball fails or (2) the candidate has withdrawn. There is a logic for non-crats closing unambiguous fails as well - Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, there is no discretion to be exercised etc. However similar arguments come up to those about non-admins declining unblock requests - in those case, however unlikely the request is to be granted, the user is seeking review from an admin. Where a candidate does not withdraw their RfA although a consensus is clearly not present, they are really asking for a bureaucrat to make that determination (however certain that it will be unfavourable). So although there doesn't seem much harm in non-crats closing obviously fails (the only problem is if by increment non-crats start closing RfAs that are less clear-cut), it does seem to me a courtesy to the candidate to leave it for a bureaucrat to close. There is no rush to close these; a failed RfA (unlike a successful one) entails no change of status and there is no cost that I can see to the community of these being closed later. WjBscribe 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering I was the first one to close the RfA, I can honestly say that I don't see a problem with closing RfAs that are so far out of discretionary range (the RfA report listed the numerical support at 42%). I understand the argument of "it doesn't hurt anything to leave it open", but the equally valid counter is "it doesn't hurt anything to close it" when it such an obvious result (that's not bold because I'm trying to prove a point, but because I draw a clear distinction between <50% RfAs and >50% RfAs; the former I see no problem with non-crats, or at least admins, closing, the later I'm uncomfortable about, and have noted as such on my talk page). I understand that the bureaucrat's position in the community is to determine community consensus and have been entrusted with the tools to execute that consensus, but that doesn't make them a group of magical editors that are the only ones that can do regular editing; the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit traditionally applies to project-level stuff as well, and as long as common sense is used (which I think it was, though very rarely do I not think I use common sense...), there's no problem.
However, in hindsight, I certainly do wish I hadn't done anything; for such a trivial matter, this has gotten blown way out of proportion. *sigh* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with your final sentiment, EVula, tho about me reverting you! Anyway, I think WJBscribe made a good point above about creeping non-cat discretion. I've seen a lot of unclear AFDs closed improperly by non-sysops.--Chaser - T 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples (three or four of your "a lot" would be useful) of where a non-sysops, (which, I assume also means a non-'crat) has improperly closed an unclear AFD? Thanks Bielle 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some examples as well. I think generally non-bureaucrats close RfAs when it's appropriate, as EVula did in this case. Andre (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I've closed snowball fails in the past and always provided feedback to the candidate as to why I performed such an action and what they can do to improve their performance on a subsequent attempt. (aeropagitica) 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You all did notice I said AFDs, not RFAs, right? I meant AFDs, because the window of proper non-crat closures at RFA, if we create it, could well be improperly extended in the same way it's sometimes been by non-sysops at AFD. Tell me if you still want those examples and I'll dig them up.--Chaser - T 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with EVula closing this RfA. Below 50% isn't even considered "no consensus," it is "failed," the RfA ran its full course, there was no discretion involved and there were no buttons to be pushed. So those circumstances it was OK by me; moreso even than "snowball." However, some admins had in the past gotten too frisky in judging "live" RfA as not being capable of passing. This ended pretty much after someone was WP:BOLD and decided that a candidate had failed and left Misplaced Pages halfway through the RfA. Since no one could offer a direct statement by the candidate that he had left the project and/or withdrew, the nomination, I restored it, and some criticized me for it--as most of you know, the candidacy went on to win comfortably. If there is any chance (not just "almost no chance") an RfA might be revived, leave it to a bureaucrat. -- Cecropia 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think one good result of all this would be some clarification. Redux's earlier post on this issue was not the same msg as this comment (he saw withdrawal, clear, disruption, and a clear failure to understand what a sysop does as reasons for non-crats to de-list). I'm fine with what Andre and Cecropia suggest, but I would appreciate it if the various 'crats were all on the same page on this.--Chaser - T 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any great conflict between me and Redux on this point. You will note two things about the nomination that Redux cited: it was more than 50%; if it were above, it is a consensus issue, and should be looked at by a bureaucrat, just for the stability of the process; and it was for the position of bureaucrat. Under 50% is failed, plain and simple; and I believe that since bureaucrat is considered more sensitive by the community, a current bureaucrat should close just to emphasize that the RfB was properly reviewed and closed definitively. And I'll repeat what I said above: If there is any chance (not just "almost no chance") an RfA might be revived, leave it to a bureaucrat. to which I'll append, if you have to ask yourself whether or not it is proper to remove an RfA yourself, it isn't and, if there is the slightest thought that a reasonable editor might challenge your action, don't do it. I see no problem in admins doing housekeeping at RfA if they choose to, just as clerks on WP:CHU vet renames for the 'crats, but the keyword is housekeeping. If it can be called a decision, leave it be. A little more work for the 'crats is preferable to a Wikibroil. -- Cecropia 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Cecropia. I have no problem with EVula closing that particular RfA, given the fact that a bureaucrat would have been garotted by the community for promoting from that RfA. --Deskana (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Disrpuptive editing by Kmweber

As you will all knowm, Kmweber has been making extreme violations of WP:POINT, just looking at his contributions you can see he has made several !votes in RfA's within the space of minutes, one time he !voted in two within the space of one minute, solely because of his little phrase: I see self noms as being power hungry. What is proposed we do and would it be acceptable to strike out all of his comments as he is clearly not even taking the time to review the user. Rlest 09:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be reported to ANI instead of here, IMHO. Miranda 09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it here and move it there too. Rlest 09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me what's wrong with his oppose reason? Other than you disagree with him. Please also remember that RfA is not a vote (adding an exclamation mark does not change the word's meaning). Should your comments be struck? Matthew 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but look at his contribs, between 00:55 and 01:10 he commented on 11 RfA's, thats approximately one every fifty seconds, he couldn't possibly have reviewed the user and made a decision in that time, he clearly just copied and pasted his own little personal and frankly stupid reason to oppose, if he continues Jaranda commented on his talk page she would block him, although not a requirement it is generally considered good faith and polite to actually explain your reason for oppose/neutral but if you support and you have no comments to make you dont have to make any, why you're opposing should be made clear if you are polite, serious WP:POINT violations by him and his silly little reasons :) Rlest 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he doesn't read the comments and questions etc (note: I don't read the questions when supporting or opposing a candidate, either. Rarely do I read candidate statements.) The user has given a perfectly valid reason to oppose, you just happen to disagree with it, that doesn't make his reason wrong, though. If anybody is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point it's you, not Kirk. Matthew 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How exactly, by commenting here and at ANI — ::I dont think so. I seem to remember at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Qst you left a weird poem which was striked out pending an explanation, disruption - I dont think so mate. Rlest 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you think I opposed your RfA with a poem (actually part of a song...) It was actually me trying to be civil, without being uncivil, because I couldn't describe my strong feelings nicely. Anyway, isn't this subject about Kirk? Not your RfA, so why are you shifting the subject? Matthew 09:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appeared uncivil here and I think we'll have to agree to disagree, what makes you think its me? Rlest 09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a habit of dropping the apostrophe in don't. Matthew 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure sign this post has become very feeble: while I agree with Rlest, we have spiraled into arguing about apostrophes. However, I think that something should be done about Kurt he cant can't keep doing this. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're completely right Anonymous Dissident :). Rlest 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(arb-unindent) Ladies and gents. If you've made it to WT:RFA you are already a seasoned editor. If your are a seasoned editor you know all about not feeding the trolls. Kurt can slap his opinion on every single self nom. I doubt the closing crats take any notice of it these days (but would welcome a 'crat to comment). If his opinion is that self-noms are a bad thing just leave it to him, he is entitled to that opinion. I've seen too many editors arguing the point back in the middle of someone's RFA. Frankly I've even made light of it, as has the undertow in his self-nomination! We've bigger problems here than this. Ignore it and hopefully the problem will go away. If it doesn't, no harm either. Best. Pedro |  Chat  11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedro is right; sure its annoying but its the poor people or RfA who didn't want any opposes and dont deserve opposes who I feel sorry for. All the best — Rlest 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If people truly think he's a troll, he should be blocked until he agrees to stop. Why would we allow someone to be disruptive? The idea that some people just get to go on merrily trolling is disturbing. Not that I'm not sure it constitutes trolling exactly, but some people apparently are. --W.marsh 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone agree that it would be acceptable to remove all comments about self noms made by Kurt from RfA's as he left that same comment at four users RfA's within the space of 1 minute, he wouldn't even have had time to type that messages out let alone actually reivew the user — he copied and pasted it clearly. So would it be considered acceptable among you guy's to remove all his comments from RfA's which are unjustified as the poor people on RfA who dont deserve oppose votes are having to put up with this because of one users ignorance. — Rlest 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Although I strongly disagree with Weber's stance on these issues, he is nonetheless expressing a legitimate point of view in the correct forum, which does not constitute disruption by any reasonable definition, and is not a WP:POINT violation. The only way it would be disruptive is if his comment were to tip the balance between a pass and a fail - and in such circumstances, where the case fell within the bureaucrats' discretionary range, I doubt his view would be given much weight. So I strongly object to the idea of removing or striking his comment. He has a !right (OK, a conditional privilege, but a "right" that is enjoyed by all Wikipedians in good standing) to express his opinion on an RfA. Walton 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In the correct forum? The correct forum would be here, the talk page. Wizardman 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) How many times do we need to discuss this? Are we going to keep on it until someone gets the decision that they are looking for or can we just move on to more important matters? Please see Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 7#Kurt Weber for at least one prior discussion. In particular, I ask you to read my post on that thread about the meaninglessness of this topic. --After Midnight 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Those sort of oppose votes might be annoying, but getting annoyed about them says as much about the people getting annoyed as it does about Mr Weber. Some relevant points. Firstly, don't feel sorry for the people getting a single oppose vote 'spoiling' their RfA - if the nominee or you feel that RfA is about "passing with 100%", then you and the nominee need to stop and think hard about what that says about your attitude to RfA. Secondly, the speed of his !votes means nothing. He could have taken several hours to read the nominations and go through contributions, and then added his oppose !vote. The correct course of action is to discuss this with him on his user page and try and find out why he is doing this. Carcharoth 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA is currently at 48/2 and one of those opposes is Kurt. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - obviously I don't agree with him, but if that's his opinion then he's entitled to it. What happens if/when Kurt's vote tips an RfA into the "grey area" percentage-wise, is another question though, I think. I'm guessing in that case the closing 'crat would use his/her common sense.ELIMINATORJR 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find his reasoning plausible and probably in good faith, although I don't find enough "power" in being an Admin that being "power-hungry" would be a reason for self-nomination. (I haven't looked at his history, but this particular set of !votes shows only a lack of knowledge, rather than bad faith.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess something that bothers me in his voting is that he does not vote in the nommed RfAs, and as a result I have yet to see a support vote from him. I think if he was a regular here and just had that one bother, it would be a far less deal than it is. Wizardman 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is this one ... Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2 .... ELIMINATORJR 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What if he nominated someone for adminship? Would that help? Would he oppose himself if he nominated himself? :-) Carcharoth 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we'll always have this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kmweber... Hiberniantears 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This maybe some may of taking revenge on us </sarcasm>, I suppose I made too much of a big deal out of it, never midn if he wants to continue then thats fine but its not giving him a good name. — Rlest 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has changed somewhat after noting that he had a previous self-nom RfA; his views begin to look less like strongly-held principle (which I respect) and more like sour grapes. And some of the stuff brought up in that RfA was worrying, albeit a long time ago; adding controversial unsourced and dubious info to articles, using "spelling corrections" as the edit summary in order to mask his actions? Doesn't leave me thinking highly of his character, even if it was 2+ years ago. Walton 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I stumbled across this just now. Kwsn 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's good (sadly it's an essay, not consensus). Walton's change of opinion is interesting, and I agree - sour grapes is the exact phrase. So, per my previous post on this thread, let's just ignore it. Reference this thread by all means when he comments again, but let's not argue it back and forth in someones RFA. If / When RFA becomes a straight vote then maybe it might be worthwhile to discount votes based on self noms, but until then Kurt can pop his comment in as he feels, and it won't have the slightest difference on the outcome. Pedro |  Chat  20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say it's just "sour grapes" when my RfA was over two years ago, and I didn't start doing what I'm doing now on RfAs until just last month. People's views change. Kurt Weber 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:CurtVeber; uh... WP:POINT account? Wizardman 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just wonder what Kurt Weber hopes to accomplish, and whether his chosen tactics actually advance his goal. If his goal is to convince others of the dangers of self-noms, then not only is he failing to win hearts and minds, but he's having the opposite effect and pissing people off. If his goal is to influence individual RfA's, then it should be noted that his votes are highly likely to be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. If the goal is just to say, "Hey, look at me," well, then, mission accomplished. MastCell 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Running around naked would be a much more effective way to achieve that mission. And he wouldn't have to receive continuous threads here because of it. Yo, Kurt, what's your actual aim? Giggy _UP 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, running around naked is generally useless in terms of garnering attention on Misplaced Pages. Take my word for it. MastCell 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, not literally naked...but the online equivalent. Take my word for it. - Er...*shudder* Giggy _UP 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Kmweber may not realize that with respect to many roles in Misplaced Pages, most if not all selection begins with self-nomination. For example, bureaucrat nominations are generally self-noms (that's not as universal as it used to be, but a couple of weeks ago when someone other than the candidate did a bureaucrat nomination, an experienced contributor actually asked if this was a change of policy). The Arbitration Committee elections are self-noms exclusively (last year, when someone tried to "draft" me to run, people opined that this was out-of-process and no mechanism exists for anything other than self-noms). At the Meta level, the elections for Stewards and for Board members all are self-noms at all. In this context, a self-nomination for adminship really is nothing out of the ordinary by Wiki standards. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, when RfA was created, all admins were self-selected (thus "requests" for adminship). Soon enough another section called "nominations for adminship" was created, but these nominations actually came after so-called self-nominations. Check the page history of RfA if you don't believe me. I don't know exactly when regular nominations overtook self-noms as the predominant form of admin selection (this was already the case when I arrived at RfA in 2004). Andre (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• To Kurt. I don't understand how you can say it's just "sour grapes" when my RfA was over two years ago, and I didn't start doing what I'm doing now on RfAs until just last month. People's views change. I have no problems with you changing your view. That's a good thing. The problem I have is with the comment "doing what I'm doing now". How are you expecting your stock line of oppose will further the work of the encyclopedia and its editors ? Pedro |  Chat  22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this? Let Kurt Weber oppose for whatever reason he wants, however absurd they may be. It's not like actions don't have consequences other than perennial threads on WT:RFA. —Kurykh 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would seem that the community as a whole has emphatically rejected his rationale, by regularly promoting qualified self-noms and by repeatedly supporting the ability to self-nominate when the question comes up here. So one would presume that the bureaucrats are giving as little consideration to his remarks as they would to others that flatly contradict community norms. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm more annoyed with the misuse of the term "prima facie" than anything else.

No, I'm using the phrase quite properly. Kurt Weber 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, a prima facie case ceases to hold in the face of contrary evidence. Since you refuse to consider any contrary evidence, you don't seem to understand what a prima facie case is. -Chunky Rice 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurt's comments are not disruptive, and do not violate any policies. They are, however, not very useful for determining consensus, and as a bureaucrat I would probably just ignore them if it was really an issue (just as bureaucrats used to do with Boothy443, who would go around opposing tons of RfAs for no reason at all and leaving no comment). Andre (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, in principle I completely agree - there's nothing disruptive about expressing a reasoned opinion at RfA, even if it's miles outside community norms. And I respect and understand his reasoning, even though I disagree with it. I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologise for accusing Mr. Weber of "sour grapes", since he's correct that views can change over time, and there's no evidence that he holds a grudge over something which happened two years ago. Walton 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we have a similar situation several months ago when a certain editor decided to start opposing RFAs pending evidence of involvement in a Wikiproject? If Kmweber (talk · contribs) wants to oppose for that, it's his prerogative; I somehow doubt that as a lone oppose reason is going to be given much weigh by the Bureaucrats.--Isotope23 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes we did. It wasn't just involvement, it was endorsement. What was unusual is that the Projects as a collective would not endorse individuals, so the standard was pretty much unattainable. the_undertow 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Right... it was endorsement, spawning the ever popular Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Endorsements.--Isotope23 04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that. Those comments are priceless. the_undertow 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Inquest

Hello,

I recently submitted an unsuccessful request for administrative privileges, and I would like some clarification on why the request was shot down. It appears that using the tools for improving/maintaining main space content (e.g. deleting copyright violations, moving pages over redirects, and working on XfD backlogs) was insufficient for submitting such a request.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated. --Aarktica 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not the first person who has failed an RFA because of an insufficient answer to question 1. The truth is that as an RFA voter, I don't care if an admin candidate will ever use the tools. I care that he knows how to use them. If you say that you need admin tools to wikify articles, that may simply be a misunderstanding of the question, or it may imply that you think admin tools are necessary to wikify articles. I'm not an admin, and I have wikified many articles, and nominated many others for deletion.

Another item of concern, which did not arise in the RFA, was that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of the speedy deletion criteria as of June 22, one month ago. I found these two edits in your contribution log. Admittedly, I have not seen all the valid speedy tags you have placed on bad articles, so this is a skewed sample, and does not indicate a general problem. However, in these two cases I would probably not have used the speedy tag. For the bio article, there was some assertion of notability (he authored two books) and an interwiki link to a Nederlands article at the time you tagged it. For the disambig article about geography, "listcruft" is a subjective term, but the CSDs are meant to be objective. In both cases WP:PROD or WP:AFD would have been better options. Since admins are allowed to delete articles "on sight", it is preferable for them to act conservatively in using this power. As the deletion policy states, "When in doubt, don't delete." Shalom 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, linking articles does not require administrative access. What I meant was that most instances of copyright violation I have run into were also in CAT:WIKIFY. Many of those I nominated for deletion were also found there.

As for the WP:CSD errors, I plead guilty and will be more cautious going forward. --Aarktica 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm probably not the first person who has written this, but if you maintain a good record of editing, you should have no trouble passing RFA in another three months or so. Shalom 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows spoilers in title bar

The title bar of the main RfA page appears to have been hacked to include spoilers to Deathly Hallows. Espresso Addict 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it, and there's nothing in the history. Perhaps a transcluded page? Flyguy649 _contribs 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it too. It says on my RFA page too --AW 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange, because I don't see anything... — Moe ε 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A-ha! Stealth vandalism. See . Flyguy649 _contribs 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)There is a template in a user's signature. I'll try to weed it out. the_undertow 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! Tjstrf took care of it. Nice work! the_undertow 20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've now indefinitely blocked the editor. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers all! Espresso Addict 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say that was a fun distraction and a very interesting form of vandalism. the_undertow 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fun eh? Not for those who came late to the party and wonder what on earth y'all are talking about, and cannot find out because the evidence has now been apparently obliterated. At least someone could'a copied to WP:BJAODN *sigh*  :/ dr.ef.tymac 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That would have been a WP:BEANS violation. —Kurykh 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a "WP:BEANS violation". It's a rationale for explaining a course of action, not a prohibition or a requirement in itself. That's why it says "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline" ... Besides, there's already enough evidence in this discussion thread to constitute a "beans violation" as it is, if you wanna look at it that way. Are you gonna obliterate all evidence of this thread, including the "A-ha stealth vandalism!" bit? dr.ef.tymac 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you take sarcasm a bit too seriously. —Kurykh 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah. I've just seen so many strange statements regarding WP "violations" that it's difficult to distinguish instances of "wit" from instances of "wtf" from contributors I haven't edited with before ... sorry if I misinterpreted the humor, irony, sarcasm or intent of your remark <- not sarcasm. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm late, aren't I? Suppose I'll have to go buy the book/force a friend to spoil it for me. Damn :( Giggy _UP 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just rent The Crying Game. Same ending, only different. the_undertow 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could RTFW. ;) --tjstrf talk 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Woot. Ending ruined. /me goes to edit 100000000 articles in rage. Giggy _UP 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I never would have guessed that Ron was actually Voldemort all this time. The ending came as quite a... crap, forgot to toss {{spoiler}} up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank God I read the book already. :) —Kurykh 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when was Ron Voldemort??? You trying to pull our legs EVula? Luck I've already read it. :p -- Anonymous Dissident 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, EVual is Voldemort ;) Giggy _UP 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I can see that. It's believable, considering the large variety of insults EVula a.k.a Voldemort has received. :p -- Anonymous Dissident 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which would have been an incredibly funny comment, but you misspelled EVula. Ahh well, it's still funny! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Moral Support

What is moral support? I've seen this on a few RfAs, and I don't know what it means. J-stan 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The admin candidate has no hope of passing, but the person is giving a support. Flyguy649 _contribs 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is synonymous with encouragement. -- Anonymous Dissident 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of a new Wikipedian requesting adminship, this is a nice way not to say oppose. Greeves 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) sums it up nicely with his comment here. Giggy _UP 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Moral support, which isn't the most complete article, but it hopefully explains a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If ever you are looking for a definition of a term used on this website, it is best to first look it up - it is an encyclopedia after all, perfectly demonstrated by Luna Santin there. Lradrama 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I can just imagine wiktionary having something like: Moral Support - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TheFearow. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I took it to mean that J-stan wanted to know what a 'moral support' vote means as far as RfAs are concerned. The first time I saw it, I was curious about the connotation myself. the_undertow 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit confusing. They're a bit weird, because they are basically a positive neutral (if that makes any sense). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you everyone! J-stan 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TheFearow: I don't see any moral support at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TheFearow? Giggy _UP 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me moral support started appearing when there was an epidemic about a year ago of RFAs that would get ridiculous 0/30/0 totals, people just had to keep piling on to an obviously failed RFA, and some people saw that as rude. Those kind of RFAs have thankfully become less common, but you still see moral support generally in situations where people are worried the harshness of the RFA will scare away a good editor. --W.marsh 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ideas are infective

When someone gives faulty reasoning to oppose an RfA, I have seen some users saying "I too agree that it is faulty reasoning but why pester the opponent, (especially if it is the only oppose and say, 100 supports). That oppose is not going to hurt anyone." But please note that ideas are infective, more so with bad ideas. If an oppose with faulty reasoning goes unchallenged, who knows how many users new to RfA think it is perfectly acceptable to oppose for silly reasons? To illustrate this, not taking any names, I saw one user's (rather premature) RfA being opposed with a comment "Wicked strong oppose" and later that user went and used that exact wording at some other discussion. (Point here is not that wicked strong oppose was bad wording, but that new users tend to follow what more established users do.) Like User:Carcharoth says above, it is not necessary that a silly oppose should be removed to get the appearance of a 100% support; But we shouldn't just ignore such comments either. - TwoOars 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to your larger point: "wicked" as used above, is simply the Boston, Massachusetts vernacular English for "extremely". Just thought I should put that out there as a proud Bostonian. :-) Hiberniantears 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also should point out that I (editing then as Black Harry) didn't mean to do harm by using "wicked" (as Hibernian mentions, it means very around here). I also should point that I have also given candidates a "Wicked-Strong Support" (though I eventually stopped the practice altogether). New England 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I do not know the various connotations of "wicked"; I know it only in the context of "Snow White had a wicked step-mother". :) I just thought it was bad wording at that point of time. But like I said, I just used that example to illustrate how new users may take up ideas from more established users. - TwoOars 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know where you are coming from TwoOars. What concerns me more than anything is that an incorrect Oppose, or for that matter support tends to generate follow on comments. My concern is that a few (not present company of course!) commentators at RFA seem to spend very little if any time actually reviewing all the information provided (e.g. count, contribution history, nom. statement and answers to questions). Instead I have seen people jump on a reason without forming their own opinion. In one RFA I noted that the orginal opposer changed their mind (and !vote) but there were other comments following, based on the original oppose, that were never changed. If a reason is clearly faulty it should be "callenged" in a courteous fashion. Possibly a nominated candidate would have their nominator(s) refute, but I see no reason why the candidate cannot either - indeed the way the candidate handles it sometimes shows positive (or negatives) that may not have come out previously. Pedro |  Chat  15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Boston Rules! Sorry. When I see bad reasoning such as "not enough admin experience", I just politely ask what they mean. Perhaps instead of calling people out on bad opposes, we should just ask what they mean. As you said, new users follow what experienced users do, so in doing so, we could teach them good faith. J-stan 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Asking for clarification on an unclear reason is fine. Vehemently arguing with an oppose that won't change the outcome is pointless. -Amarkov moo! 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Amarkov is right, but I'll add that it is 8important to remember that everyone is allowed their own reason for opposing an RFA - some people wont reconsider and thats fine. -- Anonymous Dissident 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that vehemently arguing is counterproductive. But my point is, one should question silly / ridiculous opposes not just to try to make the opponent rethink and reconsider. Even if someone has been making the same silly oppose on every rfa for a while, we shouldn't just leave the oppose comment alone, saying "lets leave it. we can't convince him/her anyway." There should be at least one well reasoned rebuttal to such an oppose, so that anyone looks at the RfA realizes that it is not the "norm" to get away with silly opposes unremarked. - TwoOars 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When thought out, we should never encounter this problem should everyone consider point three of About Rfa. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I argue against editcountitis opposes (or even editcountitis supports). When people see many others voting based on editcountitis, it gives the impression that it's a good idea, or that it's only expected for voters to look at the edit count instead of the contributions. Other bad reasons have shown up as fads as well: balance across namespaces, rate of editing, whether they have ever taken a Wikibreak... It's important to question stupid reasons, even if they don't change the outcome. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Questioning and discussing stupid opposes (or, indeed, stupid supports) is good, because a point of view that can't stand up to logical scrutiny is of very little value. However, we should never strike or ignore votes (or !votes, if you prefer) on the basis that they're stupid, only if they are blatant trolling. So a vote like "Oppose, candidate does not have 2000 projectspace edits and 1000 projectspace talk edits, which are my minimum requirements" is pretty stupid, and should be disputed, but should not be stricken. Basically, it's not for the bureaucrat or other members of the community to decide what constitutes a "valid" reason; it's for each individual voter to make their own decision. Otherwise we become a mob-rule dictatorship. Walton 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Walton hits the nail on the head. As I said above I think that a candidate should be able to refute opposes in a civil and fair fashion - sometimes this helps define the character of the candidate better than anything else. If they can provide reasoned and logical answers / arguments (I'm using arguments advisedly) this often demonstrates admin skills that may not be clear otherwise. Equally, an excellent looking candidate who then badgers opposers without reason or become uncvil when opposed may end up failing their RFA because of it, and rightly so. Pedro |  Chat  11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

TomStar's RFA

Anyone else notice that Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81 isn't showing up on tangobot's RFA report? New England 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it old and done? Andre (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. -- Anonymous Dissident 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still going, no? the_undertow 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then whats this? -- Anonymous Dissident 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous RfA. the_undertow 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The current one is Misplaced Pages:Request for adminship/TomStar81 2. —Kurykh 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this only 9 days later? -- Anonymous Dissident 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the first one ended with a very public and unnecessary spat between New England and Oldwindybear regarding reciprocal RfA nominations. TomStar decided to start the nom over with a clean slate, I guess, forgetting (or not knowing) that that doesn't really happen. —Kurykh 06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant Misplaced Pages:Request_for_adminship/TomStar81_2. He was renommed a few days, but I didn't notice it until a few hours ago (its live but not on tangobot's RFA report). I am not planning on participating it, just curious. New England 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You trust a bot, you pay the consequences. Not really, we love you Tangobot! Giggy _UP 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* its hangermanbot all over again. --Chris 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hagerman bot you mean? :P Giggy _UP 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sadly HagermanBot left us due to unknown causes. However a replacement is under way see here. --Chris 10:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset) It is probably not showing up because it was not named correctly (Request for adminship vs. Requests for adminship) --After Midnight 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin candidates, sockpuppeting and other issues.

Per WP:ANI#Sockpuppets_of_Oldwindybear and User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying it appears that OWB who was recently given adminship was apparently severely sockpuppeting. This is not the first time that such an event has occurred (as people may recall from the Pegasus incident). Furthermore in this case there had been previous concerns that the nominator was a sockpuppet as well as accusations of plagiarism. I'm concerned that neither of these issues came up in the RfA and that he passed at 66/0/1 at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear. Now, while one might argue that given that we have over 1000 admins the number of problem cases has been very small, but this issue still needs to be discussed. JoshuaZ 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In what manner do you want this discussed? An isolated incident like this is not something to spend endless pages of discussion over. —Kurykh 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence I noted that this wasn't the first time such an event had occurred. In any event, I'm disturbed that no one who looked at the RfA notice that the nom was a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet evidence is not subtle. JoshuaZ 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps people were more interested in examining the nominee rather than the nominator, which is common sense until this thing comes along. —Kurykh 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the sockpuppet evidence was fairly subtle, though the excellent job done by Proabivoauc and Barneca in putting it together obscures that fact a bit. It's also a fairly explosive allegation, and not one to be made without all one's ducks in a row, which may have inhibited people somewhat up front. However, I agree with JoshuaZ that we should think about that RfA a little more. What's concerning to me is that OWB had significant baggage (including prior sockpuppet allegations, heavy content disputes, storming off the project at one point, etc) which was not discussed at all in the RfA. Personally, I think we should look at Q3 a little more closely in the future. Answering this question with extreme vagueness (e.g. "I had some conflicts in the past and learned from them. Next question...") is a potential red flag. Just my 2 cents. MastCell 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did notice that there were sockpuppetry allegations on OWB, and I intended to ask a question regarding that but I had to go on a wikibreak. Anyway, I think it is a rare case, and quite subtle as MastCell says. No point getting all worked up about it. But this further reinforces the importance of looking through the contributions, not just going through the Wannabekate report and commenting on more X-space edits or edit summary usage. In this case, I found the previous sockpuppetry allegations by just going through OWB's talk page. - TwoOars 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an instruction to people at the top pf the comments section . "Do not vote on a candidates sutability unless you have a good knowledge of their behaviour on Misplaced Pages." along with intructions to the 'crats to ignore votes by people who haven't bothered to look over he contributions list might give people the reminder that they need? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be ideal. I personally do not comment on RfAs for candidates I am unfamiliar with (unless I have sufficient time to examine their contributions, interactions with other editors, etc.). It would also make the whole process less vote-y. --Iamunknown 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good suggestion. From what I've seen, many people just don't provide evidence that they have read through a nominee's edit count/contributions, which leads one to believe that RfA is a rather corrupt operation. Some folk often avoid a lengthy summary when assessing a user to avoid repetition, but these can be identified by a regular participation on RfA. Some just don't bother, and in some cases, it's clear to see. Lradrama 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but there's already something similar (a warning to familiarize oneself with the contribs before voting), and it's often disregarded, just like our standard warnings about GFDL, not spamming, notability of new articles, etc. Involving the bureaucrats is a good idea, but if someone writes "Support per nom", then it's hard to know: did they exhaustively review the contribs and find themselves in agreement with the nominator? Are they just being lazy? Somewhere in between? I do think this episode points up that we should apply some gentle scrutiny to the nominator as well as the nominee, as that might have raised a red flag sooner. MastCell 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Like after all the Admin account hacking back in May, we will probably see "Optional questions" about disclosure of WP:SSP cases and WP:SPAs for the next little while. The case does highlight a requirement for some legwork before a cursory '''Support''' per xx. ~~~~. Flyguy649 _contribs 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....the fact that a sockpuppeteer can pass RFA unanimously, where a well meaning user that helps the project but is rejected because they have too little edits to x, shows how the RFA system is really flawed. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

System, or some people participating in it? I blame the latter more than the former. —Kurykh 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

People are the system. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought "system" referred to technical process itself, not the participants of the process. Or are we just subjecting ourselves to a whirlpool of semantics? —Kurykh 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that people are the system, that means by defenition the system is, and always will be, fundamentaly flawed. That is not, however, an excuse to reject the system. Merely that we accept the inherent problems and seek to work through them to achieve the aims of this work. This whole sorry affair has left me sadened but at the same time ever more commited to contribute here. Pedro |  Chat  22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya, R, that is disappointing.  :\ --Iamunknown 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egg... meet face. Hiberniantears 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinstatement of Admin Rights After Their Right to Vanish

WP:ADMIN currently states, "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". I personally see nothing wrong with this action however feel it could be made a little more transparent without violating privacy. Any ideas? I reccomend a placeholder RFA page be created where the sysoping crat can avouch for the users identity verification as well as arb com if necessary. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I liked the idea on Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard where one could have a placeholder RfA.  hmwith  talk 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You added that last part about your recommendation after I had written that response. Yes, I agree with this idea. It seems like it would help a lot of confusion that apparently seems to be happening.  hmwith  talk 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a really stupid idea to allow people to vanish and then come back as admins without a new RfA. Dislike of the principle aside, I'm not sure why this makes it more transparent; the user rights log can contain "sysopped, user was an admin under old account" just as well as a placeholder RfA page. -Amarkov moo! 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think they vanished for fun? That they got tired of there old username and wanted a new one? If that were the case, i would probably oppose it but when it comes to some of the reasons I have seen people leave, no questions asked I support reinstatement. When an editor is forced to leave because of death threats or other actions that could possibly cause very real personal injury that is a complety different story. I 100% support those people for standing for what the believe in and feel that the community shunning them back to the start because they were forced to leave is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the admin returning after vanishing (which usually means trolling to the extent they could no longer edit or plausible threats of real world violation) should:

1. Place a link on their userpage to a deleted revision containing their previous name. This allows other admins to know who they are.
2. Allow users in good standing to contact them off-wiki to learn their identity

If this is not possible, then a list of trusted users who can be contacted to very the fact that this user is (1) a former admin in good standing and (2) has a good reason for not providing the info in the manner I described above. ArbCom should be mailed to provide that info as well. WjBscribe 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But #1 wouldn't go along with the 'right to vanish,' would it? It seems they would come back to the same status, only under a different username. I don't even know if I like the existing policy...still formulating my thoughts. the_undertow 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think #1 should be optional personally. I like the idea, but feel that an offer to contact off wiki would work as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Option #1 is the option most users who have done this have in practice taken. It seems to me the best option but assumes you trust your fellow sysop. Perhaps a list of options, with #1 being preferable and the others as alternatives... WjBscribe

I tend to agree it is the best option. However, word gets around quickly. I think it might be a good idea to do it but not be forced to advertise it? If asked, provide the link diff or something like that. Nothing like drawing attention to an obviously deleted link and cirous people start askign questions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If an admin left because their real life identity had become known, and had led to real life harassment, it should certainly not be obligatory to make it possible for every single administrator to know their previous identity. (Are all administrators trustworthy?) Nor should there be any obligation to tell "any user in good standing". ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins as being in a position of power attract trolls, especially when they are doing a good job. We should not allow trolls to chase good admins off the site and I think the right to vanish and return with a new identity and sysop powers intact is an excellent one of which I fully approve, SqueakBox 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

in principle. But you have to allow for the possibility that the admin in the future indulges in questionable admin actions. And the users who then find themselves at the nasty end of his admin buttons have a right to ask "who is this, and why does he have the power to block/delete". The point of 'not letting the trolls win' is well taken. I think multiple crat endorsement should suffice. I suggest a "dummy" RFA page is created at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/NewUsername (viz., where people will find it) with the promoting crat saying he's been convinced of user's identity, and maybe one or two other crats endorsing that. I think that's not asking too much, and it would help greatly in dispelling the impression that cards are being dealt under the table. dab (𒁳) 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the arguments here, and it's tragic to lose a good admin to trolls, but I think that this is really counter to the Wiki philosophy of equal participants and transparency. Building up a new reputation as a good editor shouldn't take more than a month or two. And, though it's regrettable, sometimes the community needs to come first. Yes, perhaps I'd feel differently if it were my account that needed to be changed, but I think we should look at the big picture here. --Eyrian 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It would take a lot longer than a month or two to gain admin powers. An RfA before four months is almost doomed to failure, and any attempt to rerun within three months of the first failure is almost doomed to failure as well. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What lack of transparency concerns you? Is your concern crats sysopping people out of process? I.E., they have never had an rfa that achieved consensus. As far as I am concerned, once an RFA has achieved a consensus, it applies to that person no matter what there name is. The consensus was achieved on that person, not that persons username. As long as appropriate identiy verification can be provided, i see nothing out of process here. I will however agree it cannot hurt to imcrease transparency by creating a placeholder RFA with information from the syopping crat or even multiple crats who can confrim the identity. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, once an RFA has achieved a consensus, it applies to that person no matter what there name is - No it doesn't. --Iamunknown 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But that ruling refers to cases of administrators who gave up their sysop powers under controversial circumstances. It's to prevent a situation where an admin blocks someone he's in conflict with, then requests desysopping to avoid an ArbCom case which might lead to desysopping, then, once the case has been dropped, asks for his powers back. I would think that bureaucrats shouldn't resysop (privately or otherwise) anyone who resigned to avoid having the tools forcibly removed. But I'm confident that they wouldn't. ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone can't verify the community process that led to someone being an administrator. Being trusted with additional tools should be public, and this violates that. What is important is that users should be able to verify these things for themselves, and not have to rely on the powers that be to assure them from Sinai that all is well. --Eyrian 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks Eyrian, that's more or less the point I've been trying to make. dab (𒁳) 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY -- users without admin powers or insider knowledge should be able to see that the RFA has achieved consensus. dab (𒁳) 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's odd; I always thought that WP:VERIFY applied to articles, not editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian, I think the community is coming first here. There's no reason to lose a good admin for 'one or two months' because she was harrassed into leaving Misplaced Pages. (I also suspect that your two-month estimate is woefully short; are any admins being promoted these days with less than three months of experience? Many RfA denizens are now demanding at least a six-month shrubbery.... In any case, you've also forgotten about the time that the admin in question was away from Misplaced Pages entirely. An admin who declares her intent to vanish due to harrassment can't very well preserve her anonymity if she pops back on with a new account the next day. Such an admin is likely to be away from the wiki for many weeks or months.)

I don't know where the idea that admins aren't a part of the community comes from, nor why the don't deserve courtesy and assistance when they're harrassed. We don't blame, beat, or desysop victims here—we help them back on their feet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! ElinorD (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Power makes you a servant or a tyrant. That is to say, power must come with extra burdens, or it creates authoritarianism. Admins are part of the community; public officers who have additional responsibilities to make up for additional power. Sometimes that means unfortunately heavier burdens. It is sad to lose someone. I understand that. But the community as a whole is more valuable than any member. And this sort of voice-on-high vouching casts a very black shadow indeed. --Eyrian 20:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh bollocks. Admins can (un)protect, (un)delete, and (un)block. Whoopty-shit. You call that 'power'? In exchange for the responsible exercise of trivial powers for the service and benefit of the community, many admins are repaid with on-wiki flaming (amusing) and on-wiki threats (troubling). An unlucky few are subject to off-wiki threats by phone or email, harrassment of their families, phone calls to employers, phone calls to police, lawyer's letters, and publication of personal details by the creepiest, most paranoid, most obnoxious sociopaths that can be scraped off the bottom of the internet.

In addition to being unable to edit Misplaced Pages for some time (with or without their admin bit) they have their livelihoods, their security, their safety, their friends or their families threatened. They give up the months or years of effort that they have put into both building a reputation on Misplaced Pages and into Misplaced Pages itself. They are long-serving, dedicated, respected members of the community. The harrassment has already cost them their Misplaced Pages reputations and threatened their personal privacy and security; I'd be embarrassed and disgusted to be part of a 'community' that says "Fuck you! We're taking your admin bit, too! As a reward for your efforts, we're kicking you right back to nothing; all your efforts up to now count for squat. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Power corrupts? Okay, what causes pettiness? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Several administrators have been victimized by depraved levels of real-world harassment and trolling of themselves and in some cases members of their families, typically in retaliation for administrator actions they have taken as part of their duties for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. Many times we lose the editing and administrator services of these victimized editors permanently. When an admin who has been through this is willing to continue adminship under a new username, this should be allowed to occur. The bureaucrats resysop accounts affected by these circumstances only upon verifying that the user involved was an admin in good standing and has created a new account for a legitimate and necessary reason. In the instances I am aware of, their action was entirely justified. The ordinary demands of transparency, which I respect immensely under virtually any other circumstance, are subordinate to more important goals in these hopefully rare instances, and it is not in the best interests of the community to discuss them further on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? I don't mean to belittle any of the hard-working admins here, but Misplaced Pages got on fine with one less admin than it has now. I want them to come back, but it is a temporary loss from which the community will recover. Lack of transparency casts a very long shadow indeed. I really don't want to see such an obvious target for accusations of cabalism (and not entirely without merit) continue. --Eyrian 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

that's fair enough but the fact that the bureaucrats have made that decision should be easily accessible, e.g. on a dummy RfA page for the new user. If the community objects to the crats' decision, there can still be a real RfA. The re-adminned user should also be expected to show appreciation for these kind of concerns for credibility and community consensus. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this but I think you should be made to prove you owned the previous account to be re-sysopped or the tools could be give to a newbie who had the idea. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything that draws unnecessary attention to these situations perpetuates the negative effects of grave instances of harassment and trolling, and is a disservice to the victimized editors and to the project. Newyorkbrad 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume that Andrevan did exactly that – checked Until's credentials and verified his identity – before restoring his admin bit. Obviously such information can't be published on the wiki, because doing so would entirely defeat the purpose of giving this admin a new account name. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Andrevan did that. It shouldn't be difficult for a bureaucrat to verify that a new user who claims to be a former admin is speaking the truth. If the old account still has email enabled, a bureaucrat could send an email to both accounts, with different wording, requesting a reply. If the former admin's real identity has become known (which is the most likely reason to justify the private resysopping), they can make the request through a work email address, for example. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and the community is always changing. That there was once an consensus to make someone an admin doesn't mean there still is. Anyone utilizing right to vanish should be deemed to have vanished. Should the same person come back, they start with a blank slate record. As such, there is no consensus for the blank slate to be an admin again. And this ignores those who leave and/or resign under controversial circumstances, for example this one from today. At least one former admin who ArbComm has ruled to have left under controversial circumstances has been advised to come back under a new account and regain the community's trust under that account. Conversely, I know of multiple former admins that have come back under a new username and been granted adminship rights as a former admin. I don't like the practice, and I think the 'crats should have a special obligation to determine whether the former admin "left under a cloud", but custom is what custom is. GRBerry

There is no way that returning Oldwindybear's powers to him privately could be compared to returning the powers privately to one who left in good standing because of privacy issues. And there is no way that any sane bureaucrat would consider doing so. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, WP:ADMIN clearly states, "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". This is also not the first time this has happened, it has happened several times before. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this would draw too much attention altogether. The person in question can very easily be resysoped if he opens up to his friends here - proving his idendity while keeping that part of the process off the record and then going through a normal RfA after sufficiant time/edits with the support of those friends. I would go down that route rather having the log scream for investigation by the trolls. Agathoclea 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you feel that free resysopping upon identity verification would draw more attention than an RFA after a month with 50 close friends voting on it? That would msot certianly cause extreme controversy, people asking questions and drawing large amounts of attention to an editor who just wants to get back to work? I dont see how the RFA process does anything but draw extreme scrutiny to someone? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

so would I. This is clearly a question of deliberation between 'not letting the trolls win' and accountability to the community. Now, I see no reason why such a victimized admin should not start over as a regular editor. Being an experienced user, and revealing his identity to trusted editors, they should be able to regain admin status after a short period. And, to the 'professional admins' among you, remember that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about editing articles. A harassed editor would do well to take some time off from controversial admin work and focus on content. dab (𒁳) 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But also remeber, where would we be without dedicated vandal fighters? Without dedicated people who were on new page patrol? What good are those tasks without administartors to block and delete pages? yes it is about content but i tip my hat to those doing the less desirable jobs of taking out the garbage and cleaing the out the traps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, getting good editors back after they've been driven away is good for the encyclopedia and so what we should strive to do. We elected the crats because we thought we could trust them. So why not with this? — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec x3) Transparency is important, yes, but I think limiting (not eliminating) that transparency for the safety of our users is necessary. If someone has been through a successful RfA, needing to vanish shouldn't change the community's trust. Yes, it prevents users from looking back at what the admin and commentors said during the RfA, but I think that's OK as long as the user has been verified by the reinstating crats and those crats agree to vouch for the admin when asked. If the admin "left under a cloud", presumably he or she was de-sysopped if the cloud was bad enough to preclude re-sysopping the new name. As others have said, drawing attention to the situation perpetuates trolling, and it possibly threatens the admin's new anonymity -- if we put up a "The bureaucrats approve admin X" message as soon as admin Y changes names, the people who drove admin Y to make that change are likely to put two and two together and start harassing admin X. Waiting for a later RfA with a lot of people supporting for unspecified reasons is even more suspicious, and denies the community the services of a good admin for some time. Pinball22 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I would favour making a private report to Jimbo and at least some members of the ArbCom. But I see no reason why all administrators should know who someone is, if the person left and returned secretly because of harassment. ElinorD (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What community trust? By allowing these users to work without having a verifiable RfA, we are completely eliminating that trust. It's the openness of RfA that ensures that admins are made with the trust of the project as a whole. Without that, there is no general trust. --Eyrian 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are referring to is proof. Proof and trust are not mutually exclusive and in fact, are often completley seperate. I trust somebody because I do not know the facts myself. I have proof when I know the facts and can verify independantly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I just don't get the fuss. We elect 'crats because we trust them. So, erm, let's trust them. --Dweller 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I am fairly certain a bureaucrat would not sysop an account unless they were certain the account was of a former administrator. --Iamunknown 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember that this whole right-to-vanish-resysop business is an extremely rare event. The way it works is fine. As a (non-admin) member of the Misplaced Pages community, I have no problem with it. At least one (and likely more) bureaucrat would know the original name of the resysopped admin. ArbCom would likely know. These are all trusted members of our community. I am completely comfortable in delegating responsibility to them on this. If it would help to add a placeholder RfA, with links to the resysopping bureaucrat/ArbCom/Jimbo/whoever, then do it. Flyguy649 _contribs 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with it, but how airtight is verification? How do we keep just anyone from saying that they used to be some vanished admin? ←Ben 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing either a.) email verification or b.) committed identity verification. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of (Until 1==2 ) I can confirm both of those were used. In most cases a.) should suffice. Given the original account could be reysopped on request, an email using the "email this user" puts the crat in contact with the owner of the previous account. If an email replying to the crat's email confirms the new identity, that covers everything except for hujacked accounts (which we can't check for anyway). WjBscribe 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet domains expire and can be acquired by someone else, so, I hope someone checked the dates in the WHOIS record of the domain to be sure it hasn't changed hands. Buy how can you do that? "Email this user" doesn't tell you the address. The recipient could just email back from a longstanding domain. I'm glad committed identity verification was used. ←Ben 21:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point there. But let's not forget that even though domain expiration varies from registrar to registrar, we're usually talking years and, typically, registrars send multiple warnings. We're not dealing with that kind of timespan here. More importantly, let's not forget that this is still a somewhat rare exception and not a daily occurrence. In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really change a whole lot, in my humble opinion. There's always a certain amount of trust involved. And, frankly, I'm willing to give up a little bit in the accountability (or rather, transparency) department if that means that we can get a trusted and capable administrator back. And while I can appreciate the good points some of my fellow editors are making, I'm afraid that this may be getting blown out of proportion just a wee bit: several crats know about it, as far as I can see all admins do and I'm sure a few users who closely follow things around here can at least make a pretty good, educated guess. Another thing we should not forget here (and I was discussing this on IRC with several people just now) is that at the end of the day, there's another component to this beside the community trust issue. There's the very real possibility that we're putting the victim in an unfortunate position: either start from scratch (I'll refrain from name dropping here) or expose oneself to stalking (and I think most of us have been here long enough to witness how far that can go). And, personally, I think it's really important that we don't lose sight of what essentially boils down to 'doing the right thing'. Yes, that may involve trust but, at least in my opinion, that's a core principle of Misplaced Pages. We trust and we verify, sure, but there's always trust involved. S 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Personally, I don't like the practice. (Note: this does NOT apply to Until. None of my concerns apply to him/her, and his resysopping was valid. My concern is with the rule, not individual cases) There are numerous cases of admins goofing up. A little known fact is that, gasp, they're human. Some admins goof up more than others. Sometimes, this gets them into a great deal of trouble.

Normally, I'd hate to name names, but let's look at Rama's Arrow. (Note: He's since been desysopped, but I'm thinking of a specific point in time) Though a valued editor, and (normally) a capable admin, he royally screwed up, and absolutely deserved to be desysopped. However, that action wasn't seriously considered for quite some time. Before that was seriously considered, he had himself desysopped (which was later re-added by a bureaucrat, since it had been voluntary) and tried to retire. Eventually, he changed his mind, came back, behaved terribly, and got desysopped. But, what if, instead of retiring, he'd simply exercised his right to vanish?

The first time he had himself desysopped, he was able to get it back, because he was in good standing, even though he had some serious controversies surrounding his administrative actions. That he was resysopped is immaterial. Anyone with a problem with him could still see his entire administrative history, so the 'crats made the right decision (pending an arbcom decision). But, if he'd given up his priviledges by right-to-vanish, and then had them restored into a new account, then there'd be no way to compare his next actions to his previous identity. (This is especially true if there isn't even a dummy rfa set up)

In much the same way that users can't escape their block logs, administrators should not be able to escape their administrative history. In general, any editor in a conflict should be able to be equally scrutinized. Heck, even normal editors who request username changes are still traceable to their previous identities if you know where to look. Why should an admin be any different?

Just indulge me in a hypothetical situation here: Say Rama's Arrow had decided to exercise his right to vanish, instead of having himself desysopped and temporarily-retired. (At the time, he was still considered by bureaucrats to be in good standing, and resysoppable) Say he then, two months later, decided to return under a new name, with restored administrative priviledges. Say he then decided to start making questionable decisions on editors related to wp:india. Would it be fair to those involved to not know that they were being blocked by someone who'd previously blocked them? If they were to try to contest the block, would it be fair that, to an uninvolved admin, it appeared that two different admins had had a problem with the same editor, when it was really just the same one? How would you handle something like that?

My problem is that, the only cases where this wouldn't be a concern is with admins who essentially had no major conflicts; but that admins with no major conflicts probably wouldn't need to exercise the right to vanish in the first place. But, seriously, how would you handle a case like that? Bladestorm 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why ArbCom is notified in these cases. So they can say, "Hey wait a minute we only didn't desysop that user because he'd resigned". Users resign who their adminship under controversial circumstances cannot be resysopped either under their current account name or a new one. WjBscribe 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: You say that, "Users who resign their adminship under controversial circumstances cannot be resysopped either under their current account name or a new one." But, that's not true. In this case, RA resigned+retired, but was resysopped by a bureaucrat. At the time, arbcom wasn't seriously considering (or at least, didn't appear to be) desysopping, even though that's what eventually happened. Fact is, even though he'd abused his admin priviledges, since he was still considered in good standing, he was considered resysoppable, and was resysopped by a bureaucrat. So, my question is, what if, instead of self-desysopping and temporarily-retiring, he'd exercised the right to vanish? Irrefutably, the bureaucrats considered him eligible for immediate resysopping, because that did happen. See the problem? Bladestorm 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really; had the same exact course of events happened, except that he had "vanished" rather than retiring, he still would have been desysoped for his actions after returning, just as he was in reality. Remember that the arbitration committee (who are basically responsible for serious sanctions against administrators) will be aware of the prior identity and prior conduct and perfectly able to take it into account. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

...without going through RfA, you mean. —Kurykh 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't get elected without a high level of trust. There can be good reasons for them to keep something private. Obviously, if the ArbCom or Jimbo requests to know who this privately-resysopped user is, the bureaucrat should provide that information. They should probably report it to Jimbo and the ArbCom even without a request.

This is the kind of thing that very rarely happens, and when it does, I think we should respect the decision of the bureaucrat, who is very likely in possession of information not known to us.

Bureaucrats are not idiots, and are not going to grant sysop powers to a new user who sends an email claiming to be a retired admin but who offers no proof.

If someone whose RfA I supported is ever harassed in real life as a result of their Misplaced Pages activities and leaves because of that, but not because of being in danger of any ArbCom sanctions, I hope that that person will be able to be privately resysopped on request, and I have absolutely no wish to know who it is, unless the user chooses to tell me. I would expect that any decent user, sympathetic to the plight of a stalking victim, would waive their own "right" to know who it is if the user is able to continue at Misplaced Pages under a new identity.

I think that Jimbo and some members of the ArbCom should be made aware of the previous identity of the newly-resysopped user. That allows for the possibility that the admin may start blocking people they were previously in conflict with. I would expect that the vulnerability of the admin's position would be sufficient incentive not to take advantage of the new identity, assuming that they didn't have enough integrity in the first place.

I don't think anything is gained by prolonging the discussion. In fact, we may be contributing to further harassment by doing so. I'm quite sure that the bureaucrat was in possession of the facts. We don't need to be told any more, particularly if someone's safety is at issue. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about possible misuse of the tools by the "new" admin taking advantage of the fact that we don't know which people he was previously in conflict with should send a private email to the ArbCom. Personally, I'm not worried about that. ElinorD (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I would like it if the bureaucrat who did the resysopping would keep an eye on the rebitten (makes it sound a bit like rabies!) editor to make sure that no previous conflicts are dealt with in a non-transparent matter, but in the interests of a true fresh start any escalation of a previous conflict would be unwise.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an inverse correlation between transparency and privacy. Choose one. If we are going to value privacy, then the current method affords the appropriate amount of transparency. I think that this is the courteous route. ˉˉ╦╩ 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Privacy and transparency are mutually exclusive, which is probably what makes this such an interesting issue. As I look over previous admins' flight from Misplaced Pages, I find it disconcerting that personal lives have been invaded by those using this website. Although this site is academic, and I would not expect such a result, I've seen what users on MySpace have gone through, and I can certainly see how, although this site is not for social networking, events such as those have occurred. Users' comfort, whether admins or not, should be protected with a clear and viable solution. the_undertow 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody's worrying a bit too much. In the event that one of us makes a mistake in resysopping a user that, despite out best efforts, managed to fake the verification to prove that they were someone else, they could be emergency desysopped in less than 15 minutes, in which time they can't do any damage given that they'll have sharp admins reverting them. --Deskana (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree to what Dweller wrote -- trust the bureaucrat -- given the caveat pointed out by Iamunknown -- which is that this shouldn't be a way to duck out of an arbcom case. So as long as the former admin left for reasons of their own, and without any respected users asking for the return of their mop, leave it to the discretion of the bureaucrat. --AnonEMouse 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, honestly anyone should be able to judge whether there was any complaint against a user that caused him/her to 'resign' rather then leaving on their own accord. This is something we can surely trust the crats to do, let's respect the user who is willing to return, rather then try to analyze every detail of whether he/she should be allowed back. Remember whoever it is passed RfA already. Prodego 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree whole heartedly we dont compound the damage done by a troll, if an Admin needs to vanish for safety/security reasons then their return should be made a simple as possible. These people have established the communities trust and they havent lost that trust, all that happened is they have victimised for doing whats is expected of all admins. Gnangarra 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem here?

An admin goes away because he's subjected to harassment, comes back and is resysopped in his new username. I'm sorry but I don't see the problem here and I'm puzzled at the comments on "lack of transparency". Surely what is desired here, by Misplaced Pages and the admin, is as much obscurity as possible so as to keep unwanted attention off the admin. The bureaucrats are trusted editors. If we were to suspect them of sysopping people who weren't entitled to it then we might as well all give up. Transparency is not always good for Misplaced Pages, and this applies particularly when there is a strong risk of abuse by trolls and those with an axe to grind. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right! ElinorD (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If the admin leaves just because of stress and not because he made really stupid things, then he should be given back the tools under a new name without a new RfA and perhaps without people knowing the previous user name.

But this raises the danger of bureaucrats playing favorites and sysopping behind the scenes people who should have really gone through an RfA because they left under controversial circumstances (bureaucrats are not infallible, and they have done stupid things in the past). So maybe some more transparency could be necessary, at least for other admins to be able to trace who was the newly sysopped person, perhaps via some deleted edits, etc., I think something like this was suggested above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, because not all admins are trustworthy. I presume, Oleg, that you are using your real name, so perhaps being outed is not a problem for you. But suppose you leave because threats have been made against your family, and your wife (if you have one) has become terrified, and people are posting your and her names, addresses, workplace details, etc. all over Misplaced Pages and at other sites, so you leave. This has happened with several administrators and users already. Do you really think that if you came back it should be obligatory to let every single administrator know your previous identity (and therefore also know all your private details, which have been exposed)? I do think that the bureaucrat should tell at least some members of the ArbCom — perhaps the whole ArbCom. And any newly-resysopped admin should be prepared to make a private statement to ArbCom (or to a few members), pledging not to block users with whom he has previously been in dispute — perhaps stating who these users are (if any). Once that is done, good luck, and let's not make it any more difficult for people who have already suffered enough. ElinorD (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a reasonable degree of transparency in this case; if you email a resysopped admin, they should be willing to tell you all about it; and going on at such great length kind of defeats the purpose of discouraging trolling and identity-fishing. MastCell 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't have to tell anyone all about it. It's none of our business. They should be prepared to tell Jimbo, and some ArbCom members, and nobody else. ElinorD (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to "sysop behind the scenes". See Special:Log/rights. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People, please keep this general, not about specific editors. Flyguy649 _contribs 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont even know which editor we're talking about I thought it was just a general discussion. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, or should be, as the issue of people being driven off Misplaced Pages by real life stalking and trying to come back under a new identity is not at all unusual. But perhaps it's time to let the subject drop, as it's not helpful. We elected our bureaucrats because we trusted them to make decisions. If we want to ensure that a particular admin account has proper approval, a discreet email to Jimbo or the ArbCom is the best way to go about it. Sometimes things are better kept private. ElinorD (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A small amount of secrecy should be allowed, otherwise the right to vanish is absolutely useless. A resysopped admin should be able to just go about their business without a big show being made of it, yes, it is possible to track them down, and assume that that it is the same user, but without a way to prove it, the right to vanish is still upheld. It should not be made blatantly public information when someone excercises the right. Either way, most people will not go to the lengths to find what the new account is, and those that do, can be dealt with in other ways. --HAL2008talk 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish is perfectly reasonable. It's quite clear that the Foundation demands it, anyway. But the right to disappear, and then come back under a new name with all previous priveleges, is not the same as the right to vanish. You can't justify it by just saying "RIGHT TO VANISH!" -Amarkov moo! 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Amarkov here. What's the point of laying the groundwork for future troubles and mistrust? And yes, crats are not infallible and they were not elected for performing the task discussed above. If I had known they would be able to grant adminship by fiat, I would probably have thought twice before voting. Better be safe than sorry. --Ghirla 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When an admin attempts to restore their admin status with a new name following a WP:RTV, a determination needs to be made whether or not it was, as ArbCom would say, "under a cloud". This needs to be a consensus supported decision, not an arbitrary "Sure, give 'em a pass" determination from another admin (or even a 'crat). Why should we set ourselves up for claims of plutocracy simply to make it easier on an admin who fears consensus? Why should anyone fear consensus? Even from a populace as...fickle and ill-informed as we...I think I've made my point clear. Bullzeye 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Could someone please explain to me the privacy rationale here? The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. If an admin is being harassed to the point where they feel they must invoke the right to vanish, then why would they need, or even want, to come back with administrator priveleges intact? So they can be harassed under a different name? -Amarkov moo! 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see two scenarios here. An admin was harassed in real life and decided to vanish. Fine. Then he appeared under a different username as an admin with the log saying that the admin rights are restored. I do not think that many admins exercise their right to vanish, even less has their interest to a specific part of the project. How long it would take for a determine troll to find their previous identity? I think it would be measured in hours. On the other hand I could think of a scenario than an admin "under a cloud" decided to remove their identity and get a new one. No all their misdeeds are gone. We reasonably trust our bureaucrats but it is to much to require them to be aware of all the conflicts on wikipedia. I would suggest at the very least not to do re-sysopping automatically but after the consultations on the arbitrators/bureaucrats mailing lists Alex Bakharev 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that it's truly that easy for a determined troll to find their identity. As long as the bureaucrat doesn't do something stupid to "protect their privacy" (which some do, making it obvious who the person is; email me if you want specifics), I can't think of even a theoretical way to connect the identities short of a slip-up by either the person or someone who they told. So as long as the bureaucrats know what not to do... -Amarkov moo! 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Right to Vanish is an extreme measure. It is not the same as taking a break. It is not the same as walking away. It is an action that requires extensive actions to erase the user's traces. It cannot be invoked lightly or accepted without serious work.
2. Administrators are "trusted" members of the community. Trust is a commodity easily spent and hard earned. No one can be made trusted, as trust has to be accumulated through a user's actions. No one can be assured that a user is still trusted, because it is not the bureaucrats who trust, but the rank and file.
3. People voluntarily part with the administrative bit for a lot of reasons, but people about to get the boot or about to go through a very messy procedure will "walk away" from the bit. Those persons are only sometimes subject to an official ArbCom ruling that they "left under a cloud."
4. No one can know if this user left under a cloud or not. Nor can anyone know that the user has or has no history of conflict. No one can know any of that without the former account name.
5. In conclusion: You get one or the other. You either get the right to vanish, or you get the administrator's status, but you may not have both. So, either demote the user and let him or her go up for RFA or use the old account name. Yes, it is this simple. Geogre 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we need to assume good faith both in the bureaucrat and the editor. I can see where a trusted admin editor chose to run for political office was outted as editing wikipedia decided that exercising a right to vanish so as not to draw massive disruptive edits to wikipedia. I also know of a couple of editors who are serving members of a military force and have been deployed to places like Afghanistan who'd want to exercise their right vanish, there was an incident I can remember where one admin editor was in such a situation and that editors family and off-wiki friends were contacted. Without much thought its not hard to create situations where this is necessary, as I said before why punish an admin for doing whats expected of an admin. Gnangarra

Bull. We do not assume good faith when it comes to being told who we trust. That's nonsense of the first water. There is no transitive value of trust. If I trust you, and you trust Mikey, that does not mean I trust Mikey. Right to Vanish is an extreme measure. Administrator's status is nothing but trust, and trust requires, absolutely, openness. I know of a person who has employed right to vanish, who was an admin, who wants to be an admin, and that person started over. That person is building up trust, doing the edits, getting in the time, being trustworthy and helpful. That is the only way to employ right to vanish (where you are erased so that no one gets to even guess, even admins, what's going on...and if you look at the deleted user page, you can see some really alarming garbage there, where the user seems to be winking at those who know the truth) and be an admin. Again: either right to vanish or admin, but not both. Furthermore, if one more person cites "AGF" for another atrocity, I'm going to start being atrocious myself (and citing it, every time). Geogre 03:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping process, again.

I have a kinda new proposal at User:Amarkov/desysop. I suspect something similar has been discussed where I can't find it, but we really do need a process that doesn't involve arbitration. Discuss (or rant at me) over there please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that we're voting, but oppose, unless you do it in a fashion similar to a community ban except a community "Desysopping". Arbcom should still be able to overrule it though. ~ Wikihermit 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can overrule anything not named Jimbo, so of course they can. But adminship is an important enough position that removing it should not require the same (incredibly strict) standard of consensus we use to ban people. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship? Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gah, the links that weren't in my random clicking are the ones that are just like this. In that case, I'm starting a new discussion on it, because we really do need a process that doesn't involve Arbcom. And boy, do I wish there were a good way to rephrase "we really do need a process that doesn't involve Arbcom". -Amarkov moo! 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, it looks like DEADminship. Also, I proposed something like that in the discussion for Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Reform#Proposal 3 by A.Z.. I wasn't planning on turning it into a proposal (considering the huge amounts of success from WT:Requests for adminship/reform), but I like it. I think it would work. J-stan 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, check category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall -- Anonymous Dissident 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that such a recall truly is a recall, and requires a consensus to retain adminship. That's the opposite of what should happen, since admins in the course of their duties will pick up people they don't like. -Amarkov moo! 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is that directed to?

I offer the same questions that comes up every time someone proposes a streamlined procedure for desysopping.

1. Is the ArbCom being overwhelmed by cases that involved the revocation of sysop privileges?
2. In those cases, is desysopping the only issue/sanction at hand, or are there other issues that would require ArbCom attention anyway?
3. In cases that require more rapid desysopping than the ArbCom can handle, is there any problem with the emergency desysopping now being performed by stewards?
4. Is there any reason why we would need to have a process that's not an emergency desysopping handled through a non-ArbCom process?
5. Is there a pool of dangerous admins that ought to be stripped of their bits that can't be handled through our existing processes?
6. Is this process likely to be a useful thing, or will it be a battleground for trolling and personal grudges to play out?

In other words, why do we 'need a process that doesn't involve arbitration'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Arbcom can theoretically handle these cases just fine. But I have not met a single (non-troll) person who likes going to arbitration. It's sometimes necessary, but being involved in any arbitration proceeding is stressful. Unless an issue of admin misconduct significantly affects me, I will not cause that stress on myself simply to remove someone's sysop bit. Furthermore, Arbcom is (understandably) reluctant to strip adminship for any reason other than true misconduct. The community may not trust someone to be an admin anymore, but unless they've done something that they can be reasonably sanctioned for, there's no way to even bring up the issue. -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the community needs to develop a consensus on what an admin can be dysynopped for before we develop a different process to do it. If we are going to make a system that is more liberal on who gets the mop removed, we may want to figure out what qualifies for getting it removed. Captain panda 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, that's the idea. But if only 25% of the people who comment think someone should be an admin, that's a pretty fair indication that they should not. -Amarkov moo! 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That's fine with me. I was just saying that we will need to determine what an admin will lose adminship for before we start getting rid of someone's adminship. Captain panda 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on Rfas

There is a tally of votes on top of each Rfa, but who updates them? --Hirohisat 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They are manually updated by, eh, whoever wants to update them, typically those who are commenting on the particular RfA. —Kurykh 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to have them they should be accurate. A bot should update the tallies. ~ Wikihermit 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

...Not this again. Geez, tallies aren't an all-or-nothing kind of thing. —Kurykh 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no... that's a pointless bot. The people !vote are supposed to update them. Cbrown1023 talk 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

People don't because they click under discussion, and the tally isn't in that edit section. Maybe move it down? ~ Wikihermit 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that no-one ever updates them any more. This is a long discussed topic actually. -- Anonymous Dissident 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't actually a 'problem', per se. A tally gives a rough idea of how an RfA is going; it's not meant to serve any other purpose beyond that (and the precise numbers don't matter anyway. If someone updates the tally every six or eight or twelve hours, that's more than enough. This definitely doesn't need a bot to 'fix', as it's not broken. We want to discourage a fixation on numbers, not emphasize them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not remove it entirely then? Each vote or "!vote" is counted using #. ~ Wikihermit 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The counters do serve one useful purpose, they let editors who intend nominating for RfA accumulate wikispace edits. Gnangarra 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)