Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 23

Older talk

Archive 1: June-August 2003
Archive 2: August-December 2003
Archive 3: Discussion in December 2003 about time people should wait before making request and a note
Archive 4: Some January 2004 discussion
Archive 5: Discussion on January 8, 2004 about distributing the task of making other admins
Archive 6: (Greenmountainboy's claim about being attacked on this page (January 8-9, 2004))
Archive 7: Complaint against tannin (January 24-25, 2004)
Archive 8: Abuse of de-sysop area (January 30-31, 2004)
Archive 9: Discussion on January 31, 2004 about how to deal with misuse of admin privileges
Archive 10: Recent discussion archived in advance (February 2004)
Archive 11: Policy on Anons and this page (February 9, 2004)
Archive 12: Discussion on 19-25 February, 2004 about who can vote and how bureaucrats should be appointed
Archive 13: Discussion of what consensus is needed for a request (February-March 2004)
Archive 14: Polls on making all admins bureaucrats, and on possible minimum requirements for adminship (February-March 2004)
Archive 15: Discussion of nominators, self-nominations, and nominating procedures (March 2004)
Archive 16: Possible minimum requirements for voting, discussion and poll about bureaucrats exercising individual judgment in determining consensus (March-April 2004)
Archive 17: TOC tallies, relative merits of a firm 80% threshold compared to "bureaucrat" judgement, creeping upwards of requirements for support of adminship, possible periodic renewal of adminship, issues regarding specific nominations (March 4-May 20 2004. No discussion May 20-June 1)

The page is locked for some reason. I'd like to accept my nomination but I can't edit the pageAndyL 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Temporary sysop

I've made Jeronim a sysop temporarily so he is able to block the vandalbot whilst JeLuF is sleeping. As it was an emergency measure for vandalism, it was covered by the steward policies at m:requests for permissions and didn't go through the normal RfA procedure. Angela (steward) 21:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

De-sysopped myself now. Jeronim 07:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woops, I found out I'm not supposed to do this with SQL, so I reverted my change. If a steward sees this, please de-sysop me. Jeronim 08:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Angela . 05:39, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Newbie questions

How does one know if another user is an administrator? (For instance, is Denni an administrator?
What counts as a "good enough" reason to nominate someone for adminship? Is a solid record of good edits and sound judgement good enough, or would one have to point to a particular reason the user needs adminship privileges?
Is there a quick way to find out when a user first started posting, and how many edits they've contributed? (other than going back all the way on "User contributions" and actually counting).

Thanks!--Woggly 11:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators, you can find most of your answers there very comprehensively. Still, here are some short answers:

There is a special page named Special:Listadmins that list all sysop-marked accounts. Also, Wikipedia:List of administrators lists administrators.'
On the Administrators page, you can read the Jimbo Wales quote, "There should be no big deal". Actually, even though we have lots of sysops, I think we need even more, and there is really no big deal.
No, there are some smart tricks with modifying the Contributions url, to use custom offsets to count the edits, but other than that there is no tally of edits or other user statistics to be found.

✏ Sverdrup 11:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I think I'll lurk a little more before nominating anyone, because I'm chicken. But for what it's worth, I think Denni should be nominated. --Woggly 12:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lst27

I'm a little troubled by the widespread opposition to this nomination. I agree there have been some serious problems with this user's conduct on RfA in the past, but I'm concerned that people aren't giving a fair chance of reform. He has been more reasonable about his administratorship nominees, and I see little to no evidence that he would aggressively edit war. Adminship is a big deal to him, clearly, but I see no reason to think that this is out of anything that would lead to abuses. It seems like adminship is being viewed as a social validation. Which, in a lot of ways, it is - a recognition that someone has been a long-standing good contributor.

Is there anything that this user could do that would cause some of those opposing him to change their vote next time this comes up? Snowspinner 21:54, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Snowspinner -- I don't know that we should carry out a long discussion here, but the fact is that I am sceptical (and I believe many others are too) about this user's denials about being User:AlexPlank / User:Perl / User:Greenmountainboy / User:Alexandros et al. Assuming I am correct, then this user has not reformed, and ought not be an admin, IMHO. It will be a while before I feel that it would appropriate in this case. In the past, many have given him the benefit of the doubt repeatedly, to the point of his being made an admin on Meta, and to me that was a mistake. However, whether I am correct or not about Lst27's identity, I don't believe that this represents a trend of not giving formerly problematic users a fair chance of reform. I appreciate your concerns, but I believe that this is a very specific situation, and will not apply to other candidates for adminship. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Showing more evidence of necessary social clue, or less evidence of an appalling lack. I fear that's something that's not really optional in an admin - David Gerard 22:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Snowspinner. I would expect to see the same thing from Lst27 as from anyone else. He would have to satisfy my objective criteria, and he would have to live down his recent string of faux paux, particularly: his inappropriate nominations of others and himself for adminship, his removal ("refactoring") of comments from his own vote, his citing of his trivially minor editing record at es: in support of his nomination. I would not support him until I see a string of contributions exemplifying understanding of the community and acceptance of community decisions and mores, occuring at regular intervals over a period of several months. I would also expect that he be nominated by someone besides himself, preferably a well-respected member of the community.

Ill-advised admin promotions do indeed have the potential to cause trouble, even though individual actions are reversible. The stress the community suffers in dealing with ill-considered actions is considerable. I am not interested in giving Lst27 "a chance" or concocting some sort of "special short-term subject-to-review-after-three-months" adminship alternative for him, because I think both of these are bad policy, and if he is indeed given adminship for a time only to have it revoked, he'll be even more upset than he is now. While I believe WP needs more admins, and am in favor of granting adminship liberally, it is not worth taking a chance on someone whose record is unclear.

I am not especially concerned about Lst27's alleged socks, though User:Perl and User:Greenmountainboy have rather less than stellar track records, as I recall.

Finally, adminship is not a right, not a badge of prestige, and not something we bestow based on tenure alone. He may well be disappointed that he does not qualify at present, and I can sympathize, but granting adminship out of sympathy in order to boost a contributor's morale is possibly among the worst reasons imaginable.

So, if Lst27 should wish to become an admin, here's my advice. Edit. Do good works. Nominate no one for adminship. Patrol recent changes, take on a wikiproject, and add reasoned discourse to the discussions on talk pages, on policy pages, on VfD. Demonstrate that you don't care about the score: don't count your edits, don't count your time here, don't behave as though your a sailor in the last month of his five year tour. Bide. And after a while, probably six months or so, someone will nominate Lst27 for adminship, and we all will be prepared to forget about the matters that are so clearly in mind today.

UninvitedCompany 23:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request for adminship candidacy support - JediMaster16

Hi, my handle is JediMaster16, and I wish to become nominated to become an admin, if possible. I have made several article contributions to Wikipeda (including numerous edits), especially improving Star Wars related articles. The recommended amount of edits for a sysop on your nominations page was at least one hundred or more. I have about 124 edits to my name.

As an admin I would help contribute to Wikipedia by having powers to deal with vandalism. I believe that I could be effective in ensuring that Wikipedia's rules were held up to the highest degree that they can be.

I know that you do not take adminship lightly - you are granting a user special privileges that should not be abused or misused. If accepted, I would take my privileges as an administrative user and use them to the full benefit of Wikipedia and its community.

JediMaster16 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First, you shouldn't be making this request on the talk page, you need to make it Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Second, I suggest you wait - no offense, but you are very, very, very underqualified. You should have (at the very least) another 700 edits to your name, and you need to wait (at least) another month. Third, these are just the numerical standards - people are going to want to know how you act with other users and how you handle conflict. →Raul654 03:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Image

This page needs a janitorial image: a large shiny bunch of keys looking really cool ... and the mop and bucket which are the reason for the keys. Do we have any on the site? If not, I'll see what I can come up with - David Gerard 15:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And one of those "Wet Floor" signs. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. blankfaze | •• | ••

I carry my camera with me everywhere - I'll see if one of the cleaners at work can help ;-) though if anyone else can do it faster, feel free! Don't forget to make the keys really shiny - David Gerard 18:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm he does carry a camera ... whether he ever shows anyone the photographs though is another matter ;-) --VampWillow 20:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removing votes before their time

Please be careful with this. Unless a nomination is clearly a joke or prank, or the nominator or nominee asks for the nomination to be withdrawn -- and even then with a moment's discretion -- please discuss here any urge to remove an RfA vote before it expires. +sj + 05:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Votes should run their course. If the nominee feels set upon, noone should object to his/her removing it themselves. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship states "Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship." The vote had been static for days and it was apparent that he would not get a consensus, much less a 50-50 vote. Not that it means anything, but there was a consensus on IRC to remove. blankfaze | •• | •• 06:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent consensus appears to have been worked out over the past months--that we leave nominations unless the nominator or candidate wants it removed, or if it has no chance of succeeding AND is a magnet for sniping and argumentation. I think you know the ones I mean. They shouldn't be removed just for housecleaning. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think IRC is generally bad for Wikipedia - it creats its own momentum. Secretlondon 13:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that. It violates principles of transparency and I'm amazed that, as slooooowly as some things seem to happen on Wikipedia, how quickly IRC can raise a necktie party. :( -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

I'd like to propose a change in RfA policy. I'd like the section that reads:
- Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
To be changed to:
- Nominees who are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 500 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes show that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
Additionally, I'd like "if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship." to be defined as "if it is highly, highly unlikely that the nominee will recieve even a majority" or something of the like. I think we're too lax on RfA policy, and I've seen several instances where candidates who had really no business even being listed were allowed to stay listed for the entire week. Unnecessary, I think. Just an idea. Opinions, please? blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like the policy section to be more clear. For example, I didn't know what the tally was for (the "0/0/0" thing) until I looked through the archived talk. That should be clearly explained. Also, I think 800 edits and three weeks should be the minimium, and there should be SOME guidelines about what "consensus" means. Neutrality 00:35, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
  - Three weeks is way, way too little. You can't have gotten to know someone in three weeks. I would rather specify what has previously been the approximate comfort level: three months and about 750-1000 edits but as a caution rather than a hard number. Something like: "Candidates and their nominators should be aware that candidacies below three months on Wikipedia and about 750 to 1,000 edits are apt to be below the comfort level of enough editors that an otherwise worthy nomination has a good chance of failing, so it is would be good to consider whether it would be better to wait a bit before making such a nomination." -- Cecropia | Talk 01:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - A month and a half sounds fair as a minimum. Neutrality 01:20, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
      - I'm actually with you two on this. I was aiming low in hopes of garnering more support. I think 1½ or 2 months should be the bare minimum, and 2000 edits IMO. I especially like Cecropia's proposed statement. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - See the most recent poll. Why a month-and-a-half? I agree that there should not necessarily be a HARD minimum, but we are trying to see where people's comfort level is. Both polling and people's reactions on votes show a lot of people getting antsy under 3 months. Only one editor specified less than three months as a hard minimum. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll go farther - 3 months is the *bare minimum* amount of time someone can have been here and get me to vote for them - that is to say, any less and I automatically vote against them. Even then, I am not comfortable with someone who has been there only that long. →Raul654 01:13, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I think three months is a reasonable guideline for adminship, but it's too high for calling someone "obviously unqualified". This is for handling "HI I AM A NEW WIKPEDIA USR AND I WNAT TO BE A ADMIN!!1 WAHT DO U THNK????" -- Cyrius|✎ 01:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I generally vote for anyone who has 2+ months and 2000+ edits under their belt, unless IMO they're not right for the job. Just wanted add my "bare minimum opinion"... blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - How about: Nominees who are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 500 edits and less than two months membership, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes show that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - I disagree. There is no reason to pull nominations early. If you really feel that a nomination should be pulled early, I think the right thing to do would be to ask the nominator or nominee is they wish to withdraw the nomination. As to the minimum though, I am personally beginning to feel that I may make 3 months a hard minimum for my own voting, I prefer wording that warns the prospective nominator/nominee that the nomination is likely to fail. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed timelag between nominations

I would like to propose a one month time interval between nominations of the same person. I.e. if a person is nominated for adminship and fails to gain adminship there should be a wait of one month before they can be nominated by anyone again.Any nominations within that month long waiting period can be removed straight away without waiting for a vote. What do people think? theresa knott 10:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It seems to me that if a candidate cannot muster enough support in a one-week period, he/she is very unlikely to do so the next week either, or the next. A one-month interval should be regarded as a bare minimum. I say this because it seems to me that no candidate ever gets rejected, unless there are serious concerns about his/her suitability. Giving one month's space for reconsideration seems very generous to the rejected candidate. I don't see how anybody could object.David Cannon 11:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another point: There will always be problem candidates, who are out to waste everybody's time. Someone, whose user name I've forgotten :-(, brought up the issue about a month ago. He/she pointed out that a problem candidate could be rejected, then immediately force another vote. We again vote no, so he calls another vote. We vote no yet again - and then find ourselves faced with yet another time-wasting voting exercise. How long should that be allowed to go on for? I think your proposed one-month moratorium is an effective way of dealing with such trolls. David Cannon 11:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Theresa. One month sounds good. About the repeated case described by David Cannon: I am sure we could vote to ban such users from adminship for longer periods if necessary. But I haven't seen such a case yet, and lets hope there won't (wasn't) be one -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good - David Gerard 23:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The AC could easily decree a longer ban for particlular users. I chose I month for all users so as to minimally inconvenience non troll nominations (Sometimes people object because of "not enough experience") I too can't see how anyone could possible object, so I intend to be bold and and add the phrase to the page once a certain nomination has run it's course, unless there are any objections in the meantime. theresa knott 23:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Neutrality 00:28, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Poll — Nomination guidelines and self-nomination

It is understood in all the below questions that a nomination posted contrary to these rules can be summarily removed by anyone. In all cases time would be counted from the withdrawal or end of the first nomination and the posting of the next.

Q1: Reposting by same nominator after unsuccessful nomination

If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene bfore the same nominator can repost the failed nomination?

Immediately

One week

Two weeks

One month

Other time period (how long?)

Three weeks. Neutrality 02:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Not at all—a different nominator should be required

Q2: Reposting by a different nominator after unsuccessful nomination

If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene bfore the a different nominator can post a new renomination for the same person?

Immediately

One week

Two weeks

One month

Other time period (how long?)

Three weeks. Neutrality 02:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Q3: Reposting self-nomination

If a self-nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time before the candidate can self-nominate again?

Immediately

One week

Two weeks

One month

Other time period (how long?)

Three months. Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Never—one self nomination per editor

Q4: Converting self-nomination to regular nomination

Should an editor otherwise eligible to nominate be entitled to convert a self-nomination to a regular nomination by endorsing or sponsoring the nomination, and then move the nomination to a regular spot?

Yes, 'at any time' after the candidacy is posted

Why not? Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only at the end of the self-nomination period

No

Q5:Prior votes on a converted nomination

If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the votes already cast?

Wipe all the votes to start fresh. Voters who already voted will have to recast them.

Retain the votes and count on the voters to change them, if they want

Neutrality 02:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Q6:Remaining time on a converted nomination

If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the time already spent?

Start the time all over again as a new nomination

Retain the same end time

Let the new nominator or the nominee decide one of the above

self-nominate once; other comments on time lag

I would propose that users only be allowed to self-nominate once. If they are not accepted, they can then await nomination by another user.

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for us to ask the nominator to wait for a month before making further nominations after one fails. I believe that the business of nominating someone for adminship should be a more weighty one than it is presently, with a good deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the nominator, both during the vote and during a mentorship period afterwards. UninvitedCompany 01:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that if a self-nomination fails essentially because it was a self-nomination--i.e., "not enough work for a self-nomination" then one or both of two things should be allowed, notwithstanding other policy: (1) a sponsor should be able to put up the nomination again any time after the self-nomination fails, after that a one-month (or whatever) rule would apply and/or (2) during the course of voting on a self-nomination, anyone wishing to stand as a nominator or sponsor of the self-nomination should be able to declare so and move the nomination into the regular section. I haven't though out whether the votes should be wiped and the clock started again, but maybe we should consider that. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)