Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 57

message: (new subsection as it's related, but different)
I think having sponsers/apprentices is a little on the complex side, due to the many reasons outlined above. However, I also think the current Rfa system could do with improvement as at the moment, it is a leap of faith. All we have to go on are the persons history as an editor, but the skills required to be a good editor and good admin are quite different, in my view. Also, a person could be seen as very good at compromising with other editors, but we have no idea if this will carry over to admin space. Will they become a Roosevelt admin, "Speak softly and carry a big mop", or a rogue admin "I don't have to speak softly anymore because I have a big mop"? We just don't know. Maybe we should have Rfa's as now, and once successful, they become an admin, but have "provisional" status for the first X months, at which time there are reconfirmed (simplier process, with a lower threashold, so it's not a second Rfa, as even good admins tend to receive flak.) Any comments? MartinRe 14:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Provisional admins?

message: I think that as long as becoming an admin is a priority for a lot of editors (which it is...a big deal) any probationary adminship or mentoring system will just cause editors to smile, nod and supply answers they know are acceptable/expected. Moreover, groups like CJ and Esperanza will advocate for their members without being as critical as an outsider might be. I think the only real solution is to raise standards (which won't happen) or put into place some easier way of policing admins. We need to have a way to temp de-admin people that have transgressed on their admin tools. The prospect of a day/week/month as a non-admin will keep people closer to the pack I think. That takes the pressure off of RFA and makes the process not quite so final. Rx StrangeLove 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kinds of transgressions would warrant a short de-admining?  If the mistake is in good faith, a warning should suffice, if it's not, they need to be de-admined until there is a reason to trust them again.  I don't see the point of short breaks. --Tango 17:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheel warring for example. As it stands, once you're an admin it's pretty hard (and time consuming) to reverse. So unless you go way overboard or get noticed by the wrong person you're an admin for life. We need real consequences for admins that are acting out. I'm not talking about good faith mistakes, it's the bad faith ones that need attention. What normally happens when an admin gets blocked is that half the time someone else unblocks right away, or the block is a short one that doesn't have any impact. I think it's be much more effective to force the admin to participate in Wikipedia as a normal user for a while to bring home the consequence of his or her actions. Now, if permanent de-admiing becomes easier then this wouldn't be necessary. The point I'm trying to make is that there are nothing really stopping an admin from acting out right now...and as I was saying above probationary adminship or mentoring won't be effective. Rx StrangeLove 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely wheel warring requires permanent de-adminship.  I thought this could be done through ArbCom.  I've never really been involved in ArbCom and have only read a few archived discussions - is it too hard to get admins demopped that way? --Tango 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends on the issue I think. A couple months ago we had several de-sysoppings happen nearly instantaneously over the pedo-userbox thing. But generally it takes a full ArbCom action which I think many people agree is unwieldy and too time consuming. It doesn't stop at wheel warring though, there's things like ongoing and inappropriate blocking, ongoing disruption and/or deletion abuse that would warrant a block of this kind. I think we need to be able to warn admins in some manner that falls sort of a long drawn out ArbCom action. The problem with using normal blocks to so this is that even if they do stick, they cut off all editing permissions. It might be more useful to show the target of the admin block what life is like without the admin bit for awhile. Just to repeat myself a little, we should have some way to give admins a timeout short of a full blown ArbCom finding. Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another way to take pressure off of RFA?

message: Well, its come up again, Ardenn's voting oppose everwhere because "nothing against the candidate" we just don't need more admins.  Ardenn is clearly trying to make a point, and I find it a little disruptive.  Do we want to adopt a policy for crats marking disruptive votes as such so hopefully the pratice can be discouraged -- Tawker 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple: Trust us. We're smart enough to know when votes are in good faith and when they're not. I can't think of a single person who was denied adminship because of a vote by Boothy443, and I highly doubt this instance will be any more sucessful. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Essjay :). It really fills the page with needless rambling, AT BEST. IMHO people should stick to disputing reasons instead of the intent of the user, because they only direction that goes is down :\. It is as it always was T | @ | C 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its not about final outcome and is more about a user making a point by adding his views (which no-one agrees to) everywhere. I strongly feel that its disruptive. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then just ignore it. As long as it doesn't have any tangible effect, there's no point paying attention to it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: He should be able to vote for any reason he wants, provided he has a sufficient history as a constructive contributor. It's worrying when people try to dictate what reasons are valid for opposing. A person's vote is an expression of their opinion and should not be disregarded. I find it rather irritating that Essjay would say that holding such an opinion marks him as voting in "bad faith". Everyking 09:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an opinion runs counter to policy it ought to be disregarded. Not ignored, but nevertheless, considered invalid. Otherwise we might as well discard our policies and just let mob rule take over. (Note: There's a difference between IAR and running counter to policy. Many actions taken under IAR/WP:SNOW in the correct manner as outlined on their respective pages do not run counter to policy, but fill the gap of wedge cases as I mentioned above in the discussion of renewing adminship/community deadminning.) Just because you can express your opinion doesn't mean it should be heard. It is policy currently to continue adminning people, or else we would shut down RfA. If Ardenn wants to make a real change, he should propose to change this policy, not try to make a point by abusing the existing policy/process. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of what policy could prohibit his votes, unless it's the argument that the mere existence of RfA prohibits his votes, in which case I think that's preposterous. And quit talking about "mob rule" (you were using that same line in the previous argument)—I happen to be a big believer in "mob rule", although I don't call it that or perceive it as being at all contrary to policy. Everyking 09:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to me you're using the idea of consensus to dismiss a person's opinion. The fact is, RfA is a vote—it's unfair to treat it as a vote, to have it function as a vote, and then try to deprive people of their votes when they use them to express something unpopular, on the grounds that it's supposed to be about "consensus". Everyking 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the closing 'Crat would discount Ardenn's vote. How useful in seeking consensus is his vote if he always votes no? Is he violating WP:POINT? Is there not a better way for him to address the issue? :) Dlohcierekim 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were I the 'crat (I'm not), User:Ardenn and User:A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding would cancel each other out... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If RfA isn't a vote, why does the template say "vote here"? Hehe. It's not a pure vote, because sometimes people with 75-80% can pass, but 80.0% and up now essentially always succeeds, and b'crats have said this, so it is basically a vote. --W.marsh 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why does the template say "vote here"? That's a weak point, because some nominators do change the "vote here" to "discuss here". Kimchi.sg 15:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that we can call it consensus and discussion, but ultimately a 82% RfA will practically never fail. If you succeed by getting enough votes, then it's a vote... even if we say it's determing consensus, which it is too. --W.marsh 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 82% will never fail because b'crats have to essentially promise to always abide by the 80% rule and never think for themselves if they want to get through RfB.  We should give the b'crats more room to use their descretion - if we didn't trust them to do that, they wouldn't have the job.  How about expanding the buro descretion range from 75-80% to 65-90%?  Promotions under 75% and failures over 80% would still be very rare, and would probably require some explanation from the buro, but they would have room to do it if it's needed. --Tango 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They're not really in bad faith (I think--see his talk page) but his summaries do leave something to be desired. I don't think this is really a WP:POINT to be made. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making [[WP:POINT|points]] on RfA pages 

message: I've noticed a general trend of simply reverting RfA comments that users feel the burecrats will simply disregard anyway.    (Note: I'm not pointing this out to attack any editor or group of editors, just pointing out a general phenomenon.) I think we should have some kind of discussion about what should be done about such votes. While I don't mind removing votes that are obvious vandalism or trolling, my opinion is that less clear-cut cases should either be struck out, a note attached, or simply having faith in the closing burecrat. (With more emphasis on the latter two, as having your vote struck out can be demoralizing.) There are a few points that I feel would be relevant to this argument:
*Our user account benefits page lists "the right to be heard in votes and elections" as a benefit to having a user account. While some people may abuse this system, simply reverting the edits prevents the editor from being heard at all.
*On a similar note, common practice of AfD's that are riddled with sockpuppets has been to let the comments stand as-is, rather than reverting them or striking them out. 
*Starting the practice of reverting rather than commenting on potentially bad-faith votes might be a slippery slope. For example, one might feel justified in reverting the votes of users who feel the need to oppose nearly every single RfA candidate.
Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed, but as discussed above, it is helpful for users to comment on situations, as we can't see and know everything. Reverting votes or striking them out is not good though. Duplicate votes and sockpuppets of banned users can have an extra # added so they don't contribute to the count. - Taxman Talk 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Christopher Parham's first sentence but not with what follows.  I think the only comments that should be removed are those that are personal attacks.  Judging good faith or bad faith is a slippery slope that we should not venture out on. -- DS1953 talk 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are cases where bad faith is dead obvious, e.g. simple vandalism. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Christopher Parham. Comments that are clearly bad-faith (i.e. "candidate so-and-so is an <expletive>!!!", etc.) or are from banned users can be reverted. Otherwise, good faith comments (or comments that could be interpreted as good faith) should never be reverted or deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no point in removing a comment from an RfA. Such  will either stand or fall on their own merits. :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we to remove all the votes from User:A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding or keep them? joturner 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the sort of thing that should be removed from the tally, but which doesn't need to be struck out or removed. Although if such absurdity grows to an epic scale we may need to take stronger measures against disruption. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, just make a comment underneath them about why you think it should be disregarded. The closing bureaucrat will make a decision on what to do with it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing RfA comments

message: User:Dragon's Blood was found to be a Zephram Stark sockpuppet. This user also voted on a large number of RfAs as part of their long term encroachment to make the sock plausible. As a sock of a banned user, I would presume that the votes it made are not valid. Therefore, should the vote totals be adjusted on the admin stats pages? JoshuaZ 00:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The totals *do* accurately reflect the totals used for promotion, and that is what matters. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the totals in all technicality don't mean anything since it isn't a true vote (it isn't truly consensus based either) since the number of support or oppose in actuality seems to act more to a guide for the bureaucrats to look at when seeing if there's a consensus or not to promote. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be true, but the totals in any case do represent the state the RfA was in when it was closed. The tags say "This is preserved as an archive" for a reason: Specifically, so people know what the state of things was at the time the decision was made. If you rewrite the history, then it will only be natural for people to come along and say "Why did this happen?" The bottom line is this: Regardless of whether we find out someone was a sockpuppet two months later, at the time the bureaucrat decided what to do, the vote was considered legitimate. That is what should be recorded. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone that was so close that one opinion mattered one way or the other? Those would be the only ones I'd even consider supporting doing anything about... and although I haven't checked I am thinking there haven't been any such in a while. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there could be. However, I was recalling an RfA I know of recently where there were three sockpuppets. Three oppose votes stricken could affect a tally significantly. Taking two fairly reasonable numbers, 50/15, which is 76.92% support, could quite easily be a no consensus; it would be 50/12 with those three removed, which would be 80.64%, a clear promote. So yes, it could be that close. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the analysis. So what do you think? I'm still thinking that even if it "could be that close" mathematically that the changes wouldn't make a difference (and maybe closer to the original question) and shouldn't make a difference. What's done is done, leave sleeping dogs lie, etc. Do others agree? ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring RfA totals to remove sockpuppets after they have been closed? 

message: On my RfA an IP user mysteriously came along and voted. What is the procedure for handling this - should I just remove the vote and inform the user that IP votes are discounted? Or should I leave it as it is with the minor comment stating so? Cowman109Talk 01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment it out, that is, replace just # with #: so that it indents it but doesn't interrupt the numbering of votes below it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks! Cowman109Talk 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A caveat: Replacing # with #: doesn't work if the vote is the first one. It still gets numbered so you'll have to remove the # altogether. Kimchi.sg 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, exactly. However, if the first support vote is an IP vote, it may well be the nominator logged out, as the nominator traditionally casts the first support vote. Might be a good idea to notify the nominator, unless they are signed below. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Votes 

message: Yesterday there were a couple of unsigned RfA's that were removed quickly. User:Funnybunny had a previous unsigned RfA. Is it possible for someone, for whatever reason, to nominate a user and the user not know about it until everyone had opposed per not answering the questions? Or worse, to not know about it till someone brought it up on a subsequent RfA? Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surprise RfA nom's