Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 100

message: A short while ago I resysopped RobertG, who posted on WP:BN requesting this as per "Former administrators who resigned their adminship in good standing may be reinstated at the discretion of any bureaucrat," our policy. Nobody objected, as this was a standard, procedural sysopping. This so-called "controversial" request, like that of RobertG's, is actually similarly a trivial sysopping. This user did not leave under "a cloud" and is still in good standing with our project. The only difference was that this user had a privacy concern -- he wished to contribute to our encyclopedia without being connected with his previous identity. I feel transparency in processes is important just as many of you do, and ultimately I found it acceptable to promote with the comment "(Resysopping of previously self-desysopped user who edited under a different account (If you wish to see proof of this, contact him or I by email))" that can be found in the rights log, and a user page link to a deleted contribution (similar to the precedent with Y). Several users did e-mail me and I don't understand why most of those complaining about this above haven't. One user who e-mailed me replied, "Hopefully nobody makes a big deal of it." Andre (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carry on then. You're doing a good job in my estimation! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it truly is common practice to give out the old name to anyone who asks, then I don't have a huge objection. But that would rather defeat the point of trying to have privacy, so I must assume that doing so is in fact not common practice. -Amarkov moo! 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incredibly flawed logic. Andre (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amarkov, generally people aren't looking privacy from other admins and longstanding contributors, they are worried about outside interests - trolls, stalkers etc. obtaining the info. As the long as they are happy that the  person who asks them isn't going to start shouting the information from the rooftops, they'll usually be willing to share it. WjBscribe 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just seems like a case of 'crat envy.  No normal editor asks an admin to see proof that the article they speedily deleted on BLP privacy violations was indeed a violation and that is not transparent.  Similarly, no admin is entitled to see the personal details related to a 'crat reinstating an admin in good standing based on privacy concerns.  This case was above and beyond what's required.  But basically, if the'crats said "no, we are not going to let you know who that person was, but it was an admin in good standing." That should be it.  Other 'crats might request it and expect an answer, but not the horde of admins and normal editors.  The log files say who was made an admin and that is transparent.  If you have doubts about the admin, follow them around and check up on them just like normal editors have to do for deletionist admins.   --Tbeatty 22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note from the bureaucrat

message: There is a tally of votes on top of each Rfa, but who updates them? --Hirohisat Talk 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If we are going to have them they should be accurate. A bot should update the tallies. ~ Wikihermit 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Not this again. Geez, tallies aren't an all-or-nothing kind of thing. —Kurykh 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, no... that's a pointless bot.  The people !vote are supposed to update them. Cbrown1023 talk 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't because they click [edit] under discussion, and the tally isn't in that edit section. Maybe move it down? ~ Wikihermit 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: That is not a useful purpose. That is a statement frought with the signs of editcountisitus. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't tell me you didn't grasp the sarcasm in Gnangarra's comment. —Kurykh 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding </sarcasm> tag. ~ Wikihermit 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack. Does that mean everything since what Gnangarra said was sarcastic, since the tag was open that whole time? This is confusing... – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In answer to the first question,  updates them.  We're all too lazy. Giggy UCP 08:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I deliberately don't update it, because it isn't that useful anyway, and there's an accurate tally on WP:BN. (It was me who added the section edit links on RfA; it wasn't conciously part of a plan to stop people updating the tallys, but now I think about it, either it was just an oversight or I have a really devious subconcious that wants to help make RfA less of a vote...) --ais523 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sarcasism this time, the benefit to having a count lets one quickly assertain via popups whats being happening to an RfA while they've been off line, it accuracy is generally within 1 or 2 comments most of the time (personal observation edit conflicts cause the biggest discrepancies). Theres no need for a bot to waste resources monitor all the rfa and fixing the counts. Gnangarra 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always update the tally, and I think we should have a bot to do so. The precise numbers do matter; otherwise we're basically saying that a number of people's opinions don't matter, which is highly elitist. Everyone's opinion should be given the same weight, otherwise we risk ending up with a class of elite users. The tally is an essential part of RfA, and everyone should update it when they vote. WaltonOne 10:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is from a utopian perspective. Thats not just going to happen; everyone is not just going to change their ways and always update the tally. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Try updating the tally after a couple of edit conflicts, sometimes its hard just to get a comment in. Gnangarra 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just add a comment reminding users to update the tally when voting? --Chris g  10:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I too cynical or something or should that last comment have sarcastic tags wrapped around it...? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it really shouldn't, since it was so amazingly clear that it was not sarcasm...</end>(sorry, can't resist...) Deskana has a reasonably good point, as this type of thread is popping around everywhere, and nothing much is changing... --Dark Falls talk 11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was never amazing with HTML :-p --Deskana (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not very fluent in reading sarcasm. cant tell what is what. :) But you are right, these posts are popping up everywhere. RFA discussion seems to continuously circulate and never get anywhere... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched these discussions for a long time, and they do go around in circles. We should start making predictions. Or do something constructive :-p actually this one impressed me, the issues have been condensed. When this topic has been brought up in the past it's taken much longer for the bot suggestion to be brought up. --Deskana (banana) 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never update the counter. Why? Because RFA is not a vote (well, actually it is, but it shouldn't be). The counters just make it more of a vote. We shouldn't have the # , the counters, or the bot that tells the crats to promote because the box is a pretty green! RFA sadly is a vote, and this must be changed. RFA should be about consensus and trust. All our current system has given us is sockpuppets who pass unanimously, yet good editors are turned down who are actually trying to help the project. That shows that RFA is flawed. We have a great system going. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics on Rfas 

message: This is a long discussion thread. Here is a very quick summary if you are too busy to read it all. If parts of the summary look wrong or incomplete, fix it. Just be concise and organized about it.
Problem: It can take a long time to check edit histories for RfA candidates. Also, there's possible guesswork and duplication of effort because there's no obvious way to distinguish what has (and has not) been checked yet by someone else.
Solutions: There appear to be a few main theories on how best to handle this "problem".
* Organize volunteers: divide the labor and coordinate between groups who promise to check.
** Rationale: helps remove guesswork and increases thoroughness
** Pitfalls: Are people gonna do this?; Oppresive?; Who watches the watchers? Who trusts the checkers?
** Rebuttals: RfA already is this.
* Technical solution: impose some kind of "edit-check tracking" system that works just like article histories.
** Rationale: helps reduce reliance on claims of "yeah, I already checked that"
** Pitfalls: Who is gonna code this? Still not as good as first-hand checking.
** Rebuttals: More airport security.
* Get a grip: there is no problem, nobody died.
** Rationale: checking edit histories is just one part. the system has enough checks and balances. some people may be model WP-ers just for the sake of passing RfA and raising hell afterward.
** Pitfalls: 
** Rebuttals: 
* Be Informed: Dont vote or !vote on an RfA unless you're personally familiar with the candidate or have sufficient time to examine their contributions and interactions with other editors.
** Rationale: similar to that of "Get a Grip"
** Pitfalls: 
** Rebuttals:
Fin. dr.ef.tymac 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Quick Summary: for busy people who are in a hurry 

message: I've started an MFD on Tangobot's report table here. Feel free to comment. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MfD is not there to change process (as it seems that there was an underlying desire to change how RfA works).  Also, MfD cannot delete a page which is generated afresh every day by a bot - I'd have thought that as much would be obvious.  The clue is to stop the bot by, who'd have guessed it, speaking to its owner! Martinp23 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's seems rather clear to me that MfD can delete a page which is generated by a bot -- you just delete the page, and then block the bot if it continually recreates it. (In the same way one would block a human for continually recreating it.) I agree however that talking to the bot owner first is a good idea; MfD would be a reasonable avenue if the dispute could not be resolved in that fashion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I use the RfA Report to help me with my bureaucrat duties (actually the one at User:Dragons flight/RFA summary, which lists those ending soonest at the top, which I prefer) and I think trying to delete it is WP:POINT. As I've said several times about this issue, RfA is not a vote but numbers and tallies are still meaningful information. Andre (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that this is a useful tool. It doesn't only report how well a candidacy is going, we have to remember that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MFD on Tangobot's Report Table 

message: R and I have started an RfC available here. (Discussion transclusion removed by Andre (talk))
Feel free to join in. —« ANIMUM » 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Join in what? RfA reform drama? :| GracenotesT § 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You had the good foresight to start the discussion on a separate page. Therefore I have removed your transclusion, as it was merely cluttering up this page. Andre (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship|RfC]]