Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 52

message: After looking at this page yesterday, I realized that there's kind of a shortage of b-crats. Here's my question--why? There's no shortage of great administators out there; why don't some of them run? Just throwing that out... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question whether there is a shortage of bureaucrats depends on how much work you expect every single one of them to do. The workload could easily be handled by four or five, given that on the German wikipedia, all admin promotions are done by one bureaucrat. So it is unclear whether more bureaucrats are needed; perhaps more bureaucrat activity is needed, but whether that will be provided by electing additional bureaucrats is also not clear. Kusma (討論) 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. More bureaucrat activity would be best. I myself am not always around (I'm a college student... busy busy) but I try to make time for Wikipedia as often as I can. The reason why we don't like having too many bureaucrats is a matter of security. You don't want to promote someone to bureaucrat that might end up going rogue. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linuxbeak, that explanation is the first rational reason I have heard for why there aren't too many bureaucrats. Before I thought it was silly not to have a a bunch more but after hearing this little fact I've changed my mind. (And before anyone says anything, I'm sure Linuxbeak's point was made before on these discussion pages but this is the first time I've heard it.) Thanks, --Alabamaboy 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Essjay promoted, I doubt we will have problems anyway.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Essjay has not taken a pledge to never go on vacation or to avoid getting busy with other things. Reliance on any one individual is not a good idea. We shouldn't promote unqualified candidates, but there is no good reason to reject a good trustworthy candidate. NoSeptember talk 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I am not saying that we only need Essjay, but that with the addition of a new crat (him), we should be OK.  I'd still support a good nom though.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I realy hate the say we do RfBs. We let someone nominate themselves, and then we simmultaneously have the 'do we need more crats?' and the 'if we do, do we want him' debates. (It is like going for an arduous job interview, when you arn't even told in advance if the job exists.) It would be better to agree how many more (if any) we need at present (or let the existng crats tell us). Then let anyone apply, and vote by approval/diapproval voting - the highest get appointed - any others with high approval form a reserve lists when the existing crats decide they need reinforcement. When/if the list is used up, we open for new nominations again.--Doc ask? 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An ArbCom style election would be fine, as would a Steward style election, but when discussed here it got mixed reviews. NoSeptember talk 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I don't subscribe to the "we have enough 'crats" idea, but it does motivate me to have high standards for 'crats. If the only concern is that a 'crat might go on a rampage, then select those who won't go on a rampage. It's as simple as that. I normally wouldn't feel so strongly about this, since on a wiki we ought to be eventualist (how much does it matter if we get a few delayed promotions now and then? How many of these delayed RfAs would be controversial?), but as Doc has pointed out, this creates a nasty problem with RfBs. We shouldn't be turning qualified people down and yet at the same time leaving applications open if we have "enough" crats. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bureaucrats

message: *Our newest admin
*on Meta
*here - proof that a large edit count is not all that matters.
:Does this mean he will be doing some of the WP:OFFICE functions, like protecting pages for legal reasons? 
:This will be a good thing for Wikipedia and clearly he should be an admin, but it would have been fun to cast a vote for him ;-). 
: Welcome aboard Brad. NoSeptember talk 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, meta admins are meta admins, they have no special role in en.wikipedia whatsoever. --Doc ask? 13:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, that was the en.wiki bureaucrat log, and he is an en.wiki admin not a Meta admin (at least not yet). NoSeptember talk 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, got you now, I don't see why we should get a vote on this. This guy is a lawyer, and I guess the foundation has given him rights to help wth legal matters. The foundation is not answerable to the community in how it deals with legal questions, because ultimately it is the foundation and not the community who are legally responsible (in so far as they are) for what is on their servers. If we found this guy objectionable (and I'm glad we don't), well then tough. --Doc ask? 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't complaining in the slightest way, in case that didn't come across through the internet. I agree that a vote is totally not needed. I only said it would be fun to do ;-). We should enjoy the fact that this is a very rare occurance. With the exception of readminning former sysops and the occasional test (like user:Angela1) or error (quickly reverted), this is the only occurance I am aware of, of a non-RfAed sysop being added since 2002 when there were fewer than 40 sysops in total. And I have gone through the entire history of sysop promotions back to September 2002 in the process of creating this page. I fully trust Jimbo, Danny, and Angela. I am enjoying the uniqueness of the occasion, come and enjoy it with me. NoSeptember talk 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note. I shall rejoice with you too. :) --Doc ask? 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OMG, once he didn't leave an edit summary, where do I go to protest about this!!! Martin 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: File an arbitration case against Jimbo, Angela, Anthere, et al for promoting an obviously unqualified candidate outside of process. Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Danny who did the out of process promotion, and not for the first time (he attempted to) this year either ;-). NoSeptember talk 17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I advised Brad to ask Danny to promote him; Mindspillage concurred in that recommendation.  Having Brad go through the motions of an RfA would have been pointless; Brad needs this level of access in order to do his job for the Foundation, and that should be the end of the discussion.  At least nobody is screaming too loudly yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, Kelly, I don't think anyone disagrees with the promotion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, no disagreement after seeing what he does. Still, it would have been nice if Danny would have made a note here or somewhere else on Wikipedia why he promoted Brad, so that we don't have to go hunting around before finding out that he's WMF's legal counsel. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, an RFA would have just been embarrassing, because some really would have opposed on the grounds of editcountitis/editsummaryitis etc. regardless of the evident qualifications. Martin 10:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, Danny has created his new sockpuppet Dannyisme as an admin and bureaucrat. Sockpuppets have been promoted in the past to test the bureaucrat buttons. This case is different, of course, see the statement on the sockpuppet user page. NoSeptember talk 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BradPatrick

message: We're trying to rewrite the proposal. Please see WT:DFA for more. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you weren't here before, that's a proposal to reform RfA. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the reform attempt was dead by now. There was a very insightful comment on this page a while ago, by NoSeptember. To paraphrase, it said that the current RfA system is mostly fine, and if anything, changes to it will come gradually as the process evolves and issues show up. I wholehartedly agree with that. Suggestions for big overhauls did not gain much tractions so far, and I don't see a good motivation for trying. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been discussing on there. RfA isn't broken, we agree. It is good enough. But we can do better than good enough. And I haven't seen any changes to the RfA process in a long long time. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions for Adminship 

message: Google searches for misspellings sometimes turn up all sorts of wierd and wonderful things, but today my search for "admistrator" turned up the funniest fake request for adminship I've ever seen (linked above). I've put it in BJAODN, but what else should be done with it? I myself was fooled until I read the history. What kind of joke was this, and how did google find it? Graham talk 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it's been moved to BJAODN already, I've deleted. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case people can't find the link, here you go :) jacoplane 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JudgeRoberts]] 

message: I'm puzzled about what happened with this RfA (history).  The last vote cast put the tally at (0/8/1) (old edit).  When Essjay closed it early, it was changed to (0/17/2) (diff).  But this is not just about rectifying the record.  That's easily done, and the whole thing could be attributed to an honest mistake.  But I don't know about closing an RfA that had been open for just five hours with just nine votes in — granted, eight of which were to oppose, but it just seems way too early.  Maybe if there were indeed 17, or even more, votes opposing.  It would have been nice to have waited at least the first 24 hours though.  But that notwithstanding, I'm confused.  Was this closed at (0/8/1), or did Essjay have (0/17/2) in mind?  I thought it would be best to post this here.  Regards, Redux 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sure it was a typo. Essjay closed 3 at the same time and the first one was 0/17/2. He probably just forgot and went nuts with the copy paste.  None of them were going to succeed...so I don't see the problem with closing them and sparing the candidate the pain of pileon opposes.  Any contructive critcism that they could get out of the Rfa had already been said. pschemp | talk 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said: the incorrect tally is credited to an honest mistake, but the RfA was only five hours old when it was closed.  And there had been only nine votes cast (and one was not to oppose).  The possibility of early delisting notwithstanding, I'm not sure it should be done this early.  An RfA must be given a minimum amount of time open: it is not unusual for a candidate to get four, five or more oppose votes in a row, and then start receiving consecutive support votes in the same fashion.  An applicant/candidate/nominee (whatever we call them) is entitled to an accurate community feedback on his/her standing as a potential Admin.  With just five hours, only the nine people who happened to be around got to vote.  And again, eight votes to oppose is not a landslide, especially considering the particularly short life of this RfA.  Redux 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I have seen other RFA's close earlier than 5 hours. Usually someone will delist an RFA due to lack of support/bad nomination and this is quite often. Usually an RFA is delisted after 10 or more opposers in a row because it highly unlikely that a user will gain enough support in a row to gain adminship. The chances of a new user/user who has 10 opposes in a row, obtaining adminship is really low. Moe ε 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is also reasonable for a 'crat to let what the oppose votes are saying. To use an extreme example, the first oppose vote details a massive string of personal attacks, the second oppose vote details massive POV pushing by the candidate, the third oppose vote shows a dif of the candidate saying that they want to be an admin so they can block users they don't like, and then the next 4 are oppose votes per the earlier ones, the 'crat has every right to delist even if the number of opposes isn't that high. JoshuaZ 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know.  I too remember this instance when a three-day-old account nominated a week-old account.  That's different.  And, as I said, it would also have been different if there had been a staggering number of votes (such as those 17, or more), but that was not the case.  I had opposed the candidate myself, and, realistically speaking, I don't believe that the RfA would have succeeded.  But the delisting still feels like it was premature to me.  Unless it is a clear-cut case (such as in the examples Joshua mentioned, or the one I just did), an RfA should be allowed to run, at least for some time.  I don't believe this RfA showed any indication, five hours in, that it was a clear case for early delisting.  Maybe in a [full] day or two, the tally would have read something like (0/67/1).  That would have been different.  Without at least a full day, there are countless users out there who never even saw that RfA, because they were asleep, or at work, or doing something other than editing Wikipedia.  Some of those could have supported.  And it's one thing to have a RfA fail with a consensus of 45%, or 60%, or whatever.  It's something quite different to fail after being delisted in just five hours with 0% support.  It can be taken as disconcerting by the candidate (and the user who nominated him/her), and no one can guarantee, with that tally and in that amount of time, that the RfA would have gone any specific way.  We have had users promoted who had approximately the same time with the community (~6 months).  And of the people who opposed, myself included, no one said anything like is that some kind of joke?  On the contrary, the candidate was recognized as being on the right track.  Again, no indication, that early on, that it was a clear, obvious case for immediate delisting.  Redux 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with RfA closed early 

message: I am just wondering if someone check history before closing a RfA. There is possibility that some other user signs with different user to have fake voting at a RfA. So, I just wanted to know this query.  Shyam (T/C) 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many experienced users around at the RfA forum.  Trying to fake a signature is highly unlikely to succeed.  Bureaucrats are, by definition, very experienced users, so it would be very surprising if any of them were to miss such a crude attempt at tampering with a RfA.  Normally, Bureaucrats don't even need to "unmask" that sort of thing themselves.  Usually, other users will have already posted pointing out any attempts against the proper functioning of a RfA.  Regards, Redux 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not so much easy job that you are understanding. It is difficult to check without checking history and crosschecking sign and user who have posted the signature. So I just wanted to know this.  Shyam (T/C) 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes: if the perpetrator has a minimal understanding as to how Wikipedia works, the forgery is only apparent by cross-checking the history.  But that's pretty much on autopilot for a user with at least some experience — not that people are always specifically on the lookout for forgeries and other dishonest tricks, but it's just something we do.  And on RfA, we always check the history.  So, while it is possible (although not likely) that something like this could slip passed one [experienced] user, someone else will catch it in time, and the final outcome of the RfA will not be affected by something like this.  Redux 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean that an individual's vote has no significance. Then I do not agree with you. Every single vote has the same value.  Shyam (T/C) 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a vote. It is not a vote. It is NOT a VOTE. The Land 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why does the template say "Vote here"? :-) --W.marsh 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess he wanted to say that theoretically, it's not a vote. Practically, it is :-) Fetofs Hello! 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT a democracy. We don't guarantee that an individual's vote will have any significance -- in theory we shouldn't be having any votes at all. RfA has the trappings of a vote, but it is modelled on straw polling, where we aim for consensus; this is where bureaucrats' discretion comes in. Johnleemk | Talk 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I take my words back and assume Wikipedia is not a vote. But it does not answer my question.  Shyam (T/C) 20:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The significance of a "vote" depends on how the bureaucrat views it. "Votes" from suspected meat- or sockpuppets ought to be discounted, and so on. There's no hard and clear way to answer your question -- as I said, it depends on the bureaucrats' discretion. This doesn't mean a "vote" is insignificant; its significance merely varies depending on the circumstances. Johnleemk | Talk 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming a reasonable number of people have "voted" then no, a single "vote" is not significant.  It has a value, certainly, but that value isn't enough to change the result, so it's not significant.  --Tango 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose theoretically, it would be conceivable that, in a very close RfA, someone with a serious attitude problem and who may deeply dislike the candidate could try to forge a vote (also by creating sock puppets, v.g.) in order to sway consensus and cause the RfA to fail — I mean, an 80% consensus is required for promotion, and, depending on how things are progressing, a single "oppose" can "offset" three or four "support" in terms of the percentage required for promotion.  In theory, one single "oppose" can bring down to 73% or 74% (under the cut off for Bureaucrat discretion) a consensus that was at 75% or 76%.  But then, back to what I said: something like this will not be allowed to stand — remembering that the original question was: would something like this possibly go unnoticed? Absolutely not.  And all that notwithstanding (have I been using that word too much? :)), impersonation is unacceptable behavior under any circumstance, and if it's done in a place such as a RfA, it's that much worse.  Whether or not the action had an actual relevance in the RfA where it took place is not essential in that regard.  Redux 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redux, you are quite correct for a single fake vote. Let's assume an user has one non-detectable sock-puppet account (reason may be using different proxy or IP for sock-puppet account). He/She signs a particular RfA with one or two fake votes per user account. This adds total 5 signs from his/her side. If (s)he does this process in very beginning of a RfA. Let's say (s)he opposes by all these 5 votes and other users have signed 4 supports and 2 opposes. By adding this particular user's contribution RfA stats is (4/7/0). I am just guessing (not sure) other users may follow the same trend as majority opposes the vote and it may be converted to unsuccesful promotion while it was deserved a succesful promotion. It's just a virtual incident. So it may matter too much.  Shyam (T/C) 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly suggest this conversation trend be dropped and the above deleted per WP:BEANS. JoshuaZ 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deletion per above, if it can create such kind of situation.  Shyam (T/C) 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does a Bureaucrat check history before closing a RfA