User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Who can vote or nominate

Who can vote? (Archive 12)

Hi - Who exactly can vote on this page? Can anyone, or is it only existing Sysops? I've had opinions about some of the candidates before, but I was unsure of if I was eligible to support or oppose nominations? Can this information be posted on the article page? -- DropDeadGorgias 18:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can vote here, although anonymous users or users with near-zero contribution history (less than 10 edits, say) might well have votes removed as they would be presumed by many to be either sock puppets or trolls. I'll post this on your talk page too. Anyone have an idea for how to word this to be placed on the meta page itself? Jwrosenzweig 18:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I was definitely confused at first (mostly cause all of the votes were from SysOps, as far as I could tell). This information would be useful on the main page. - DropDeadGorgias 19:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any information on less than ideal conduct in disagreements would be particularly welcome - it's the first thing I look for when trying to decide whether I think somoene should be an admin. Next is how they handle being wrong - how or if they accept it. Jamesday 05:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nominators and nominations (Archive 15)

I've just been wondering if -- as Wikipedia is growing so very quickly -- we might want to consider having nominations for adminship come from a current admin. I've just noticed that 3 of the 9 people currently up for adminship were nominated by the same person -- someone who's been registered for less than a month. Not that I want to discriminate against newer users, but I'm a bit concerned that someone so new is nominating so many people (a fourth was removed). Don't get me wrong -- I've voted for some of them as they are clearly deserving, but I'm wondering if a policy might not be in order. I don't feel like it would be terribly anti-democratic or restrictive to limit who can nominate someone else, as people could always suggest a person for nomination to an admin. Also I'm not thinking that we need to change anything about self-nominations.

So what do people think? BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:27, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that sysops controls who can become a sysop. I strongly oppose this idea. And if they are valid nominations, why does the user that nominated them matter? -- Quinwound 04:31, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

In making my determinations about whether there's a consensus, I have taken into account the longevity of people making a comment. I'm pretty much against a self-selecting population. Jimbo said basically that anyone who knows how to use the special sysop features and is generally well-known/trusted should get to be an admin (it's no big deal, really). Just want to be careful about encouraging vandalism. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there should be any limitations with that regard. I think nominations by very new users, or anons should be considered on the same level as self-nominations, since the new users/anons may not really be familiar enough with whom they're nominating. Vote accordingly is what I say. If you are bothered by who's doing the nominating, vote as if the person had nominated themselves. There is no reason to limit who can nominate someone. Dori | Talk 21:06, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was the user who nominated many people. I didn't know I did anything wrong. All of the users I have nominated (with the exception of sam spade) have been unanimously supported, and many users have noted that i made a good choice. Perl 22:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And you've been round longer than a month anyway, so the point is moot :). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

qualifications for nominators...

User:GrazingshipIV has made a nomination. GrazingshipIV's username is only 2 weeks old - and the user has amassed only ~71 edits on articles (along with ~17 edits on article talk pages and ~41 edits of user pages). This brings up many concerns I have about the nomination process. Without safeguards, what would prevent a sockpuppet from nominating another sockpuppet? What would prevent other sockpuppets from voting for the nominated sockpuppet? Once a crafty user-with-malintent became an admin through sockpuppety, who knows what damage could be done.

I would like to put forth this idea....to safeguard such things from happening, how about if only admins could nominate admins? Thoughts? Kingturtle 05:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support - originally I thought that was how this worked. - Texture 05:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just treat it as a you would a self-nomination. What's the big deal? I don't think it is a good idea to restrict who can nominate. Dori | Talk 05:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

(cutting in) Dori has the right idea here. If the nominating user carries no weight with you, treat as a self-nomination, which we allow anyway.

Martin

23:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The big deal is that someone with malicious intentions could use sockpuppetry to gain admin status. Kingturtle 05:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we see many new accounts supporting some nominations, it would obviously be removed. No bureaucrat would make someone an admin when there is obvious abuse, and there are plenty of regular users to oppose such nominations anyway. There is no need to restrict the priviledges of non-admins. Dori | Talk 06:01, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

A small army of well-designed sockpuppets would not show any history of abuse. Kingturtle 06:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think someone can maintain an "army" of sockpuppets without being found out. After all, developers can check IPs in case of suspicion. Even if somehow someone managed to slip through an entire army of sockpuppets (and he'd have to be someone with multiple personailities), the damage an admin can make is repairable pretty easily. With the new quickpoll policy, such an admin could be temporarily de-adminned, and the case could be scrutinized by the arbitration committee. Dori | Talk 06:16, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I think that restricting the right to nominate to current admins is an improvement over the current policy of allowing anyone to nominate anyone. However, I'd like to see a system by which non-admins can still propose nominations, the caveat being that they must be seconded by an admin (or perhaps a minimum number of admins) before being voted on. Acegikmo1 04:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fosters a cliquish, "us vs. them" mentality. Davodd 11:12, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. This argument against new members nominating seems rather weak considering the new user is nominating someone other than themselves who is then subject to a vote. The suggestion that "only admins can nominate admins" is rather undemocratic and certainly elitist. The current system provides the best safeguard against unqualified administrators being created-a vote. By having a stranglehold on who is nominated, current administrators would virtually control many of the most important operations of wikipedia by proxy. The sort of oligarchy created by excluding so many from the process would surely hurt wikipedia and the furtherment of its goals.GrazingshipIV 18:24, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Sysopship should not be a clique. However, what about qualifications for voters? Is there a current policy? Anthony DiPierro 02:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I would, however, support a requirement that nominators reveal their IP address. Anthony DiPierro 02:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In response . I am not a "sockpuppet" as far as I know. If you look at my page I am more interested in what might be called the 'nonpolitical' pages of Wikipedia. I saw somone who I thought deserved to be nominated (I don't know the user personally) so I did. As I understand it, anyone can nominate anyone and as you can see by this users current vote, a nomination does not nesasarily mean they will win the vote. I checked the rules and abided by them. I just come on here to further free-knowledge I assure you after this expierence I won't be nominating anybody. GrazingshipIV 06:05, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

No one ever called you a sock puppet, though that might have been the implication, intentional or otherwise. Nevertheless, the point remains- suppose you are, or suppose someone else in the future is? What should we do about it? -Fennec 06:10, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it would seem the current response fits rather well, voting against on the grounds that the nominator (me in this instance) is too new to wikipedia....problem solved.GrazingshipIV 06:14, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? If they are good enough to become an admin, they will become an admin, whether they self-nominate, get nominated, or use sockpuppets. 68.105.188.67 23:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I care. Are you saying someone who uses sockpuppets is good enough to become an admin? --Wik 23:54, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. but whether my argument is good or not, it doesn't matter. He's not a sockpuppet. ugen64 02:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

And how do you know that? --Wik 02:37, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, in-and-of themselves, I don't have a problem with second accounts, so long as they're not used for ballot stuffing. →Raul654 01:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

While GrazingshipIV does seem to me to possibly be a sockpuppet, I see no evidence (other than the nomination) that s/he is a sockpuppet of HCheney. In the interest of eliminating questions, however, the prudent thing for HCheney to do would be to recommend that the vote of GrazingshipIV not be counted. Anthony DiPierro 02:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wikibooks sysop and a Maori bureaucrat. I would like to make other users aware of the fact that there is some "not-so-nice stuff" going on in the page. Mabye certain users who are causing problems could be temporarily barred from participating in the page (mabye for a month?). I'm not going to name any names because then I would be contributing to the "not-so-nice stuff" --- regardless you people know who you are and I'm sure everyone else does too. I hope this comment won't be seen as combative because it isn't intended to be hostile in any way. I just think some abusive users need to be prohibited from participating in the discussions because they *can* and *do* succede in changing other users opinions/votes simply by trolling. Perl 03:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney (Archive 15)

In October, 2003 I received an e-mail about Wikipedia. For the next two months I browsed until in December when I got a username. I have been a regular contributor since and a couple of days ago, a user then unknown to me, GrazingshipIV, nominated me for adminship. I later received an e-mail from the same person that introduced me to Wikipedia, identifying himself as GrazingshipIV, saying I would make a great admin, and that I was expected to return the favor in good time. I do not feel I owe favors to GrazingshipIV, or any other user, for their vote or support.

I would like to state that I do not approve of GrazingshipIV's actions, use of the term "junta", and fighting with other users. In the past GrazingshipIV has been an exceptional contributor, and I can only hope that he will be able to overcome his conflicts and remain with Wikipedia as a contributor.

I do not intend to continue with Wikipedia having the status of a joke user. If the community deems me not to be trustworthy, I will quietly fade away for the good of the project. --Hcheney 17:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are, by the evidence of your past actions and this statement, the epitome of a trustworthy editor in my eyes, and I will defend that statement against any voice that seeks to drive you off. I will say also that the opinions and votes expressed on RfA indicate to me that in fact most of the community either trusts you or just hasn't interacted with you yet, and that the attacks on your character are coming from only one or two voices whom I hope you will disregard in this particular instance as being misinformed/unnaturally suspicious. Jwrosenzweig 17:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the status of a joke user and why do you think you would have it? --Wik 17:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jwrosenzweig. If you feel that this nomination has been tainted, you may choose to withdraw yourself from consideration, and wait until you are nominated by someone else. Either choice you make will be fine, and I appreciate your forthrightness in bringing this quid pro quo request to our attention. BCorr¤Брайен 18:00, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for mentioning this. I think the best thing to do would be to withdraw and wait for someone else to nominate you for adminship. Your contributions are clearly valuable here. +sj+ 18:36, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

Whatever Grazingship's reasons for the nomination, my support still stands. Tuf-Kat 20:19, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not you withdraw the nomination, I believe that your behavior--esp. over the past few days--has proved that you would make an exemplary admin. I'd be entirely willing to renominate you myself whenever you'd prefer. Sincerely yours, Meelar 20:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How you are handling this shows that you would be a fab admin. and from the sounds of it you are a trustworthy user. Quinwound 21:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney, I am glad that you've come clean with the truth. Graz put you into a lousy situation. I will not condemn you or hold you accountable for the actions of another. Nothing really in your history suggests you have mal-intentions. Graz, on the other hand, should be reprimanded. He may have started out as an unassuming user, but that all changed when, with covert motives, he nominated you for admin.

Many of us sensed something out-of-the-ordinary when Graz's nomination happened - and when the question of Graz's motives was raised, Graz over-reacted with personal attacks and baiting-maneuvers. Graz marched deeper and deeper into an alleged crusade against injustice - but that was just to fog the truth: that he was trying to make you an admin to benefit himself. His hope was to become an admin himself or to try to control you once you were an admin.

I've looked at your work. you are a benefit to this community. Graz, on the other hand, should be put on some sort of probation. Kingturtle 23:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that anything that Graz has done has any effect on people's opinion of you. I never made any claims about your abilities, only on how long you had been here. Don't think you're a joke, because you're not. RickK | Talk 03:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Requiring nominations to be accepted before they are posted (Archive 15)

We have seen quite a bit of controversy and hostility over this page recently, some of which I think could have been avoided. I think we should consider a new policy, that when nominating users for adminship, you must first notify the user being nominated and find out whether they will accept the nomination.

For example, Sam Spade has stated that he does not wish to be nominated. Nevertheless, he has been nominated twice this month, and the nominations were promptly removed, once by Eloquence and once by myself. We also had the unfortunate situation involving Hcheney, whose nomination was effectively torpedoed largely because of controversy surrounding the nominator, instead of the nominee.

Making this a requirement would help protect people from undesired nominations. Controversial users can figure out that it's futile to be listed on this page, and avoid generating unnecessary hostility by refusing nominations. People who are genuinely interested and qualified to be admins, but waiting for someone to nominate them, can get a fair hearing by having more control over the circumstances of their nomination. Fair or not, many people read nominations and votes of support as a way of vouching for the nominee, and sometimes form opinions based largely on their views of the nominee's supporters, instead of looking at the nominee's qualifications independently.

I'm also hoping this will discourage abuse of the adminship process, such as the quid pro quo Hcheney claims his nominator was hoping for. Some users have gone on "nominating binges" of sorts, and while most of the nominees were reasonably qualified and supported by the community, I think it's fair to question the motive for such conduct. In at least one case, I strongly suspect that the user was nominating lots of people in hopes that someone else would nominate him, too.

So, do people think this is a good idea? Does anyone have ideas about alternative ways of dealing with this problem? --Michael Snow 02:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no clear consensus one way or the other, I have made a more modest change to the guidelines on the page, which now read: "Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them of your intentions in advance as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision." --Michael Snow 23:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Not a bad idea. Meelar 02:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Michael Snow 03:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Excellent idea. Alex S 03:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes, please. +sj+ 04:31, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
5. I dont know why, but you sold me on it
   Antonio El Drunko Martin
   20:34 MST, 2004, Mar 27
6. Angela - Support, but people should be able to change their mind and decline it later even if they already accepted.
   • Of course. Accepting a nomination is not permanently binding. --Michael Snow 17:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Acegikmo1 04:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I feel that this will allow people to make the decision privately (perhaps with the help of talk page communications) instead of being pressured into it publicly.
8. Also see comment below. Lupo 07:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Texture 22:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. However, people shouldn't vote until the nomination is accepted. -anthony
   • Comment: Your suggestion is closer to the proposal than to the status quo. May I suggest you change your vote to neutral? Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • The purpose of the proposal is to prevent undesired nominations, not to prevent votes on unaccepted nominations. I don't vote on unaccepted nominations, but many people do. --Michael Snow 17:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Some people wait and see the reaction before making up their mind. Dori | Talk 05:24, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. I agree with Dori. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:55, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Dori. →Raul654 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
5. Tuf-Kat 18:43, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
6. Also agree with Dori. - Hephaestos|§ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Agree with Dori Ludraman | Talk 19:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. I'm with Dori. Quinwound 04:42, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
9. Agree with Dori, but also suggest user be able to delete with hard feelings as proposed below. Cecropia 04:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. I think making this a requirement a bad idea -- proliferating rules where we have no real problem doesn't make sense to me. Those few who make it know that they wouldn't want to be admins, the community at large will remember, and remove (politely!) nominations of those individuals, while explaining things to the nominator. But dozens of good admins have had to be convinced by overwhelming support, and this rule might lose us some or most of such admins in the future. Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Ryan_Cable 04:44, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Comments, other ideas:

• Modest individuals might turn down a nomination, but would accept after seeing how many people support them. Maximus Rex 03:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Or after a second person tries to nominate them. +sj+
• Would it be useful to allow the nomination to be posted, but not consider it amiss if the person nominated simply deletes the nomination with a remark like "respectfully reject the nomination"? Cecropia 04:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a very good idea. - Hephaestos|§ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I'm still not clear on why people want to be admins. I would imagine alot more people would prefer to avoid it, but maybe I'm missing something? Whats the selling point? Sam Spade 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, speaking for myself, I'm active on George W. Bush (and to a lesser extent John Kerry) and I simply couldn't handle it without a quick revert button for all the times Bush's pic gets turned into that of something amusing. Meelar 05:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Admins have the ability to delete pages, to ban IPs, and to revert pages faster than a regular user. Admins can also protect pages, again to fight vandalism or temper edit wars. These powers are used mostly to fight vandalism. Admins are housekeepers. Kingturtle 05:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm concerned, I do enough housekeeping, and other wiki chores as it is. It just seems like more work, and more reasons for people to bother me. Besides, I keep hearing 'sysops arn't editors' and I am an editor ;) Sam Spade 05:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • For me its mainly a warm fuzzy feeling. Plus the rollback link. Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A lot of admins (myself included) are people who were doing some housekeeping work anyway, and appreciate being able to do the same things more easilly. Isomorphic 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand admins can run (read-only) SQL queries. Fennec 21:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I used to think that it was simply polite if the nominator asked the designated nominee whether s/he agreed to being nominated before nominating her or him. A nominee can still formally accept or reject the nomination later on (see Dori's comment above). Another idea: there have been quite a few nominations recently made by relatively new users. How about requiring that the nominator must have been editing at Wikipedia for at least as long as the nominee? The rationale being that experienced users are more likely to judge whether the nominee really would make a good admin, and also more likely to have a sound feeling of what others in the community might think about the nomination. Lupo 07:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, we're still finding people who have been here for quite a while and aren't admins yet. Using that rule, you might rule out most of the people who want to nominate them. --Michael Snow 17:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Lupo above: nominees should have a chance to decline their nomination before being nominated, but need not be forced to make a decision. That way, Sam Spade would never be nominated; nominees who have issues with the nominator can opt out too. If the user chooses to be nominated, after seeing the response, they can make their final decision. -- Arvindn
  • I think even the opponents of this proposal could agree that you should notify the nominee first, out of courtesy. My proposal probably wasn't clear enough that nominees aren't "locked in" by their acceptance - they can still withdraw. So maybe we can modify the page to tell nominators something like "Please notify the user being nominated beforehand, in case they object to being nominated." --Michael Snow 17:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Minimum Criteria for voting (Archive 16)

I just noticed that user Jor (who I, as a disinterested observer, think is a fine contributor who deserves admin status) just wracked up a bunch of votes against him from users I've never seen. I checked, and two of those voting against him - User:Eon and User:Pavlvsrex, each have been here less than a month and each have less than 100 contributions (Eon has less than 50). I personally don't vote here unless I have a good working knowledge (one way or the other) of what someone is like. Should we institute a minimum time someone has been here before their vote counts?

I'd be for such a proposal, but I don't know what would be considered good criteria. I'd say around a month or two and around 200-300 edits should be good. Dori | Talk 18:11, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I think the bureaucrat making the adminship decision in the end should weight votes with judgement as is done on vfd. However, I think it's important that newer users be able to have their voices heard. A major reason for having this page, IMO, is so that if someone has done something rude or POV or unwikipedian, we can find out about it before giving them additional power. Rudeness to a newbie or edit wars with a newbie are just as bad as (worse than?) rudeness to and edit wars with Angela or Wik or any of us who would be considered "valid" voters. moink 18:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've encountered User:Pavlvsrex on only one article, and it seems he took an instant dislike to me for whatever reason (see his talk page). User:Eon is very suspect, I suspect he is a sock puppet for another user I cautiously will not now name but who is known to use many sock puppets. — Jor (Talk) 18:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are sock puppets like Eon allowed to vote? — Jor (Talk) 14:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not commenting on whether or not Eon is a sock puppet. I would say that yes, a user with a relatively small number of contributions is allowed to vote, but since things at Wikipedia don't work on strict numerical votes, it doesn't really matter. This is up to the promoting bureaucrat's discretion. moink 16:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Moink. No reason why they can't have their say, but we don't have to actually pay attention to them. Bureacrats know the community; they can recognize funny business when they see it. Isomorphic 17:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in another instance of people coming out of the woodwork, Democryt's 6th contribution to Wikipedia was to vote against Jor, saying he is disgusted by Jor's behavior. So of course, any beauracrat who has the integrity to promote Jor (now that the newer users have evened the vote) will be crucified for not waiting for consensus and at the very least, someone will inevitably want to remove his beaucratiship (is that even word?). →Raul654 17:39, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)~

Actually, Democryt said, "I am disgusted by Jor behavior", which I read as a play-on-words. I don't think that there should be a criterion of minimum # of edits or time on Wikipedia to vote on RfA and I also oppose your removal of "suspected" sock puppet votes without real consensus on this talk page (moink and Isomorphic opposed this). However, I also find it rather odd that Democryt's 6th contribution would be to such a page. Is there any way to investigate whether this user is a sock puppet and, if so, for whom?

Acegikmo1 04:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add my opinion: The primary rule is that a sysop-candidate should be supported by a near-concensus, isn't it? By determining the weight of the opposition, it's of no importance how the new and unknown wikipedians "vote", but it's important if their arguments can swing old and experienced wikipedians to not express their support for the candidate – or even to express their disaproval.
--Ruhrjung 22:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At least in theory, we operate based on actual consensus, not just "near-consensus" (but with, I would add, an appreciation that consensus does not always require unanimity). Anons are excluded for this matter, and anybody, new or old, who just opposes without stating some justification will probably be disregarded by bureaucrats and the rest of the community. --Michael Snow 23:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes we have to get to the nitty-gritty. Here's a definition of consensus, with my added emphasis: A result achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid solution is arrived at between parties to an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution to the issue or disagreement.

In plain English, we cannot come to a consensus because a person is either made a sysop or s/he isn't. There's nothing to compromise, no concession to be made. So perhaps if we reform our language to something more reasonable like: "a proponderance of sentiment" we have something to work with. Preponderance takes into account both number of votes and the views expressed. It obviously does not mean "unanimous" nor does it mean "50% plus 1". Cecropia 23:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that the discussion regarding any singular candidate can result only in "being widely approved" or "not being widely approved" by the wikipedia community. However, the principles for whom to make an administrator can be contemplated, detailed ...and whatever in the process. That's where I see the meaning of "concensus" in case of requests for adminship. (By the way, I like complicated words, but proponderance is not the best choise in a setting where people have as variant knowledge of English as here.)--Ruhrjung 10:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is not a matter of pro/con vote count, nor would that be a good idea...

IMO the question of "vote" validity is moot. From Consensus:

"Many discussions focus on whether agreement needs to be unanimous; even dictionary definitions of consensus vary. These discussions miss the point of consensus, which is not a voting system but a taking seriously of everyone's input, and a trust in each person's discretion in followup action. In consensus, people who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they do not wish to impose, and they trust that the ensuing conversation will benefit everyone."

In the case at hand, basing consensus on some fixed ratio of pro-to-con votes would be particularly pointless, as this would only serve to encourage sockpuppetry and other forms of manipulation. Rather than counting votes, the question should be whether or not any well founded concerns regarding a nominee's integrity or recent bahavior exist. Thus, any grounds for opposition (other than a simple "too new") should be looked into and evaluated by the bureaucrat making the decision. Mkweise 17:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The whole point of bureaucrats is that they shouldn't have to make decisions. Dori | Talk 17:45, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

LOL...of course a true bureaucrat would initiate the formation of an investigatory commission :-) Mkweise 17:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No no, a true bureaucrat would take credit for the formation of an investigatory committee, but that would be after his secretary/intern/lackey actually got things underway. →Raul654 18:01, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to make decisions! There are currently a lot of very new users voting here, and the percentages of support are bordering around 80% for a couple of nominees here. Do they need more 80%, or is more than 75% ok? Who should be discounted from the vote? These are questions for the community to decide, not a bureaucrat to decide. A bureaucrat. 17:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Even if we are not looking for hard and fast rules some guidelines would be a good idea. If bureaucrats are going to have to make judgement calls (and they will have to, unless Wikipedia is going to become a purely system-driven community) then its only fair to give some indication to people voting that their vote may not count for much. Here are some suggestions:

1. Anons don't get to vote. They can record their opinions but they can be ignored by the bureaucrat. Of course if an anon draws attention to some particularly nasty act by the nominee then that should be taken into account.
2. There should be a minimum time on Wikipedia and a minimum number of edits for a vote to count. However, as for anons, they can draw attention to failings of the nominee.
3. There should be a minimum approval level (after discarding invalid votes), below which the nomination should fail (something like 80%?). That doesn't mean that approval is automatic above that number - it should be a judgement call.

DJ Clayworth 17:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets: can they vote or not? (Archive 16)

I'm rather distressed by the situation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Jor;_(16/13/0)_ends_05:10,_5_April,_2004_(UTC). I would like to see a clear policy -- and even if it's not "sock puppets can't vote" because it's a bit hard to define, we need something. It seems like Jor is being derailed by a combination of: first, sockpuppet votes; second, the fact that they are staying on the page and there is debate in the voting discussion of whether these are valid votes; and third, Jor's understandable desire to point them out. I don't think thsi is fair to Jor, but more importantly, it's a terrible precedent -- especially as we're entering a period where there's a rapid increase in the number of nominations and new sysops. BCorr|Брайен 02:48, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's disturbing that RfA is starting to drift away from the "consensus" model. Just a quality of scalability, I suppose--for example, when I nominated Jor, I wish to say I had no idea about this entire German/Polish thing; it had barely entered my consciousness. What are suggestions? Meelar 02:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• As I said above, we shouldn't be counting votes in the first place. Mkweise 03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm tempted to 'be bold' and remove sockpuppet votes against him. →Raul654 03:00, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are the sockpockets allowing one person to vote more than once? If so, at least the extra votes should be removed. In fact, IMO, all votes for that user should be removed. Cecropia 03:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what about requiring 3 months/1000 edits or something before voting? Would eliminate sock puppets in one fell swoop. Maybe we can make it 2 months/500 edits or something. -- Arvindn 04:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I started that same discussion on this page about 48 hours ago. See above - "Minimum Criteria for voting" →Raul654 04:19, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Imposing time/edit criteria for voting is a little difficult, isn't it, if we don't even have time/edit requirements for adminship itself? Minimum criteria cast too wide a net, using the wrong measurements - they disenfranchise users with less experience, when the real problem with sockpuppetry is users who actually have quite a lot of experience. I'm more comfortable with just having sockpuppet votes identified and removed, along with the toctallies that are "feeding" this sockpuppet/troll monster. --Michael Snow 06:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True, but what's a sockpuppet and what's a new user? Accusations will fly, and nothing will be proven. And removing the toctallies won't be that much good--as Wikipedia grows, people will come to rely on numerical counts more and more, and I can't think of anything to do about that other than limit Wikipedia's growth, which I won't support. Is there any way to limit--one account per IP? Meelar 21:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if it were possible, I would disagree with it. I contribute from a couple of different IPs (work & home). I'm trying to convince my husband to become a contributor and when he does I expect him to use his own account, though on a computer I occasionally use. I fully expect for him to be called my sockpuppet at first, but we should be able to be different users. moink 22:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but the problem of sock puppets is only going to get worse as time goes on. Already, I don't recognize a good number of the contributors on RfA. What would you suggest? Meelar 22:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That when decided upon, whether a sysop-candidate has met general approval or not, then opponents with a short list of edits, a short time of presence here, or otherways justificably suspects of being another user in disguise, such opponents should be informally disregarded and uncounted.

--Ruhrjung 22:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)\

As long as those counting the votes don't mind going through 15 edit histories. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't recognize every longtime contributor. Meelar 22:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hoping you exaggerate I wait for their comment. :) --Ruhrjung 22:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a good suggestion. I'm just a big naysayer.  :) Maybe a minimum time/edit count as has been suggested above? moink 22:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My sock puppet is an admin already, so I don't care. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Is it your sock puppet, or are you its sock puppet? ;) Mark Richards 23:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a sock puppet with sock puppets... Lirath Q. Pynnor

My personal beliefs as far as an individual maintaining multiple logins to Wikipedia: I can understand some circumstances where you might want to do this, but under no circumstances should you, ethically, use that to stuff the ballot box, or use it for deception. I don't necessarily agree with enforcing 'one person, one account' but I think (whether it's possible to actually determine this) that an official policy of 'one person, one vote' should be instituted. —Morven 01:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree. Actually, I think we should be very hard on this: anyone voting twice anywhere ought to be permanently banned and asked to log-in as a different user (and I am serious on this). The only way to defend true democracy is by defending it to the last bit: if someone cannot understand democracy, then he cannot vote. Pfortuny 20:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polls (Archive 16)

These are polls to determine answers to the questions raised in the above discussions. Do not add new poll options - they will be summarily reverted.

Poll #1

Should there be a minimum number of edits / time someone has been here (or both) before their votes count?

Yes

1. →Raul654 18:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
2. Wik 18:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
3. Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. — Jor (Talk) 19:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Nico 20:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Fennec 20:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. jengod 20:24, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
8. Sam Spade 21:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC), but I also agree w the arguments below, and think voting is way over-rated
9. Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
10. Cecropia 23:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes, with the qualification that it should be just long enough and with enough edits to determine that it is not an account set up for the purpose of voting, perhaps one month and 100 edits.
11. One has to be 18 to vote in the US. One should have a certain amount of time spent here before voting for admins. Kingturtle 02:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
12. Mkweise I would look for at least one supporter whom I know well and whose judgement I trust to state that he in turn knows and trusts the candidate.
13. BCorr|Брайен 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) But it shouldn't be terribly high -- just enough to exclude sockpuppets and trolls -- as per Cecropia's suggestion above.
14. Tεxτurε 19:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) - even new users could vote but they need to participate in order to get that right. Nothing wrong with requiring some involvement to get counted.
15. Mikez 16:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Time is more important than number of edits, which is easily inflated.
16. GrazingshipIV 16:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
17. UtherSRG 16:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Being a citizen requires active participation. Simply showing up should not be enfranchisable. However, the minimums should be flexible at beurocrat discretion.
18. Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - As a preliminary filter, yes.

No

1. moink 18:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Moink's argument is persuasive. We may be too focused on vote count these days, and not enough on consensus. I admit, the toctallies I supported (they were convenient) may have contributed to this. I don't think the issue should be as much "counting votes" as gauging community support. Maybe idealistic, but it's how I feel today, anyway. :-) I am very close to the middle on this one...these are tough decisions to make. Jwrosenzweig 20:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. How can we have minimum requirements for votes if we don't have minimum requirements for admins? --Michael Snow 01:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Jamesday 02:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) though sock puppet decisions aren't based on time.
5. anthony (see warning) 22:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Is there even a way to find out how long someone has been here in the first place?
6. 80.255 19:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) New users can add articles; without new users there would be no wikipedia. Anyone who is capable of contributing should therefore be entitled to vote on articles that they themselves can edit.
7. You can never know how often someone used wikipedia before he decided to register. Only concern I have: people might use multiple registrations. But on the other hand, who would engage in such practice and not arouse suspicion by more silly actions? Get-back-world-respect 19:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Number of edits says nothing about edit quality. They can be driven up by editwarring etc. Minimum requirements are discouraging to newbies Marcika 02:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC).
9. No, since I think we should use judgement, not rules. ✏ Sverdrup 19:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vandal votes (Archive 17)

- Does a vote of a user count who continuously attacks others personally, breaks the three revert rule in order to spread his personal opinion, against the warning of many others, describes himself on his talk page as "banned from too many chat rooms to mention" and writes "Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the person's house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of its head with a note that says 'You'. After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done."? Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, but in generally the answer is "yes and no". Remember that these are not strict numerical votes. So yes, the bureaucrat will see the vote, but if said user is objecting to a nomination, the bureaucrat might consider it a non-credible objection. Isomorphic 02:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but that saying "Sometimes when I feel....'you':" is a reference to

Jack Handy from SNL. Raul654

forgot to sign.

I do not see any bubble bursting, whatever he refers it shows he is not a guy with good manners. Isomorphic, I know that admins should take into account credibility, but have admins the time to check all voters for their credibility? Get-back-world-respect 19:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Get back world respect - what are you doing? You can't get rid of TDC's vote, just because you don't like him. He has every right to say whatever he likes on his userpage. theresa knott 19:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not know him, how can I not like him? I do not like his edits, and there are good reasons why. He already got banned once, he is listed as a vandal, and continues to misbehave. Get-back-world-respect 23:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, don't play word games, I don't care if it's him you don't like, his edits, his behaviour, whatever, the fact is that unless he is banned by the AC he get's a vote. How much notice a bureaucrat takes of his vote, or yours, or anyone's for that matter is up to them. They are expected to exercise good judgement.theresa knott 16:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

GWBR, on the credibility check question, I think you mean bureaucrats, not admin, as that's who has the ability to promote. And the answer is that bureaucrats are generally the most active, longest-serving, and most trusted contributors. In general they don't have to check anything, because they know the regulars. If they don't know the background of a conflict, though, it's pretty easy to go look. Isomorphic 05:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course, cf "Too many admins", above. Meelar 16:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Lst27's nominations (Archive 17)

I am removing the following nomination because I believe it is inappropriate. User:Lst27 has nominated six individuals for adminship during his eight weeks of participation at Wikipedia. Only one of these nominations has actually been approved by the community. I believe these nominations are a distraction to the community and are a source of embarassment for the nominees. I have asked for an explaination on User_talk:Lst27 and received no reply. At a minimum, I believe that Lst27 should explain his rationale for these nominations before continuning them or reinstating AaronSw's nomination, which I have moved below.

UninvitedCompany 19:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

User:AaronSw (1/1/0)

AaronSw has been making a lot of good contributions since August 2003 and has a lot of experiences with Wikipedia. --Lst27 22:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Lst27 22:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Sockpuppet voters (Archive 20)

Strange things are happening on this page lately. An unusually large number of voters who've made fewer than a couple of hundred edits are expressing strong opinions on Neutrality's Rfa. On the side of the "oppose" votes, there are charges that sockpuppets have been used to derail Neutrality's nomination. Among those voting "oppose" are

Precisely WHO is accusing me of using shill (ie "sockpuppet") votes? You have a lot of nerve for saying that! Rex071404 07:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of using shill votes. I'm sorry about the unclear wording. I'm going to change the wording of my comments above. 172 08:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Some people may be using sockpuppets, for all I know. But a whole bunch of people are throwing around that accusation based purely on the number of edits I and other users might have. This is silly, and it seems to be against the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Further, some of us who have been "dismissed" as sockpuppets made specific and reasoned objections to the nomination. Personally, mine was a limited objection at this time because I thought it a poor idea to elevate someone in the midst of an acrimonious dispute in which neither "side" was behaving admirably. Instead of considering this argument on its merits, it was dismissed as sockpuppetry. This is not the intellectual plane of encyclopedists. Klanda 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Checks finally need to be imposed against bogus votes on Rfa. The board of trustees elections and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 required qualifications to weed out sock-puppets; it's time for similar qualifications to be required on Rfa (perhaps 300 edits, 3 months here?). 172 06:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would be opposed to a blanket limit on voting (naturally, I suppose, since a 3 month minimum would prevent me from voting). Bureaucrats already have the ability to disregard votes which they consider to be invalid; are you concerned that this isn't enough? — Kate | Talk 06:33, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of objective standard. By virtue of this ongoing Rfa, Wikipedia has outgrown this more-or-less informal process of voting on admin status. Perhaps the standard can be 3 months here with at least 100 edits and/or 300 edits, which would opening it up to active users who haven't been here for 3 months. 172 06:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was about to post exactly what 172 brought up. Not sure whether it's sock puppets or just newbies, but it's all quite troubling. There was always talk of bringing over user qualifications similar to what was consensus for VfD voting. Notably Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Major_Change_Proposed. I would consider doubling the metrics there since making someone admin has more ramifications and requires more knowledge of a user's behaviour. This would make the threshold 200 edits and 2 months as a user. Feedback welcome. Fuzheado | Talk 06:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

200 edits and 2 months as a user sounds reasonable. How will a policy change be adopted. Can the bureaucrats can agree to an objective standard by consensus on this page? 172 07:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what we can do is draft a new "Guideline". Then people can provide feedback, and then finally vote on. We should also provide an outlet for people who do not meet this threshold to leave comments. Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right. Probably something like Wikipedia:Rating system Summer 2.0 07:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's the support/oppose ratio needed to pass a new "guideline?" 172 07:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also think that the proposal is reasonable. Sockpuppets are becoming a major problem on Vfd. They seem to actually be influencing the way wikipedians are voting. See:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America

. Sockpuppets flood the page with Keep votes, then some real wikipedians flood it with Delete votes. This would not be a problem if the reasoning for voting delete were related to the article but unfortunately it was in reaction to the sockpuppets. If this reaction-opposite reaction voting contiues it will only damage wikipedia: it scares off new users who have been accused of being sockpuppets and minamizes finding alternate solutions; such as moving the infro to a new page or breaking it up and moving it to more appropriate ones, as opposed to Deleting or Keeping wholesale. It would be a lot better to have a solid policy that could be explained new users and help weed out sockpuppets.

-JCarriker 07:39, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The link above to

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America is quite illuminating. It looks like a few of the users voting on Neutrality (Taco Deposit, Pitchka, and Klanda) were born on that page. It's obviously time to adopt the same thresholds for voting eligibility used, for example, during the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 throughout Wikipedia. 172

08:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, hello! I've been editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004 how was I "born" on that page? Just wondering. Pitchka 01:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004.
• 172, you are fairly casual dismissing people as sockpuppets, but what do you mean by stating that I was "born" on MMHA? I have been using WP for I don't know how long, and have been making (fairly minor) edits for almost a year! Many of you are getting caught up in thinking that low edits == sockpuppet; maybe you have developed good reason to by leery. But it looks like some people (me including) are being caught up in the wrong net. By the way, if Rex had been the subject of the RfA, I would have opposed him too. It was not an issue of personal animosity, ideology, or sockpuppery. I opposed Neutrality's nomination with good reason. 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something has to be done. I support any reasonable idea which will prevent such blatant use of sockpuppets, and which will also indirectly protect new users from being charged with sockpuppetry. Although not with as many ramifications, some people also use sockpuppets on Talk pages in an attempt to influence people's thinking unfairly (the only example I can think of the top off my head is Talk:Coca-Cola, in which Vbganesh was accused of being a sockpuppet, although there wasn't much beyond circumstantial evidence, and in which Flagfanatic was an obvious sockpuppet). Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with John that user can be judged unfairly and one of my concerns, all as stated above I support the measure, is newbie. For example, I don't think

Taco Deposit is a sockpuppet. Here's why: 1. He/She joined wikipedia on April 18 that meets the proposed two month criteria. 2. While they don't have 200 edits its close and they are spread throughout the time since the user joined. 3. The first edits the user made was to the tutorial, sockpuppets don't do tutorials they go for the throat. The user first voted on Jul 18, in other words it took some time for the user to learn how to get around,a nd the only reason that they found Vfd that quickly was because an articel the user was working on was put on Vfd. There is a reason why I have digress into talking about Taco Deposit: Sometimes newbies might seem like sockpuppets. I think that Taco Deposit, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and I think we should be careful before making allegations of sockpuppetry, it scares away newbies. A standard voting requirment will help because, it removes the sockpuppet equation. -JCarriker

09:07, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. An objective threshold will not only make elections cleaner and more transparent but also protect newbies from charges of casting shill votes. As evidenced by some of the acrimonious comments regarding Neutrality's ongoing Rfa, it'll also help prevent conflict regarding voting. 172 09:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Implicit in all of this is the suggestion that bad decisions have been/will be made because of sockpuppets. I have not seen any evidence of this. I have done lots of VfD clean-up work in the past. Sockpuppets stick out like a sore thumb. It is easy to weight their votes accordingly, look at the persuausiveness of each side of the debate as well as the numbers and make the right decision. I have seen lots of other admin do the same.

I am not a bureaucrat so haven't had to make the same judgements on this page, but I am sure it is just as simple. I really dislike numeric boundaries because it immediately gives the trolls something to aim at. They make their 200 trivial edits and then crow "Oh but you have to count me, it says so in the policy."

Thus, before instituting this change, I strongly urge that proof of corruption of the process be presented. I.e. people made admin when they shouldn't have been, or vice-versa. Otherwise let's just ignore the pathetic sockpuppets and their childish little games. Pcb21| Pete 09:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my first post, sockpuppets are having an effect on the way wikipedians vote. -JCarriker 09:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen votes were users vote where they normally wouldn't bother because they are afraid that the sockpuppet vote will prevail where it shouldn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that users are "cutting their nose off to spite their face" as it were. Pcb21| Pete 09:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe that over 90% of the problem with socks could be solved by changing the software to add some sort of flag for new users (say, fewer than 90 days or 300 edits), in their sigs and recent changes, aritcle histories, and watchlist. If we had an equivalent to the "sunglasses" icon used on ebay, the sock votes would become obvious, and would need no response because it would obvious that they are obvious. uc 16:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While that might be beneficial, it reminds me of the rank system used on some bulliten boards. If we append flags to new users, someone might make a push for a gold star (or something like it) to be appended to the signatures of users with over, say, 5000 edits. It could encourage people to make useless edits.

Acegikmo1 17:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arg. Please do not list me under a heading of "Sockpuppet Voters." I'm trying to get started respectfully here on Wikipedia, and that doesn't help. I'll do anything you need to help prove I'm not a sock. Miss Puffskein 17:16, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Even if you're not a sock, how can we be sure you've been around long enough to formulate an objective opinion on the candidate? I state my support for these limits, but can we please stop the massive off-topic discussion under Neutrality's Rfa? It makes it a lot harder to understand what's going on. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean by this. I promise won't be offended if my vote is taken out because I haven't been here very long. :) Miss Puffskein 18:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

This vote seems to be affirming those who were arguing, some months ago, against keeping a "toctally," because numbers become more important than what people are saying. This does encourage some amount of sockpuppetry. Then, of course, you have what I think of as the "Percy Effect." At the risk of oversimplifying, the Percy clan was a warrior family in England that had a reputation of watching the course of a battle and then, when they decided that one side or the other was prevailing, would jump in on the winning side to end the battle decisively (and share in the spoils).

Now numbers are a comfortable thing, because they tend to shield the bureaucrat from criticism for a tough decision, but there are other things. In the case of Neutrality's nomination, there is plenty of material to make a determination when it comes to it. A lot of the voters on both sides are familiar names, some aren't. Some seem obvious sockpuppets: looking at edits (number and type) it would seem Pusher is and Miss Puffskein isn't. What are the quality of the comments? Do those in favor make cogent comments about the candidate or the process that help us? Do those opposed cite reasons for their opposition? Do the reasons cite traceable events or actions of the candidates? If the complaints are well-founded, do they show something that reasonably conflict with an admin's responsibilities to the community?

As to the question of minimum qualifications on voting. We now require a voter to be a logged-in user. My feeling is that the user should be around long enough to determine whether or not s/he is apt to be a puppet. I fear that attaching numbers may just encourage sockpuppetry--a user could "bank" a name and make enough trivial edits to meet time/edit qualifications. OTOH, a fairly new but honest user could make a cogent vote about a candidate, particularly if it's backed up by a reasoned comment, pro or con (or even just an observation, for that matter). If we're going to try for some kind of hard minimums, I think that's a separate discussion. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Cecropia and PCB21. The reason we have bureaucrats is so they can use thier judgement. Let's trust them to do it. I think the best way to deal with sockpuppets is to label them as such right after their vote, (This makes life easy for the bureaucrat). That's all we need to do IMO. theresa knott 18:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly new here, and haven't been involved in the thread listed at the beginning. However, I would like to say I have found the atmosphere pretty hostile to new contributors in some cases. There have been some wonderful people, but there have also been people quite quick to bite. I think the ideas about minimum contributions and the like will only add to the negativity and create a divide that needn't exist. Some people just can't contribute on such a level as you are asking, making their edits over a longer period of time on their own pace. Please don't hold that against them.--Che y Marijuana 21:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Voting qualifications straw poll (Archive 20)

Ends 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What voting qualifications would you like to see on Rfa? While this is a non-binding straw poll, bureaucrats may decide to use the results to include/exclude votes. - UtherSRG 18:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Time minimums

No minimum

1. theresa knott
2. No hard minimum—too open to manipulation -- Cecropia | Talk 19:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Guanaco 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Old socks no better than new; in fact, probably worse. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
7. Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. ✉
   23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
10. Concur with Cecropia [[User:VampWillow|
    Willow
    ]] 00:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. Pitchka 01:40, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004!
12. SWAdair | Talk 04:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. Austin Hair 04:18, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
14. Kevin Baas | talk 07:52, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) max. voting accuracy can be achieved if illegitimate votes are ruled on a case-by-case basis, which is feasible, given their infrequency.
15. Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) disruptive users and socxkpuppets are very much a case of "I know it when I see it". Decide on a case-by-case basis.
16. A case-by-case basis is fine with me. PFHLai 03:09, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
17. Agree with Cecropia. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
18. Same - no hard minimum Gene s 07:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
19. Goobergunch 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
20. Che y Marijuana Discourages newbies--Che y Marijuana 22:00, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

1 month

1. If anything is deemed nessesary, but should be on a case-by-case basis. This would be enough to root out any recently made sock-puppets. The only issue would be with extremely old sock-puppets. The truth is, if someone really wants to have multiple accounts, and make them look real, they will. This is unavoidable. As such, we can only identify the most obvious cases. It's my opinion that a user who has been around for less than a month would most likely not care about Rfa. Although, as long as the account has been around for longer than the vote, there is no real reason for invalidating the vote. — マイケル ₪ 19:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
2. Gzornenplatz 19:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
3. Everyking 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Ditto Mbecker. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Neutrality 21:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2 months

1. Fuzheado | Talk 02:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) - one or two months, but since I put out two months above (doubling the guidelines discussed for VfD), I'll stick with it.

3 months

1. Bishonen 19:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC). (Only been here a month but voting anyway - it's a straw poll, right?)
2. Sam [Spade] 19:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Nabla 15:13, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

4+ months

1. Erich 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (oh ok, admins could be excepted then ;-) Erich 19:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))

   Wouldn't this lead to sysops who aren't allowed to vote? — Kate | Talk 19:23, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

   A three month minimum would lead to sysops who aren't allowed to vote. Guanaco 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   And are sysops that aren't allowed to vote unthinkable? I thought sysops were supposed to be "janitors" and have no special powers. So what would be so terrible about sysops being disallowed from voting for, well, it could hardly be more than a few weeks, could it? Bishonen 19:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I think the implication is more that it's ridiculous that we trust people enough to make them sysops, but not enough to let them vote on whether others should be sysops.

   If we don't trust someone to vote on RfA, I'm not sure they can be trusted with the ability to delete articles, interpret other people's vote on VfD, and so on. Adminship is (should be) a janitoral position, but is also one that requires a certain amount of trust. — Kate | Talk 19:58, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

   The difference is: admins have been more thouroughly examined than voters. Erich 20:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   Kate and Erich, what pulled me up short about the comments above was their tone of stating the obvious - the way they seemed to assume that admins' voting rights are more important than those of "ordinary" users. I'm sorry if I misheard or misinterpreted, of course. We trust admins, but they're not an aristocracy, are they? The idea that voting restrictions placed on other voters could or should be waived for admins seems to me, well, far-reaching in its implications. Every metawiki page I read insists on the equal power, equal importance - the same say - of all users. Sorry if I sound pompous, I hope I did misunderstand. Bishonen 20:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   well, for me at least, the fact that admins have been vetted means that they should be able to vote, regardless of how long they've been here — the vetting process makes any time requirement a bit superfluous. That's all I was getting at. Erich 12:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I wasn't trying to say that admins should be excempt from voting requirements , rather the other way around—a voting requirement that prevents people from voting even when they're allowed to do much more potentially damaging tasks strikes me as possibly broken. — Kate | Talk 12:18, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Other

1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3+ Months with 100+ edits or 1 month with 250+ edits
2. 172 02:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit minimums

No minimum

1. theresa knott
2. No hard minimum—too open to manipulation -- Cecropia | Talk 19:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Guanaco 19:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. マイケル ₪ 19:30, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
7. Cecropia's right. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
8. Having a minimum is bot bait. A small number of edits should be considered when weighing a vote, but a newbie may have intelligent things to add to the conversation. VV 19:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. ✉
    23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
12. David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with VeryVerily. Bureaucrats should apply common sense to possible sockpuppetry.
13. Concur with Cecropia. Judgement call in tallying. [[User:VampWillow|
    Willow
    ]] 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. Pitchka 01:42, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC) Editing since 21:35, May 15, 2004!
15. The community quickly identifies likely sockpuppets. Few newbies will be interested in RfA, and those that are interested should be welcomed. SWAdair | Talk 04:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
16. Austin Hair 04:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
17. Kevin Baas | talk 07:51, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) max. voting accuracy can be achieved if illegitimate votes are ruled on a case-by-case basis, which is feasible, given their infrequency.
18. Ditto Cecropia. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
19. Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) disruptive users and socxkpuppets are very much a case of "I know it when I see it". Decide on a case-by-case basis.
20. A case-by-case basis is fine with me. PFHLai 03:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
21. Leave it up to voters' judgement - a minimum would put undue emphasis on quantity, not quality. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
22. Nabla 15:17, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
23. No hard minimum Gene s 07:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
24. No precise minimum, but common sense and logic are in order. Goobergunch 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

100 edits

1. Gzornenplatz 19:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
2. Everyking 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

250 edits

1. Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Fuzheado | Talk 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) - puppets can already artificially create edits to appear legit, a high water mark isn't going to change that.

300 edits

1. Neutrality 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

400+ edits

1. It may be easy to manipulation, but it'll slow em down! Erich 19:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 19:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other

1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3+ Months with 100+ edits or 1 month with 250+ edits
2. 172 02:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should voting guidelines be implemented in a consistent fashion across multiple voting pages? (Rfa, Vfd, etc.)

Yes - standardize voting requirements

1. Sam [Spade] 19:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Acegikmo1 21:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Bishonen 06:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes. Pitchka 21:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

No - different voting pages should have different voting requirements

1. Cecropia | Talk 19:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. theresa knott
3. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:16, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
4. — Kate | Talk 19:17, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
5. Rfa is too important Erich 19:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Guanaco 19:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. Warofdreams 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 20:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Neutrality 21:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC). RfA should have guidelines while VfD should be open. Besides, sysops are perfectly capable of understanding which pages should be deleted and what a consensus is, etc.
11. David Remahl 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12. ✉
    23:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
13. David Gerard 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. Everything is (sadly) open to abuse though. [[User:VampWillow|
    Willow
    ]] 00:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
15. Austin Hair 04:25, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
16. SWAdair | Talk 04:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
17. Kevin Baas | talk 07:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
18. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
19. BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Apples and oranges....
20. Sean Curtin 07:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) Not every poll or survey is the same.
21. Nabla 15:17, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
22. Gene s 07:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
23. rhyax 05:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Moving comments from intro. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who are you expecting to count the number of edits of all these voters? If you start enforcing strict limits, that implies every voter is going to have to be checked. This seems unnecessarily time consuming. Angela. 19:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Angela. At the least let those interested do the counting, which can be cross-checked at the end by a bureaucrat if it would make a difference. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did say that this is non-binding. I created the poll to try to crystalize the more nebulous discussion above. the results would give b-crats something concrete to point to as to why they've decided vote "A" doesn't count but vote "B" did. Or course, b-crats are free to count or discount votes as they see fit. It's my understanding that there's a regularly run task that counts edits, but even easier is to use the "user contribultions" link with one of the pre-canned numbers and see if there is more than one page of that number. (For instance, if 300 is the number you are shooting for, and the 250 count page is not full, then that's a quick disqualification.) I'm curious why you think a hard minimum of time is easy to manipulate. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A user who might want to "game" RfA could create a few sockpuppets, make a few edits to establish a start date, and "bank" them for future use. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While that is possible, that's not a likely situation for sockpuppetry, which relies significantly more on the start of a vote for the creation of the puppet. However, I'll grant you that game strategy. Here's one I find equally likely for use with no rough guidelines for minimums: Any user could create any number of user ids and rotate through which ones they use each day, building a sockpuppet army over the course of a couple of weeks, and then bank them away just as easily. One rule I know about the gaming of a system is that each system's potential and ease for gaming needs to be weighed not in a vacuum, but against the potential and ease for gaming of others systems, particularly the existing system in place. - UtherSRG 11:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Number of edits" is used as a qualification all over the place, I know, including for sysophood, but I would like to ask in all seriousness if there's any possible alternative that could be introduced. If I write a couple of long paragraphs for an article in a text-editor and fiddle with them in my spare time for several days till I'm satisfied and then paste them in, then that's one edit. If I do the same thing directly in the wiki markup edit field, saving every so often so it won't get lost, then that's twenty edits. (I'm not assuming that anybody's clocking up trivial edits on purpose, I think that has to be rare.) I'm sorry, I realize that argument must have been many times before (I've only been here a month). But has any alternative been proposed? I sure can't think of one, but can anybody? Bishonen 19:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's still a good argument. Hence number of edits and time since registration. - UtherSRG 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about something like "3 months and 100 edits OR no time limit and 300 edits" or something along those lines? — Kate | Talk 19:06, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit by number of edits. Anyone can easily rack-up 300 edits if they want to. I'd say how old the account is is more of an identifier, even then, 3 months is a little extreme. — マイケル ₪ 19:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Then why not vote for that option above? theresa knott 19:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking more of people who wanted to vote for that option (since someone suggested it above). — Kate | Talk 19:18, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

While it may make the job of the person who makes the assessment at the end of the adminship poll that much harder, I think that it would be easiest to just note the join date and number of edits after each name, and not have any particular limits. This discussion will no doubt raise its head again from time to time, so any attempt to impose any 'membership' rules should be applied across all levels at the same time, and be part of a higher level strategy. Noisy 19:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing when I was working on the poll, but left it out because it would not be something easily implemented. I think the best way to do that is something similar to ~~~~ but designed especially for voting signatures. Sounds like a job for the developers, I believe. - UtherSRG 21:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barring other considerations, I think it is fair and useful to point out a voter with lean qualifications for everyone else's judgment, without further comment or qualification: "Editor has eight edits since yesterday;" "editor has 25 edits, mostly minor." I would prefer not to see "OBVIOUS SOCKPUPPET AND FRIEND OF NOMINEE!!!!!!!!!!!" You know, there is also the possibility of people voting opposite to their desires in an obviously bogus way to stir up sentiment. After looking at the some of the argumentation on this nomination, I really worry about encouraging game-playing. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do we decide who gets to vote in this straw poll? *ba-dum-rimshot* Thanks folks, Remember to tip your waitron! --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:36, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I support the concept of minimal time/edits for counting as a voter. However I think even users who don't qualify for this should be allowed to comment about nominees; they may have something to say of interest to voters. -- Infrogmation 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Angela, I think that people who vote should mention their "status" when voting. I propose they do this between brackets to facilitate the job of the bureaucrats who have weigh and count the votes . E.g. (user:172 sysop ) or (user:Crecropia >1500 edits since may 2004 ) Andries 22:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with doing that is that it leads to people viewing editing counts as some sort of status level, which it really shouldn't be. Perhaps people could just declare whether they have less than a certain number, rather than making everyone do this. It will also lead to unnecessary load on the database if people start counting their edits before every vote. Angela. 01:45, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I am on Wikipedia for 25 days and have made some 300/400 edits, and IMO I am not completely stupid. My votes were: 3 month, 0 edits, no consistency.
"3 months" not to avoid sock puppets or any other disruptive behaviour but because how can a new user know what a good admin is supposed to be? I'm here for almost a month, been here every day, several hours a day, read lots of Wikipedia namespace pages, read through talks like this one and IMO I don't know that. Most of all, how can I know if some user as a "sysop profile" in such a short time?.And it is a common practice on "real" associations to avoid newcommers to subvert old standards easyly
"0 edits" because it's hard to make 10 good edits, it's very easy to make 200 (correct) minor edits, doesn't say much as a criteria.
"no" because, as an example, I feel that I can already have a valid opinion on VfD but do not feel the same on RfA.
Finally, maybe a bit off-topic maybe but it looks like this is all about sock puppets, so... Can someone point me the usefulness of having multiple accounts?
Really finally, if vandals, hostile editors, dishonest admins, sock puppeteers, vain people, childish adults, and such start overwhelming the rest, then that is the time to write an article on The Internet is a paradise for rotten people and disconnect the damn thing.--Nabla 15:39, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

A Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy? (Archive 25)

Can we have a moratorium on those tedious votes that crop up frequently in the following format?

Oppose, because User:SomeGuy supports, and I User:SomeGuy is my arch-nemesis. 

Except in cases of supposed sockpuppetry, these votes are completely irrational, only serve to cause pointless bickering, and are completely unnecessary. If anything, as User:Ta bu shi da yu suggested, they could be posted in the comments section rather than the vote section. I know that some of these people think that they're being really funny by putting these things here, and some people are pushing agendas, but this is just not the place for either of those. I don't know if we need to go as far as to put something in the admin voting policy, but at the very least can we all just agree that the joke/rhetoric is very tired and needs to be laid to rest? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually placing it into policy will only result in these votes turning into a simple "Oppose", and any attempt to point out that "User:StalkingTroll has been following User:BlockingAdmin around and harassing him for weeks" will quickly degenerate. A better solution would be for the tallying bureaucrat to just quietly ignore such obviously bad-faith votes. —Korath (Talk) 19:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"A Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy" makes as much sense as "A Friend of My Friend is My Friend". Maybe the bureaucrats should also discount votes like "so-and-so's support is good enough for me". Gzornenplatz 19:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Better solution" isn't remotely the same as "good solution", obviously. And I would hope that people could come up with better reasons to support a candidate, as well. —Korath (Talk) 19:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with placing this in voting policy is that there might be situations where a vote like "Cannot support nomination by User:ObviousSockpuppet" might actually make sense. If anything is added to the policy, it should be that bureaucrats can discount such votes on their discretion - and yes, I agree with Gzornenplatz that that should go for support votes as well as oppose votes. One should assume it would be common sense to only vote for or against candidates one has some personal knowledge of... -- Ferkelparade π 20:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats should count all the votes (except for proven sockpuppets). There is also a 72-80% band, or whatever, where they are allowed to exercise their judgment. No doubt the "I'm opposing because my enemy's supporting" and "I'm supporting because my friend's supporting" are comments that a bureaucrat in that position bears in mind, jguk 21:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The comments are optional, and not relevant in determining the votes for, against and neutral with regards a RfA. I don't think that RfA policy has to be changed. I was not aware of RfA policy that you had to have a so-called "legitimate" reason to support/oppose/neutral. i agree that reasons given may irritate some users, but that is totally irrelevant. I may vote against every new RfA because I think there are too many admins. That is not a reason to ignore my vote. I think that trying to squeeze out oppose votes, politicking the process itself is very dangerous. Almost as dangerous as the lack of explicit de-sysop policy. --Mrfixter 01:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Too many admins" is more legitimate, I think. And Mrfixter, the principle at RFA for years (well, over 18 mos., at least) has been consensus. Comments are necessary to help determine consensus. While RFA has come to be handled as a "straight vote" most of the time, the numbers offered are merely a rough approximation of what the community considers to be "consensus". In borderline cases, the bureaucrats are empowered (and always have been) to use the good judgment that the community believes them to have (otherwise they wouldn't have been promoted). We try not to exercise said judgment and when we do, we do it carefully. Or rather, those that do, do it carefully, since I haven't promoted anybody in several months (sorry Cecropia!). Jwrosenzweig 01:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I welcome you to start writing a de-sysop policy. I think it would be a very interesting process. I do agree with DDG that party line voting on RfA is annoying. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of bureaucrats having discretion in deciding what consensus means. What is being talked about is an attempt by some to de-legitimize perfectly legitimate votes. As is stated You may add a short comment to your vote - surely the may is important? If a vote is close, sure that bureaucrat has discretion in deciding what "consensus" means, but not in disregarding votes, apart from proved sockpuppet votes. Direct me to explicit policy if I am mistaken...

Thanks for welcoming me to start writing de-sysop policy. I don't really know how to start a policy, wanna help? It can't be any worse than this. --Mrfixter 01:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help, but not tonight. That's a start, at least, with some good links; for further reference you can look into the history of RfA when there actually was a requests for de-adminship section. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, OK so it's pretty clear that we shouldn't change the actual policy to stop these FoE votes, and that they should be counted as votes; that's probably the right thing to do- I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic, as it was really irritating me. Maybe the best course of action for the rest of us is just to leave the votes as they are and not respond to them. Right now, after each FoE vote, there are two or three trailing comments from people who get mad at them; maybe we should all just try to avoid commenting on them, as part of a Do not feed the trolls policy. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:53, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think not responding to them is a good idea. Or if you want to respond, respond in the comments section, if only on grounds of neatness. --Mrfixter 19:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Policy concerning banned users and voting (Archive 26)

Today, we had a sockpuppet come in and not only vote oppose on a legit nomination, but also nominated someone. The nomination is currently in a skeletal structure and I would like to remove it. What is the policy concerning users who have been banned from Wikipedia and what is the status of their votes/nominations? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

They cannot edit, they cannot vote, they cannot nominate. I would suggest that their edits are only made valid if another user "adopts" the edit, taking responsibility. I reckon it's safe to remove them.

(Rabbit and pork)

20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of banning someone is that they do more harm than good here. Hence, there's no particular reason we should pay attention to them on a page like this. Isomorphic 21:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As the person who they voted against I'm interested in this. I don't recall having any interaction with this user in any of the guises that has been noted in my RFA. Should I (or ideally someone else) strike out their vote and adjust the tally count accordingly? I can accept the oppose from Everyking (I was half expecting it tbph), but from someone I've not had any dealings with seems a little disingenuous and for want of a better term, trollish. (discalimer, written while less than 100% sober) Thryduulf 22:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll strike it, but don't worry, you'll get adminship anyway :P gkhan 22:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Who is he a sockpuppet of anyway? If it's a user who has actually been banned we ought to revert all edits by them, so not only do we disregard the vote against Thryduulf, we actually take it out. I'd like to know which user this is circumventing their ban first though. I assumed they were just a common troll of some kind. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what BeBop's playing at, but this is a brand-new user name, yet the user proclaims things about the candidate that suggest a long-time editor. So one way or the other, this is at least insincere. Unless someone objects, I will also delete the nomination page. If anyone legitimate wants to make this nomination, feel free. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As the one who was nominated, I just want to make clear I have no problem with the nomination being deleted. AlistairMcMillan 00:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

automatic nominations (Archive 26)

A discussion started at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thryduulf:

• Comment on the process, not on Thryduulf (who I suspect will make a fine admin): By my count (from
  WP:LA) there are a total of about 500 current, inactive, former, or nominated but denied admins. Thryduulf is not in the top 1000 list in article space, and ranks >700 in total edits, which says to me that there are probably several hundred editors who have contributed more and probably been here longer. Based on the number of "I thought he was already" votes above, perhaps the admin nomination process should be changed to be more deliberately inclusive. One possibility would be to establish edit count and/or activity length thresholds that cause automatic nomination. -- Rick Block (talk
  ) 17:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can think of a number of editors who've been around for a long time, and have large edit counts, but who wouldn't stand a chance of being adminned. Making nominations automatic would result in a number of hopeless nominations. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And, would that be a problem? Any feel for the percentage of folks who've been active for, say, more than 6 months and have made more than, say, 5000 edits who shouldn't be admins? Is it more important to avoid occasionally denying an automatic admin nomination or to avoid overlooking well deserving editors? The current system has an element of capriciousness to it that I think can and should be avoided. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, including those who wouldn't want to be admins, I'd expect the percentage to be on the high side. There are a lot of editors who contribute useful material, but who have absolutely no interest in the administration side of things,as well as those who'd love to be admins, and who'd be disasters (there are those who'd include me in that, of course). My worry is, in part, that with the significant increase in nominations, editors would have less time to consider each case, and poorer decisions might be made. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My fear about things like this is that it encourages users to stop using the "show preview" button, ie: edit counting seems to be addictive with many users, and tends to cause lots of tiny little edits that pollute the name space. In my humble opinion, the very best editors and admins on Wikipedia are the ones who have created the most content with the fewest edits. :) func(talk) 19:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I see from /Archive 23#Admin suggestions that User:Cecropia basically did this a while ago. How about if the results of an SQL query like this are posted (probably here, or on some standard subpage of WP:RFA linked from WP:RFA) fairly regularly, perhaps monthly? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the big problem is that it encourages even more edit count stuffing, and a lack of focus on the right things-being a good editor and janitor. Also auto nominations would create a mess of nominations where the nominated person had not accepted the nomination yet. Now if you want to create a list of non admin editors with over 2000 edits for ex, and contact them first to see if they would accept the nomination go for it, but I would be opposed to automatic noms, for the above reason and that it would make it difficult to evaluate the nominations properly. That could be solved by limiting the number of nominations I suppose. - Taxman ^Talk 20:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with automatic nominations for two reasons. Firstly, there would be far more nominations at any one time here - currently simply being nominated by someone is some indication that someone thinks there is some worth in what a person is doing - surely those of us who are around Wikipedia can better judge whether someone is able to perform as an administrator than simply setting an arbitrary figure? Secondly, with more nominations, there will be more rejections of candidates, and I for one know that I would have been very disheartened if I had been put forward and not accepted. There may well be some potential candidates who would be put off working ion wikipedia if they faced a formal rejection as potential administrator. I would recommend, however, that someone comes up with a list of non-admins who have produced high numbers of edits - it would give us some idea of who we are missing! Perhaps it would be worthwhile putting an asterisk after people's names on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits if they are admins, to make that search easier. In fact - I'll cross post this to W-talk:LoWbnoe, see what people think there... Grutness...wha? 01:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

See User:Rick_Block/WP600_not_admins. I'd prefer the list to be sorted by date of first edit, but I don't have convenient access to the data. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are definitely some intriguing candidates there, and I did the standard "I thought (s)he was..." to several of the names (for the record: Alkivar, Andros1337, Beland, Ceyockey, Gene Nygaard, Grm wnr, Lectonar, Maurreen, Mzajac, Romanm, Sam Hocevar, and TheParanoidOne). Definitely a few there worthy of nominating. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any kind of automatic nomination. I have no problem with people periodically pulling lists of top contributors that aren't admins, and looking over them for good candidates. But there needs to be a layer of human judgement between that list and this page. Also, edit counting in general is bad. If you really want to find out whether someone is a good candidate, you don't look at the number of edits, you look at what they've done. Isomorphic 03:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I also believe any kind of automatic nomination would not be good. Since adminship is a responsibility and not simply a title, the baseline is that someone should affirmatively demonstrate that they feel a particular person (including the person him/herself) should be an admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the system works pretty well as is; it's good to have good candidates nominated by those familiar with the candidate's work. Frankly, it is hard to amass thousands of edits without someone noticing, unless your edits are all pretty minor, and I think that good candidates are very likely to be asked. Someone who wants to be an admin can always self-nom, or even ask someone they know to nominate them, and it is rare for someone with a lot of experience to go down unless they have had some serious issues during their tenure. Just my two cents. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the minor edit thing: I have amassed more than a thousand edits in the past ten days, but haven't actually done anything.
By the way, I support this idea in principle, but we definitely need a layer of human screening, as recommended by Isomorphic.

Semi-automatic would be fine - the main point is to force a mechanism for users who contribute to be noticed rather than rely on anyone "noticing" them to avoid even the appearance that adminship is a

Good ol' boy network. -- Rick Block (talk

) 04:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think that periodically making a list like Rick has done, and looking through it for Wikipedians who should be nominated is a Good Thing. I suspect I'm not the only one perusing that list to see who to ask next... Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grutness here, but I'd also like to add that the whole novelty of being nominated for adminship and going through the process is in general an exciting experience. I also think it increases the quality, effort, and more importantly the civility of many contributors because they hope to one day be nominated based on their performance. If we institute automatic editing, being nominated would lose its mystique because it becomes something of a routine or an expectation. Automatic noms do seem like a good idea, but if you probably analyze things deep enough you'd find that the more edits a contributor makes above the 2000-3000 count mark, the less likely they are to go without being nominated, so things do iron themselves out. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 09:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think the data contradicts this last point. The list I've posted only includes editors with more than 2500 edits in article space, and includes at least 200 editors who have never been nominated. Even if half of these would not make suitable admins (which would astound me), that leaves 100 editors. At the rate of 4 per week it would take nearly 6 months to nominate all of these editors even if no others were considered (which would mean in 6 months, anyone who does not currently have 2500 edits would not have been nominated). IMO, the rate of nominations has not been keeping up with the rate of participation which I think is a Bad Thing. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Adding admins for its own sake is not useful; it just encourages paper admins. I might have given more credence to your point when it wsa more difficult to become an admin through self-nom, but lately there have been a flurry of self-noms and many of them being promoted. If someone has 2500 real edits and they haven't applied for admin, maybe they're not interested. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not in favour of making edit counting a key criterion - it rewards irresponsible editting. I would rather use the preview button 5x than save a typo. In addition, the list presented lists edits only to the Main namespace. Someone who spends time on the Talk page rather than reverting, or who spends time cleaning up VfD is more valuable to Wikipedia and probably has more of the skills needed by an admin. Someone who spends his/her time changing spellings from BE to AE (or AE to BE) will amass a lot of edits, while doing nothing useful (since their edits will quickly be reverted). In addition, people who edit war acquire many more Main Namespace edits than people who resolve their differences on the Talk page. The flip side of this would also be that people who had not met some threshold would be far less likely to be successful on RfA. Quaity of actions, quality of edits, and suitability for adminship should trump edit counts. The assumption that edit counts is the way to go should only come into play if there is some way to separate signal from noise. One edit per page per half hour maybe? Let edits less than 5 characters be worth only half? Have some maximum number of edits on a single page that count? Weight Talk page edits and WP namespace edits double? Weigh cleanup triple? Something that rewards good behaviour (using the preview button) more than less good behaviour (5 edits to clean the typos out of one sentance; revert wars)?

In addition, why put people through the pain of RfA if they know they will be shot down? There are many controvertial editors who know they are controvertial. There are also editors who show bad judgement in the heat of some dispute, but then go on the make ammends. If noms are automatic, you have no reason to make ammends for your heat-of-the-moment misbehaviour - the clock is ticking no matter what you do. As for the "old boys network" - that's why we have self-noms. Anyone can nominate themselves - and as Cecropia said, it really isn't that difficult any more. On the other hand, succeeding at RfA requires that you have made it into the network, to some extent. Guettarda 14:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any need for it; I think if somebody is being passed over, and wants adminship, then they can self-nominate. We should perhaps reduce the stigma attached to self-noms, if there still is any; I know we used to demand more out of self-noms, don't know if we still do. Occasionally somebody will be passed over for an excessively long time, that's true, but I don't think it's such a big injustice because they could self-nominate or, if they have any good reputation, ask someone who they're on good terms with to nominate them. Everyking 14:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I was nominated when I had 4000 edits (my 4000th was letting Grutness know that I would accept a nomination), after I'd been almost eaxactly 5 months (my first edit was on Boxing day). I had been considering a self-nomination, but I didn't fancy being shot down in flames. My thinking was that after I'd been here 6 months I would have a much better chance of success. Whether this is typical or not I don't know. Thryduulf 15:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The "admin suggestions" was my doing, not Cecropia's; as I recall, he was so vehemently opposed to such a list that he ultimately ended up placing a prominent "banner" on RFA with regard to the matter. While automatic nominations may be helpful, in actual fact most qualified people get nominated fairly promptly. There is also a lack of agreement about what constitutes sufficient edit counts and months of editing to qualify, and this would have to be resolved before any automatic mechanism could be agreed upon. Though Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival is now out of date, re-running the queries could give us a new list and any candidates we have overlooked would become obvious. When I did this before, at least half of the experienced non-admins either did not want adminship, had been denied adminship previously, or had been such a source of conflict that they were clearly unsuited.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I hae no problems with a periodic list of non-admins who have made the most edits, but I would strongly oppose any sort of automatic adminship. There are far too many edit warriors and POV pushers with lots of edits who should be banned, not given admin privileges. RickK 22:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested automatic adminship? I think the proposal currently on the table is to keep and regularly update some sort of quasi-official list of "high edit" (TBD) users sorted by date of first activity with number of edits listed, presumably to be consulted when thinking about nominating someone for adminship. No automatic promotion. No automatic nomination based on arbitrary edit numbers. No requirement that anyone even look at the list. I actually rather like Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fan of even a "quasi-official" list if it's based on edit counts. If people want to consult such lists on their own, great, but the point several people have raised is that edit-counting is not something to encourage. It's an anti-pattern. 10,000 edits means little if they're all spelling corrections. On the other hand, if you made 50 edits that each created a new article, 100 thoughtful posts to talk pages, and 50 constructive edits to policy pages, you'd be a fantastic Wikipedian at only 200 edits. Edit count may be a handy guage of activity, but it's not what Wikipedians should be striving for. I'd rather see a list of "Wikipedians who have written a featured article but aren't admins", or something like that. Isomorphic 07:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely with Isomorphic. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have misunderstood what Rick Block were saying. I would like to see who the non-admin "senior users" were. Actually I would like that there be a class of "senior user" that did not require the politics of an adminship vote, and which did not attract all the flak that admins tend to get. On the other hand, like Isomorphic, I have reservations about edit lists. Featured Articles is one option, though again, it doesn't capture the whole range of what non-admin editors contribute. Now, if we could also give them access to the "rollback" tool... Guettarda 13:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alturnatively we could get rid of the whole nomintion process altogether. On the basis that we know that self noms want to be admins we are less likely to get papaer adimns. another thing to take into consideration is that not all good editors make good admins.Geni 12:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. Guettarda 13:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two problems I'm hoping to address with this proposal. One is that I think it's likely there are more than a few, possibly more than 100, "senior users" (I like that term) who, for whatever reason, are reluctant to self-nom and, for whatever reason, have been overlooked. The other is that some (many?) of the current class of admins are perceived by at least some users to be highly arrogant. Whether this is true or not, I believe the perception exists. IMO switching to a self-nom only process would basically select for high arrogance, which would over time make this perception the actual reality. On the other hand, if most "senior users" (excepting problem users) were made admins and were expected to do admin sorts of things, I think they would. Unless consistently contributing to wikipedia over time also selects for arrogance (and it might), making "senior user" and "admin" essentially the same set of users might help diversify the population of admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:55, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship does not exist to reward good editing. It exists because wikipedia needs caretakers and some of the technical abilities of admins can do quite a bit of damge in the wrong hands. What everdence do you have that people percive admins as arogant? Most of people's perceptions of admins comes from those who for whatever reason do a lot of high profile stuff. Creating more paper admins isn't going to help in that respect.Geni 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which does get back to the idea of having some sort of non-admin "senior user" with a few more tricks - specifically, the rollback button (I find the process of reverting vandalism to be tedious, and it's something you do every day). But I realise that this is getting OT for this talk page. Guettarda 17:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re Geni's comments: How much evidence would you like? Would this comment and most of the exchange that led up to it suffice? I actually agree that adminship does not exist to reward good editing. On the other hand, including featured article contributions as a criteria for nomination sure makes it sound at least related to good editing (I'd think the policy would be if you're a featured article contributor you would be extremely discouraged from spending any of your wikipedia time doing administrivia tasks). Speaking of editing, I'm sure we'd all rather be editing than continuing this conversation. I think I've said my piece. Thanks for listening. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Weyes extended (Archive 27)

I have extended Weyes' RfA for 48 hours. At this point I feel I could justify either promotion or removal based on the existing votes and comments. However, I would much prefer that this be hashed out by the community if possible so as to be able to conclude without bureaucrat discretion being necessary.

Since the most significant general point of opposition seems to be the claim that Weyes is too curt with editors, especially newbies, it would be useful if voters would address this point one way or the other. It would be especially useful if those who have not already voted and presumably have not made up their minds would look at the nomination. Thanks! Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, please tell me you're not counting MasterShredder's opposition vote. It was his third edit. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ain't counting anything 'til the fat lady sings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: The 'Weyes' Case

"What we have here is a fairly shameless attempt by the pro-weyes camp to garner support through posting messages on talk pages, last minute emails and irc polling in order to push the tally over the required 80%."

"Please consider that this is a controversial nomination, and erriring on the side of caution is always advisable when dealing with such cases." Unsigned comment made by 62.253.64.19 (aka User:MARMOT) 14:35, Jun 22, 2005

Some evidence for that claim would be helpful. Also, signing in and signing edits would too. - Taxman ^Talk 18:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Weyes: The Fat Lady Sang

Everything considered, I would have a much greater problem justifying a promotion in this case than justifying removal. The simple numbers don't support the nomination at this time, and the complaints against the candidate are sufficiently non-trivial to have generated significant opposition.

I will address JfdWolff's comment about MasterShredder's vote. First, this disputed vote did not make the difference in the nomination. Since the decision was a discretionary one, I took all factors into account, including (1) the fact that MasterShredder was entitled to vote and (2) the fact that this user had but three edits at the time.

Be aware that up until a year or so ago, all votes, comments, etc., were considered in making admins, including from anons. However, we then decided that a person should at least have an account to vote--no minimum number of edits, no minimum time on Wikipedia. Another thing that has changed in the last year is that we pay a lot more attention to numbers than we did. Please keep in mind that the standard is and always has been consensus and that bureaucrat's are entrusted to determine that beyond that simple numbers.

If we want a minimum criterion for voting, this is a change of policy and we should make a proposal and have a straw poll. My opinion, and just my opinion, is that we could have a minimum to make certain that a voter has not created an account just for the purpose of voting, which also begs sockpuppetry. Perhaps a month and 100 real edits could do it. However, I'm not anxious to see "qualification wars" as the latest team sport on RfA. I'm not speaking for any other bureaucrat, but if we agree on a minimum qualification, I do not intend to personally examine the qualifications of every voter on every nomination. I believe it is appropriate for those voting to question the qualifications and put their claim in the RfA for the bureaucrats to take into consideration. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a bureacrat, I concur with Cecropia's assessment. →Raul654 19:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.

On the other hand, I do concur with Cecropia's point that we should not have voting minimums, nor do I intend to check for them either. →Raul654 21:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you let this one go, and renominate later, in a month or two. Although I sincerely believe that it is not what it appears, it has the appearance of being nothing more than "lets extend the vote until we get the results we want." By extending this vote again, you're feeding the trolls who already think that adminship is a power clique among those willing to punish anonymous users, and that this is just a formality along the way to adding a "friend" to the clique. --Unfocused 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, they can think whatever they want - sometimes what is right is not the most popular decision. On the other hand, there's clearly some suspicious goings-on there and I am not keen on turning a blind and and letting a handful of suspicious votes decide a nomination, so clearly the best thing to do would be get more votes by extending the deadline. →Raul654 21:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly second that. We shouldn't look over our shoulder every second worrying what the problem users will think. We're here to run a succesful encyclopedia project. The rest be damned as long as we act in good faith, which Raul clearly has done. While I personally think it should have stayed as being deemed without consensus, given this one was borderline it is perfectly acceptable to extend it. It's not like it was 50% support and it's being extended to allow in 30% more supports. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Raul, I respect your decision to reopen this yet again (it already had one extension) but there are also claims of campaigning in favor. I think it would have been better to wipe the slate clean, set some ground rules for voting if needed, and reopen from the beginning. Do you think that would be a better plan in the future? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be OK with that -- what kind of ground rules did you have in mind though? →Raul654 22:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't really thought that out in any detail. Perhaps no voting except by accounts at least a month old with 100 edits, as I suggested above. And in the case of this nomination only (because of possible hanky-panky and so as not to set new policy without discussion) expect each voter pro or con to give some kind of non-BS reason so bureaucrats have something to go on in making the final decision. Just suggestions. Your thoughts? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion a 100 edit limit is too strict. And 30 days is also a too long time IMO. But a rule that the voters account should be older than the nomination seems reasonable to me. Shanes 22:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe in order to vote you should either have 100edits or have had your account for a month. Most editors that come here with neither are vandals or trolls, IMHO. Falphin 22:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am personally unhappy about yet another extension, as it does look like you are simply extending and extending until you get the RIGHT result. I would personally be OK with a brand new vote, providing each user posts a valid reason (not 'because my friend voted yes'). And Matthew, you are saying there are many 'suspect' no votes, but there are also many 'suspect' yes votes that give no reason. - Marmosa

Such as... sockpuppets? :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

1. Support. Sure; welcome to the cabal. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

5. Support. --Carnildo 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

7. Support.-gadfium 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

13. Support RickK 06:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

16. Support. NormanEinstein 13:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

17. Support, Ghakko 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

18. Support. Grue 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

19. Support. --Kbdank71 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

21. Support Arwel 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

22. Support-JCarriker 11:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

31. Gets my support vote. Dan100 (Talk) 22:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

37. SupportGeni 02:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

38. Support--nixie 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

40. Support. Carbonite | Talk 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

43. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

44. Support --Duk 04:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Total = 16

On the other hand, there is only one oppose vote without an expalanation - Master Shredder.

I think you'll find sock puppetry works better if you don't actually sign both names from the same account. --W(t) 22:55, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Aha! Looks like we just found ourselves a sockpuppet! Nice job, MARMOT/62.253.96.42/Master Shredder. I guess your usage of your IP address to hide your activities as MARMOT has really done you justice.

5. Oppose I commend his vigilance, however I have seen this user undo several perfectly good edits with no explanation. Also has a tendency towards antagonisation of members he disagrees with. - Marmot

9. Oppose - Master Shredder 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure ArbCom would LOVE to heat this one. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any evidence, technical or otherwise, that I am Master Shredder. [unsigned by 62.253.96.42 23:05, 22 Jun 2005]

Okay.

On the other hand, there is only one oppose vote without an expalanation - Master Shredder. posted here. [unsigned by Linuxbeak 23:11, 22 Jun 2005]

Yes, what is your point? Like I said, there is only one oppose vote without an explanation, that of Master Shredder. You seem to have misinterpreted what I said. [unsigned by 62.253.96.42 23:14, 22 Jun 2005]

What was that, Linux? Gutted. 62.253.96.42 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. You tampered with an RFA, you used a sockpuppet in an RFA to give you two votes, and you shot yourself in the foot. You have effectively told the world that you're a sham. I'm through feeding this troll. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I created a second account, used it to cast phony votes, then signed my name as it on a talk page. You really are a fucking 'tard, Linuxcunt.

62.253.96.42 23:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I try my best :-) Enjoy your block! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Falphins suggestion of 100 edits OR 1 month. I also think that anons and accounts created since the nomination should be ineligible. The biggest problem that I see with repeated extensions is that some early voters will not revisit their votes in the light of developing discussion. This problem becomes more acute the longer the debate lasts and without such revision the process becomes increasingly akin to mock democracy and further from consensus building.—Theo (Talk) 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One obvious treatment for problems of that sort would be to open discussion for some period of time before voting begins. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Law of large numbers

I wonder if the continued extensions will make any difference; because of the law of large numbers, the proportion of support and oppose probably will not change much. --cesarb 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would be in full agreement with you. However, seeing that we have concrete evidence of vote tampering, that might change. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

In summary, what is the concrete evidence of vote tempering, please? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT was found of using a sockpuppet, and as such, this nullifies both MARMOT's vote as well as his sock's. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, David Gerard used the the checkIP page and found a match between the two. →Raul654 02:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we nullify this whole thing and start over clean? It would be seven days instead of five. I'm also not crazy about extensions after extensions. It's like the principle that there is a limit to how much you patch a program before you throw it out and start with a clean code base. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. →Raul654 03:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It'd be fine by me, though I'm not quite clear on for what reason. Yes, there has been sockpuppeting, but it hasn't effected the vote in any way that can't be solved by discounting the sockpuppets. The main problem appears to be that it insists on floating in that magical 75-80% region which makes it hard to bureaucrat. Though re-RfAring would probably solve that due to random fluctions, I'm not sure it's the normal way of resolving that. --W(t) 03:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

It is an issue that after a certain point the process is tainted. Since Raul654, the other b'crat involved agrees, I'm cancelling and restarting this nomination. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It didn't work in

Washington. — Sebastian (talk)

03:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if this nomination fails for a second time. However, I think Weyes deserves to have another go anyway, seeing that he's been more or less cheated out of a concencus. In another month, his mistakes should all have washed over, and he should be admin'd without much fanfare. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop misusing the law of large numbers. Dmn / Դմն 1 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Is this an example of poor form?

In every other case I've seen, the "Wikipedia way" when consensus fails has been to withdraw the proposal, discuss, redevelop the proposal, wait a period of time, then resubmit the proposal for another vote. Why should Weyes be treated any differently?

If the bureaucrat judging the nomination vote cannot decide if there is a consensus, then there is no consensus. It is NOT time to extend, extend, then revote. I would not have been upset had a bureaucrat used their judgement to claim that the valid, accepted votes formed a consensus the first time. We expect bureaucrats to use their judgement to make decision. I won't be upset if a bureaucrat makes that decision now.

I am highly disturbed by the unusual nature of the process used (but I wouldn't call my feeling "upset"). Even though I believe these actions were taken in good faith, they have the appearance of a vote with a predetermined outcome. Any process with the appearance of impropriety is inherently flawed, and should be discarded immediately. Unfocused 14:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. This is entirely within bureaucrats' good judgement. If the picture doesn't change substantially within the extension, the nomination will still have failed. To nitpick about this would be wikilawyering, which is clearly inherently flawed.

dab (ᛏ)

14:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there needs to be a massive reduction in Wikilawyering and second guessing (acroos Wikipedia in general, but especially here). This is an admin nom, not a supreme court case. The bureaucrats have made their judgment in good faith, and that's all that needs to be done. Let's not lose sight of the more important goal, of improving the project. Voice your opinion in the nomination and call it a day please. - Taxman ^Talk 14:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these actions were done in good faith, I stated so above. But one of the things Wikipedia needs most is administrative transparency. Processes need to not only be done in good faith, but need to appear to be done in good faith. Anything less feeds the trolls. --Unfocused 14:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The RfA in question has been handled in the most shambolic way and definitely has the appearance of impropriety. It sets a very bad precedent. People may claim this is a new vote, but it is in fact an extension of the old vote by another name. Please. --Mrfixter 14:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taxman, I think the problem is people did voice their opinions by vote, and a concensus was clearly not reached (even ignoring sockpuppet business), this was subsequently ignored, and the process started again. Hence unfocused comments are, i believe, perfectly legitimate. Bluemoose 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents

This has been a very unusual case. When I originally extended this nomination (as has been done many times before) I stated the reason. Then Raul654 noticed that there were unusual circumstances (included vote tampering) and, in good faith, used the powers entrusted to him to make a further extension. When it became evident this was just getting more messy, he and I agreed to wipe the nomination clean and restart without having to sort out which votes might be socks, or bogus accounts, or whatever.

As to transparency, I would argue that the RfAs are one of the more transparent processes on Wikipedia and so has this nomination process been. The decisions have been made and explained out in the open. The only lack of transparency on the part of Raul and I would be if anyone feels that we are not acting in good faith or have a hidden motive in regard to this nomination. If anyone thinks so, say so, and say why, remembering that it is one thing to say someone made a wrong decision, or could have made a better decision, or did not make the decision that they themselves would have made, and another entirely to charge that a corrupt decision has been made.

We have had hundreds of decisions made in the last year, with little controversy, and I believe this process is working well and smoothly. In this case, this is a learning experience like any other. Perhaps we should limit extensions to one, perhaps we should set out a simple qualification for voting (like a minimum month for a voting account). We can discuss this if we're so inclined.

Perhaps voters should keep transparency in mind in their own actions; before you "campaign" for or against a candidate; or are tempted to sockpuppetry; or try to get decisions made on IRC, think: if your behavior would be embarassing to you or the candidate if it were revealed in the RfA, maybe you shouldn't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I blame the alleged sockpuppets not the bureaucrats, though to have more and clearer information about the alleged sockpuppetry would be great. Wouldn't a full investigation of the alleged sockpuppetry and a removal of suspect votes have been a better option? As a transparent no voter I want to know who has been tampering with the vote,

SqueakBox

16:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Any bureaucrat or admin who takes administrative action on the process of a vote in progress should consider if it would be just as acceptable for [[Insert Notable Despot Here]] or his supporters to do the same. Although I believe the motives of the bureaucrats were in good faith, transparency of motive is almost never clear enough, even when publicly stated.

Ideally, I think Weyes should withdraw his acceptance of the nomination, and come back in a month or two (when I expect he'll pass handily). Otherwise, his administrator position could be troll bait for as long as he keeps it. If he withdraws and comes back later we'll have a clean slate to work from. If he succeeds then, Weyes won't have this giant Troll steak hanging around his neck.

Let me state again, I believe that both extensions and setting up a revote were done in good faith, but I'd rather see a delayed "clean result" than any possible appearance of impropriety. --Unfocused 17:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first extension was fully justified, since the community has indicated consistently that it trusts bureaucrats to do what is necessary and advisable in their judgment to determine consensus. The alternative would have been to make the decision then and there, which bureaucrats are also empowered to do, and that too would have raised complaints. Remember, it is the bureaucrats' job to make their own best efforts to make a decision in accordance with their best judgment, not the decision which they think will provoke the least controversy. Your reiteration of your the idea that avoiding "any possible appearance of impropriety" is the heart of this process is quite subjective, and is bound to be unattainable in everyone's eyes. Appearances of propriety or impropriety should be based not simply on displeasure with a particular result but on a knowledge of the process, the history of the process, and the record of and trust in those who administer the process. With the miracle of hindsight, I could say that it would have been better to not have had the second extension, but that is water of the dam now. More important is that every disputed call not become a Wikinquisition. I agree with Raul's general POV that we shouldn't make procedures on Wikipedia any more involved than necessary. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this embroglio is illustrative of the problems with extending votes. In general, I do not believe that a vote should be extended because consensus is unclear, unless there simply aren't sufficient votes. The practice of extending questionable votes is one Cecropia has instituted that was not followed prior to him taking near-total ownership of the adminship process after he was promoted to bureaucrat. This practice has never been voted upon by the community. Prior to its use, bureaucrats (and formerly developers) made a call shortly after the nomination closed.

It is my view that the practice of extending ending times, restarting votes, adding banner ads for certain votes, and so on generally undermines the simplicity and fairness of the process. The way it is supposed to work is that the vote runs for its proper duration and then bureaucrats make a call, with a 75%-80% threshold at their discretion as they gauge the feelings of the community. Part of the bureaucrats' job is to determine which votes are valid, and it is wholly appropriate for bureaucrats to discount sock-puppet votes, anonymous votes, and votes of people who clearly have no genuine involvement in the project. The overuse of extensions and whatnot have led to a Calvinball-like atmosphere where the rules are unpredictable. The process has become so unpleasant for nominees that it is a wonder we still have applicants.

I also believe that, in truly questionable cases, bureaucrats should close the vote and consult amongst themselves to determine the best course of action. -- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I am fine with the extensions and banner's drawing attention to votes without a consensus. All that does is allow a voter to make a vote, it doesn't encourage one way or another. But I am also fine with the simpler policy you outlined, no extensions, and if there is no consensus, simply don't promote. Also closing the vote, and making a determination amongst themselves seems fine to me. Admins and bureaucrats will always take heat for making decisions, but some greater consistency that would come from no extensions may help. - Taxman ^Talk 18:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here - I see one or two sockpuppet votes, in what way does this constitute such an irregularity to require a new vote? sockpuppets aren't exactly a rare phenomenon. I don't understand the thinking behind this action -- Joolz 21:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which action? You'll have to address that question to Raul and the other editors who discovered the problems. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's the combination of two sockpuppet, two votes that seemed to be opposing the procedure, not the user, and the fact that the voting hovered in the 75%-80% range for a long time. --Carnildo 21:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The action I refered to was the action of starting a re-vote. My question was addressed to the discussion and anyone who might have an answer. :P

The two sockpuppets could have simply been discounted, and the two users which oppose the process should be treated consistently accross all RfAs to which they voted, in other RfAs I believe that those oppose votes have counted with no need to restart the vote. -- Joolz 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda." Let's do a brief timeline. When the original vote expired, I examined it as I usually do and extended it for 48 hours. I posted my reasoning above, which you can read. At the end of the 48 hours I determined that consensus had not been demonstrated, based on the totality of the votes and comments, and ended the candidacy without promotion, but with an explanation of my reasoning in that, which you can also read above. Then Raul looked at the situation and restored the nomination for five days based on new information he had. I wouldn't have reinstated the nomination (it could come up again in another month, after all) if only that I believe that a cooling-off period would have been beneficial rather than to keep chewing this over. (For the record, I also considered another extension myself without Raul's intervention, but thought it not useful). But I firmly believe Raul acted in good faith and reasonably as he saw it, and that he was within his powers and trust to extend the nomination. After this became controversial, I proposed that the process was messed up and that the vote should be annulled. There were two ways to go: revert to the previous removal or start new. OR because a lot of editors had become interested in this we could clean out the votes, good, bad and doubtful. I proposed this and Raul agreed. And there we are. The process is back in the hands of the community, and in my often stated opinion, this is better than the other alternatives.

The heart of management is not to expect to always make the right decision, but to make a reasoned decision, and be able to justify it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UC feels that some of the actions I've taken undermine the process. OTOH I've been criticized in the past for putting to vote issues to gauge community sentiment, from which we got firmer opinions that show where sentiment lies and have enabled me and other bureaucrats to make hundreds of promotions with very little controversy. Sure, in the past we didn't have extensions but we simply left some nominations in limbo because noone acted and we had fights over the result of RfAs bcause the candidates and their supporters or detractors did not understand or have explained to them reason behind promotions and non-promotions. UC, you are mistaken. The community explicitly did vote on the propriety of banner ads by bureaucrats and on bureaucrats using their discretion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I made it quite clear in my comments above that the extension of ending times, in particular, has not been voted upon by the community. I disagree that we have made "hundreds of promotions with very little controversy," and even if that were true, it may not be a goal. Adminship, like it or not, has become a political matter. In politics, controversy is normative. But even in politics, it is vital that a sense of fairness and consistency be maintained. The problem we have now is that the voting period has no clear and unambiguous endpoint. Instead of promoting or not on the merits (and perhaps disagreeing upon them and discussing them) we end up in a disagreement about the mechanics of voting. A disagreement about the mechanics of voting is pointless, and is impossible to resolve without clear ground rules. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are correct, what do you propose as a solution? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for falling into the middle here :) I just wanted to make one comment, and that is that people who use socks to vote, or vote to make a
  WP:POINT, are likely to do so again if the nomination is ran again. So the best option would be to ignore them entirely. For the first that's relatively easy; any voting page (VFD, for instance) discounts sock votes. The second is a difficult judgement call, but personally I would trust the bureaucrats if they decided to discount votes that are extremely spurious (for the simple reason that the idea is to gauge consensus, not simply count votes). Of course, that also means discounting people who vote A because user:X voted B. The obvious result will be that people will still do that, but not give that reason - but it will make the voting less offensive to both parties (frankly I find voting A because a specific person voted B, rather offensive). Anyway I'm not saying that this is or is not a good idea; I'm just saying that I'd prefer bureaucrat judgement to an instant re-nomination. Radiant_>|<
  10:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

What about user X voting A because user Y voted A? Is that any better or worse? I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that people will still do it and not give a reason. I'd rather know why someone is voting a certain way, regardless of how trivial I think the reason is. --Xcali 14:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extensions are potentially helpful for nominations that receive little attention, and restarts may be appropriate if significant new evidence comes to light. But as I've mentioned before, if the nominee is controversial, extending the vote will not make them any less controversial. The usual outcome is that support and opposition will continue to come in roughly the same proportions as before, as seems to be happening with Weyes right now. --Michael Snow 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove blank support/oppose votes? (Archive 27)

Boothy443, in particular, has voted "oppose" for no real reason. Should we have a policy of removing oppose votes if they are not qualified (ie. blank)? violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

I don't know if I am totally comfortable with that idea. On the other hand, given Boothy's record, I think it would be entirely correct for a bureaucrat to ignore his unexplained votes, since he has pretty much admitted that they are

WP:POINT. I'd argue for case-by-case interpretation - that's what we have bureaucrats for. (Though granted, this did turn into an "attack the bureaucrats" free-for-all for a while). Guettarda

28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Oppose voters should have as much of a right to vote as Support voters. If anyone else has a problem with blank oppose votes, they can ask the voter to qualify their comments. The bureaucrats should be free to interpret blank oppose votes as they see fit. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

I agree, we should absolutely not remove votes of this sort, any more than we'd remove support votes with no reason given. Filiocht | Talk June 28, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Policy is to count all votes from logged-in users. If there is need for discretion as judged by one or more of the bureaucrats when it is time to make a decision, all circumstances are taken into account. That includes if someone such as Boothy443 is placing votes for the sake of proving a personal point. Once we begin to remove this vote or that vote or value this vote or that vote higher or lower than others as a matter of policy, we'll have endless battle on which votes should be counted. Boothy443 would just be the tip of the iceburg. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 28 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Not unless we're about to remove all unqualified support votes as well. Users who vote oppose do so for their own reasons and we should assume good faith rather than hounding them for justification.

siafu

28 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

The standard for becoming an admin is "consensus," and vote count is just one guideline. It would be much much better if every voter would give an indication as to why they are supporting or opposing; but it is not required. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

No, as per siafu. Also, we choose bureaucrats for their judgment and so I trust them to use it; if an individual call seems to have been poorly made then question that call. (I find unqualified opposition completely unhelpful and unproductive, personally, both to the candidate and to others who might want to know what the concerns are before stating a position, but it should still be accepted and counted.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 28 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

I really dislike unexplained oppose votes, and often ask for people who oppose to at least give some indication of their reasons, but I wouldn't like to see them removed as a rule. Boothy's are a little different though. His behaviour is distinctly trollish. Good candidates are having unjustified objections put against their name because of one user's problems with the admin system and his disruptive way of expressing them. I'd be quite happy to see these removed. — Trilobite (Talk) 28 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements. Perhaps we should (informally) ask people to consider qualifying their vote if they, on multiple occasions, vote blankly. I really think that Boothy443's votes should be removed, though, as I can't see how we can assume good faith on that. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)

I think we should certainly encourage people to leave a comment, but never ask people to qualify votes (however annoying it is), as there is a much greater propensity to challenge opposes than supports, leading to a situation where people will either vote support or not at all. In extreme situations, such as boothy, I would still not challenge individual votes. Note that boothy has supported FCYTravis. Bluemoose 28 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

In discussion relating to my draft proposal I was informed that I was incorrect in calling it an election as there is discussion and debate following a request or nomination (unlike a political election where one casts one's vote and that's the end of it). Here we have the ability to change a vote throughout the nomination week depending on discussion in the original request. I think that if RfA just becomes a simple voting procedure, it is not only harder for the bureaucrats to determine consensus, but RfA will turn into an election - and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Therefore, I think that people who oppose without substantiating their reasons (even a simple "per <otheruser>" is sufficient) should be discounted. For support votes, I do not think they should be discounted if no reason is given, however I think it would be polite to offer a reason as to why. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

On what basis should silent oppose votes be removed whilst silent support votes stay? This seems neither fair nor logicial. -- Joolz 28 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)

In general, uncommented "support" votes mean "Support. I agree with the reasons given by the nominator". --Carnildo 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Because there is specific reasoning needed for a support vote - it means "I agree, given this person's previous contributions and statement, that this user could be a good admin". An oppose vote means "I disagree, given this person's previous contributions and statement, that this person could be a good admin". The first is more self-explanatory, while the second needs clarification with a reason. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is the first more self-explanatory than the second?

siafu

28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)

The nominator usually explains why they're making the nomination. Personally, I would like to recommend recommending more detailed nomination summaries (see below).

Indeed the nominator explains why the nomination is being made, but both support and oppose infer an understanding of that explanation. That is,

siafu

29 June 2005 05:39 (UTC)

RFA IS NOT A VOTE. Sure, we ask people to "vote here" and we often refer to people's comments as "votes". But, the point of RfA is to generate consensus. People can, do, and will change their votes based on additional information added to the RfA. If we had an anonymous ballot, that would not happen and we could readily promote people who just aren't ready. I don't think there's reason to be concerned about retributive actions based on votes or actions on contentious articles. Just do what you feel is right, while being prepared for having community consensus go against you at times; adapt, and move forward. --Durin 12:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still voting.. still democratic (as is consensus). Denial of wikipedia as democracy and it's history of democratic control is doublethink . -- max rspct leave a message 13:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's

policy. Johnleemk | Talk

14:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, guys. Did you miss the great Florida recount that ended with Jimbo elected to God-King? ;) NoSeptember ^talk 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes pal, we know what the official 'policy' line is. BBC etc calls it democratic:
"Perhaps Wikipedia is not about trusting the idea that the definitions it carries are accurate.Indeed, a recent article in The Post-Standard in Syracuse slammed the idea. It suggested because anyone could contribute, Wikipedia was not a verifiable authority, or trustworthy.Wiki-advocates would argue that is missing the point.It is more about trusting that humans can respect someone else's opinion in a democratic public sphere, and that contributors will not ruin the fun for everyone else." [3] -- max rspct leave a message 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that - shock horror - the BBC may not fully understand how Wikipedia works? After all, most journalists don't even get the URL right, let alone policy/process etc. Martin 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So now BBC sets Wikipedia policy, and not Wikipedia? Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe YOU don't fully understand how wikipedia works? Yes Wikipedia sets policy - you pretty much make my point. Funny how the article on consensus states : "As this example suggests, the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." Check these two books hint that academics might actually consider consensus decisionmaking Consensus democracy, deliberative democracy or participatory democracy [4], [5]. Democracy isn't necc good or beneficial per se (eg military dem, boardroom,)unless those affected by the outcomes are the decison makers. I have a funny feeling that our democratic process iz going to expand this section.. unless an admin chops it. Surely the act of click that button to edit an article is a blatent democratic step. And in answer to Infinity0's question about my handle/username ... they were the first two words i uttered when i realised i could edit!! and how empowering wikipedia is and can possibly continue to be. "Maximum Respekt!!" - Ali G -- max rspct leave a message 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is a cornerstone of democracy in the same way that having a vagina is a cornerstone of being a prostitute. Not all people with vaginas are prostitutes, and not all organisations run through consensus are democracies. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, while that was probably the funniest example I've ever heard — I should barnstar you for that one — this is strating to stray pretty far from the original question of "anonymous voting."

E@

17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While this praxis does at times cause eventual misunderstandings, it is my impression that most of the [minimally experienced] users who post here understand what the RfA process really is, even though they say "vote". I believe the word has come into use largely due to [ok, also an original misunderstanding because of] the procedural resemblance that the process bears to a vote. It's just a lot more practical to say I have voted to support than I have submitted my rationale in order to help achieve consensus sufficient to promote userX to Administrator.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to be so absolutely precise about the terminology during discussions that aren't even focusing on whether or not RfA is a vote, or voting, etc. That only causes the discussion to digress. For my part, I've accepted that I'm cheap and don't want to wear out my keyboard ;). So please, let's relax a little about the terminology stuff. Redux

17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with referring to most of our processes as votes, since we actually run discussion-based strawpolls (where the term vote would probably be accurate). I do take issue with people referring to any process as a "vote" however; we really ought to replace such references with "discussion" or "strawpoll". Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to join this (pointless IMO) discussion, but you might want to read that post again... It doesn't make sense. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...you're right. My bad. Just strike out the first half of the first sentence. :p Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes democracy is more than just voting. But "procedural resemblance" GET A GRIP! As for vaginas and prozzies - that's a pretty sick, schoolboyish way of 'putting' things..and it doesn't stand up at all. -- max rspct leave a message 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia procedurally resembling a democracy doesn't make it one any more than a sluttily dressed woman being a prostitute (to continue the analogy). And why doesn't it stand up? Do kindly explain. I don't care whether it's juvenile or not -- it's clearly getting the point across. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind the

civility, Max. The point was exactly to learn to let go of the little things. Redux

18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A more tame analogy would be, just because one has a colorful signature, does not mean one has a colorful personality. -- 127.*.*.1 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee for Newbs (Archive 54)

This is my first time editing wikipedia. I've enjoyed the creation of this community as a user but I really am turned off by the welcoming committee we have around here.

I'm apparently labelled a troll, etc by the welcoming committee. When I vote against a candidate, some random person who supports that person invariably comes along and tags my vote with a comment about how I am new or created some article that was deleted.

When I make a joke about this on a vote page, saying you can go right ahead and tag this with a comment, I'm edited out as a "troll vote". I suspect this will go forward as reason enough to edit out my future votes since, afterall, I'm a troll. Once labelled a troll, always a troll-- that's what I'm thinking.

Perhaps, encylopedias like law and sausage are something you should enjoy without getting your hands dirty by creating.Profundity06 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general idea is that someone as new as you doesn't really know what qualities and characteristics an administrator of Wikipedia should have. If you seem abusive in your opposes then you will be deemed a troll since it seems like you're just going around opposing to cause arguments. I would suggest that you steer clear of voting on RfA for a while and observe the process, to see what is appropriate. Nobody should blame you for acting a little inappropriately when you are new, since you're still adjusting to what is expected of users in terms of conduct on Wikipedia. --

Darth Deskana (talk page)

10:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Profundity06--you are wrong about the "Once labelled a troll, always a troll" thing. There are several well-thought-of users here who started out as vandals (well, ok, not several. But some. Well, maybe I can think of one.) Likewise, some of our most prolific and respected editors (respected by some subsets of editors, anyway) are called trolls quite frequently. Anyway, the point is that even straight-out vandals can reform, so certainly people calling you a troll won't cause problems for you after you have a few solid edits under your belt. If you want people to stop disregarding your votes, for instance, all you have to do is spend a while building up a few decent edits in the encyclopedia itself. If you're serious about arguing against overaggressive vandal-fighter admins, I would also suggest you make your argument by linking to specific edits by the candidate in question that you think show them going over the line; no matter how new you are, I believe people will take your comments seriously if you back them up well enough and detail your concerns. --Aquillion 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if marked as such it's our ('crats) responsibility to judge whether the user is too new to wikipedia. In such a case we may or may not fully consider his vote or not if the nom falls between 75-80%. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IP Votes (Archive 57)

On my

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)

Done, thanks!

Cowman109^Talk

01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Qualified opinions. (Archive 59)

From the 'About RfA' section:

"Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to express their opinion, including the nominator, however, expressing an opinion on one's own nomination is discouraged..."

Why are nominees allowed to comment on the nominations of others? --Folajimi 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And why not? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they are Wikipedia editors like everyone else and should be free to express their opinions about RfAs? Did you have a specific reason in mind that lead you to think they shouldn't be allowed to? Gwernol 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider the following pair of scenarios:

1. A group of users decide to seek administrative access, and they all vote to support one another. If you have enough users teaming up, what would keep them from pushing the nominations through?
2. Consider the case where a nominee expresses opposition to another nominee's candidacy. Is it without the realm of possibility for the second user to become petty and start mudslinging? --Folajimi 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this text is a great example of why blindly substituting words doesn't work. The original version—which discussed voting on one's own nomination—made perfect sense; the new text seems rather silly, since a nominee will obviously express an opinion on their own nomination, by accepting it if nothing else. Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... and on this corner "Voting is evil!" Okay, let's run the blind substituter to get "Expressing an opinion is evil!". --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I need to dig out the diff on that, it's hilarious. Way to go, misguided idealism! -- grm_wnr Esc 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at how it continues: "expressing an opinion on one's own nomination is discouraged, and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat.". So we've gone from vote-counting to opinion-counting? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you find the diff. I'd like to inclde it on my userpage as a source of humour. It seems "vote" is Wikipedia's new four letter word. I made the following as a commentary on AfD, but I think it applies here: User:Deathphoenix/When a vote is not a vote. If it's so evil, maybe we should call it a "!vote" (said as "not-vote"). Like "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote, including the nominator, however, !voting in one's own nomination is discouraged, and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat" Remember, folks, voting is evil, but !voting is perfectly acceptable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Or "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote, including the nominator, however, !voting in one's own nomination is !encouraged, and will be !counted by the closing bureaucrat", just for consistency. -Splash - tk 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That appears to read "failure to vote in one's own nomination is discouraged, but it won't be counted because there's nothing to count." — Jun. 9, '06 [16:06] <freak|talk>

Any Wikipedia with an account is !welcome to !vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Resurrecting a proposal: jury voting (Archive 65)

Whose consensus is RFA supposed to represent?

Well, let's look at how we currently determine it. What we have now is a conventional vote: anyone who stops by can throw in their opinion. So whose consensus do we gather? That of RFA regulars, of the nominee's friends, and probably of the nominee's enemies. Assuming there's significant off-site discussion of Wikipedia matters amongst the wiki-savvy, such as on IRC, and given that people who have had interactions with someone are more likely to notice that person's RFA on RC or wherever, it's safe to say that a very large percentage of those who currently vote in RFA will have preconceptions as to the candidate's worthiness.

Is this good or bad? At first glance, it would seem good. Who better to judge a candidate than those who know him? But actually, I think it's probably not good. The acquaintances of a candidate surely have better knowledge, but they may also have unusual opinions. One example of this is, of course, where a candidate has consistently enforced an often-resented policy, such as

Now, the current process is not "broken". That's true. Most people it lets through are deserving, most people it bars are undeserving (or at least not clearly deserving). But "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The current system could use improvement; the mere fact that it works at an acceptable level is not reason to fail to improve it. Let's not oppose change just because it's change.

So, I would argue that consensus should be the informed opinion of the Wikipedian community as a whole. Obviously, we can't ask every single Wikipedian what they think of every single admin candidate. But an interesting possibility comes from jury votes, and the idea of a statistical cross-section. Select fifty or a hundred people randomly from the community for each candidate. (A bot could pick them and leave messages on their talk pages linking them to the discussion.) Have an open discussion for perhaps three days, longer if necessary, where people present diffs and other evidence and discuss the candidate's merits. Then let those in the jury (who showed up) vote. If they agree by a margin of 80% that the candidate should get the tools, then they get them.

Of course, many of these people may be inexperienced in RFA. They might not understand what adminship means exactly. But I think this could be overcome quite easily: just tell them all when they're selected what powers an admin gets and how difficult it is to remove them. It's really quite simple, not something that you need any experience to grasp.

Is the scheme overcomplicated? I really don't think so. A simple bot running on open-source code could handle all this quite invisibly. And unlike the present system, it's also completely immune to vote-stacking of any sort. People with open minds and average opinions will consider the matter, not people who may have preconceived opinions based on personal slights or out-of-date facts.

Of course, the question of how to select the jury remains, but that's more of a detail not important to the main thrust of the scheme. What are people's thoughts on this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the system broken? What percentage of RfA's do objective wikipedians think have been opposed with unfair predjudice?

David D. (Talk)

21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The system is not broken. It is merely imperfect. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it would be bad to block people from raising legitimate concerns, uncivil diffs, etc., comments to that effect would be made and allowed anyway, and the jury members and the closing bureaucrat will see them and they will have a similar effect as they do now; and supporters will object to those objections and bring up countervailing diff's and we have a similar system as we do now. Except, the selection of the jury is the key part. If they are randomly selected, a significant majority will have no idea what an admin does, etc., and many of them will, aside from being new, be uncivil or fringe or otherwise problematic; it is not sufficient to give a paragraph explanation, even if they are all good faith jury members. So we end up with people raising objections about the qualifications of the jury in any particular case. That is—if more than a handful of the randomly selected jury cares to give any careful evaluation, if they do anything at all. I think, if anything, this will result in a less careful evaluation or less discussion. If the current RfA participants were to still review contributions of the candidate in this proposed system, we would then have a situation where the people who know the most about the candidate have their opinions not count, and then the people who just happened to login one day so they can edit their favorite band article don't know the qualifications, haven't reviewed the contributions, and may not even vote reasonably if they had. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think problems with the current system are related lack of thorough discussion. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because RfA is a vote. We're kidding no one. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

With the proposal, keep in mind that not everyone is on every day. Some may visit once a week-maybe less. It also doesn't seem right to block some from having the ability to vote. Michael 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of people's schedules, the idea depends on having enough "jurors" feel an obligation to participate. In a volunteer project, that's a dicey proposition to rely on, and the combination makes me skeptical about whether the result would be a reasonably representative body. And that's without getting into the technical challenges of selecting them, which may not be critical to a theoretical discussion, but which are large enough that the theoretical side may not be worth spending much time on. --Michael Snow 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, current "bottom up" system works best. Wikipedia is a distributed, community based system. For certain very exceptional things, like ArbCom, etc., it is important to have a "top-down" approach. However, for editing articles, voting things for deletion, voting for admin, and others, it is best to let things at the hands of the community (will all the disclaimers of the supposed silliness of the masses, etc.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The technical challenges are negligible. Anyone familiar with pywikipediabot could probably knock up a bot to do this in a day. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody could easily create a bot to pick a jury pool, no doubt. What I meant by technical challenges was the issue of making the pool random, or otherwise ensuring that the jury is a representative sample of the person's peers. Addressing those problems goes beyond mere skill in programming. --Michael Snow 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who only visit once a week will, of course, not be able to participate as often. There will be an inherent bias toward more active members of the site, but I don't think that's a bad thing: they're the ones who will most likely have to deal with the new admin, after all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a few concerns here. First, as you say, the jury will not know what an admin does. As I said: so? What's there to know? Be told what they can do, what use giving someone the tools is and what harm it could cause, and you're pretty much set. You don't have to be an expert in Wikipedia policy to judge admin candidates, any more than you need to be a lawyer to judge a legal case.

Second, you suggest that the jury might be uncivil or otherwise fringe. To that, I think all I need to say is, are contributors to RFA at present really all civil and mainstream? You'll always have some jerks in the crowd.

Third, you suggest that the jury won't review the evidence. Maybe. My belief is that given the small number of RFAs, no one of our tens of thousands of active members will be picked often enough for the jury to lose its interest. I would guess that given editor turnover, a large percentage of people will only ever be picked once. Put a big notice up saying DO NOT PARTICIPATE IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO SPEND AT LEAST AN HOUR DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING OVER THE COURSE OF A WEEK, and I think the large majority will put more effort into it than most RFA voters currently do. (How much time do you spend when deciding how to vote on an RFA? I doubt I've ever spent more than half an hour.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I still like the idea of the juror voting. Juror's can be randomly selected from the pool of people registered for the juror's duty, so to prevent from choosing people, who are not interested. People who edit wikipedia are usually fast learners and it is not that bad if the nominated admin and the people arguing his case will be a little more verbose explaining their arguments to the Jury. After all in the real courts of law the Jury is usually less educated than a typical wikipedian, the instructions are more complex and the results are much more important abakharev 03:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jury cases in courts of law are quite different that this proposal. Courts of law are a negative process. They would be more similar if all it took were a single wiki-juror to deny adminship, in which case we wouldn't get any admins. There are many other dissimilarities too; the analogy doesn't hold. —Centrx→talk • 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. The principle in both cases is this: a random selection of an individual's peers are the most neutral possible group to judge him. The exact requirements for conviction versus adminship aren't the point of this suggestion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's a terrible idea. One of the principles behind the ideal of consensus is "those who are there to make the decision are the right people to make the decision". By saying we need a juried system, we're demolishing a huge chunk of

good faith in our editors, and for no proven gain. RFA needs help, probably, but this isn't it. -- nae'blis

03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that that's a part of the ideal of consensus. Consensus is of the entire community, not just of people who happen to be there. The people who happen to be there may be better-suited to make the decision . . . or they may be just the opposite. And as for assuming good faith, that is completely unrelated to assuming beneficial action: I can assume someone is acting in good faith while still saying they should not be allowed to act that way. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Any substantial RfA reform is unlikely, I'd say, because there is a substantial group that views RfA as one of the smoothest-running, most effective processes on the English Wikipedia. This despite the vocal group that believes otherwise. A reform that is, like this one, purely experimental and not modelled on other process that have a history of success, is especially unlikely to find purchase. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with the spirit of RFA:

• Oppose Bad idea. FeloniousMonk 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I was the first to propose this, but I've certainly brought it up before. The current processes at RfA, CfD, AfD, etc. are all "consensus" based, but based on consensus of whoever shows up to participate. This makes all of these processes extremely subject to manipulation by any organized group. If we actually want these processes to reflect community-wide "consensus" I don't think there's any real alternative to some sort of random sampling technique. The "jury" analogy is not really accurate. It's more like statistical polling. With sampling techniques, and a small amount of statistics, it's possible to figure out what the +/- percentage is for a given (random) sample size. A self-selected sample (what we have now) has a +/- of 100% (might be completely wrong). If we want 80% approval, I think we could get within 2% of this by sampling something like 30 randomly selected users (I am not a statistician, so this number might be extremely inaccurate). If we allowed users to elect to be part of the population from which a random sample were selected, I think we avoid most of the infrequent participant problems. I'm not claiming this is necessary, but I think it's quite doable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)\

• The way I see it here's how a jury type system would ideally work:
  • A set group of trusted Wikipedians would be overseers or selectors if you will of the jury pool and are selected through some way that is acceptable.
  • Anyone with X edits or more may put their name on a page to be eligible for the jury pool
  • The overseers/selector group selects the jury group for each, to make sure the overseers don't rig it it would be simple to have multiple groups and even possibly have a 2nd group that decides which overseer or overseers choose the jury for which case to avoid jury rigging.
  • Once a jury is chosen there would be a period of time for comment and diff presentation from the public. Comments and diffs would have to be regarding the candidate's past behavior and any reasoning based on possible actions would have to be justified based on past actions (to avoid mudslinging).
  • Supporters could also present diffs and well based reasoning to why the person would be a good candidate for adminship
  • Responses to criticisms and supports alike would be allowed but not required of the candidate who would also be able to present diffs. Room could also potentially be given for outside supporters and opponents to counter given diffs.
  • Jury members could excuse themselves if they felt they could not make a fair decision and would not be allowed to comment or provide diffs on the nom either for or against unless they excuse themselves.
  • After a given amount of time (7 days or 14 days would probably be best) the chosen jury pool will discuss among themselves whether the person gets promoted, a consensus would be required to promote and jury votes would have to be reasoned in explanation.

• Please give your feedback on this idea, I'm more than willing and ready to write this into a proposal but would like some comments on it first lest I waste the effort to have it shot down immediately. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this concept of jury voting is one of the best suggested reforms of the RFA process that I have heard. It allows us to get away from voting and reach a consensus for every nomination. I would definitely volunteer to be on the jury. -- JamesTeterenko 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Volunteering for jury duty is one way we could do it, randomly selecting from registered users active within X days is another, picking edits off RC is still another; it's the concept that matters more than the implementation. However we do it, though, the jurors should not be selected by a human group, but rather at random, possibly with some kind of criterion for removing anyone who knows/has strong feelings toward/whatever the person. And jurors should most definitely be allowed to comment on the case, ask questions, and join the discussion; I know real jurors aren't allowed to, but AFAIK that's more of a relic than something with a real purpose. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This proposed jury system strikes me as taking a fairly simple and transparent process and making it pretty complicated. Do we want to risk breaking something that, by many accounts, isn't broken? Let's keep it simple. Sxeptomaniac 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New user vote (Archive 65)

Hi,

What's the policy regarding completely new user's voting? I.e. users that haven't contributed on any other Wikipedia page but except for a particular RFA? User:ManhattanNY has done so on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ambuj.Saxena. It seems a bit odd that an anonymous user cannot vote, but a brand new user account can (which essentially may be the same thing). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, they ain't votes. It's a consensus gathering excercise which means that Supports or Opposes from new or anon users are usually given much less weight by the 'crats during their decision making. Usually consensus is clear, but when it's tight, those new users who provide some explanation for their opinions will no doubt be considered. A big list of 'votes' should not make the decision, though, as WP is

WP:NOT a democracy. - CHAIRBOY (☎

) 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew this was coming when I used the term vote, but the section on "Voting and expressing opinions" specifically talks about voting ;) But, my point is, why is an anonymous user specifically bared from voting when a user who has made *zero* other contributions is allowed to vote simply because of the fact they're logged in? It makes no sense to me. Either allow anons to vote or allow neither. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A brand new, zero edit user who has registered has made a tiny but significant step towards establishing a reputation in the WP community. Their opinion may not carry the same weight with the 'crat as someone more established, but it deserves more consideration than one of the faceless hoardes of the anonymous community. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to instigate a major policy change, because, well, can't be arsed :) But, I think my point still stands. Especially when it's a case of such blatant "just signing up to vote". Although no doubt the user will now make a contribution to make my point moot! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another consideration is that it is possible to look at the contributions of a named account and guage something about them -- at the very least, you can tell whether it is a new account. With an anon, there is often no telling for sure whether the anon's previous edits were from the same person or whether the same person may be a frequent editor but from a rolling IP. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the specific RfA, it was not appropriate to strike the user's Oppose. A better course of action for the future in this situation would be to make a note below the vote making a note to the effect of "Above is user's first edit". This helps the 'crat when he/she is making the decision and closing the conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be your main priority. It wouldn't eliminate the vote but give it less credibility. Michael 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, it seems a bit fishy to me if a brand new user's first edit is to an RfA. How many new users actually know about them for them to be their first edit? Michael 07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd think hardly any. Personally I just started adding stuff to articles without knowing policy and didn't participate until about my 500th, even though I had already met some admins at maybe the 100 edit stage. Probably not regularly until even the 1500 edits, I didn't care about these things - why I started to, I don't know.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the same for me. As time passed, I suppose I became more involved not only in the editing of articles but in other things such as RfA, AfD, and vandal fighting. When I first started, though, I just edited articles with little knowledge of the rest of Wikipedia. Michael 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comment - limits for participation in RFA (Archive 72)

I've started a draft at User:Triona/Limit_participation_in_RFA. I think it has some potential to address social and political issues surrounding RFA, but I'd like a lot more input on it. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also requesting comment on an alternative to the above, User:Triona/Limit_participation_in_RFA_2 - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with these two are this: no one will ever get consus unless we get the community. Otherwise, we'll have people nominated and ACCEPTED because they waited until the people who don't like them to make comments elsewhere so they won't 'mess up' the RfA. In order to get a COMMUNITY CONSENSUS, we need to know what THE COMMUNITY wants. ~

DrillSergeant...§

19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While I see that being a partial problem with the first proposal, the second proposal doesn't stop you from participating, it just stops your from running for adminship for a while if you do. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are terrible ideas. --

Steel

20:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate, or offer other alternatives. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Idea 1:

• Turns RfA into a vote.
• "Participation in the "Comments" section, and the talkpage would not be restricted, but would not be binding ::::for determining consensus." - Comments sections are read and are taken into account, both by !voters and crats. Somewhat defeats the purpose of the proposal.
• Who is going to police and keep track of the hundreds of people who participate in RfA?
• People use up their !vote supporting an exceptional candidate, and nobody has any votes left to oppose WoW.

Idea 2:

• Mass shortage of admins.

I think the general message I'm trying to get across is that limiting the amount people can participate is very very bad for a wiki. --

Steel

20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict) Hmm... punishing people for participating in community process is not something I like. What if you could publish your opinion in one AFD per week? Or if you could not post a note in an AFD if you have had an article deleted in the last month?

The problem is that an "elite group" controls the process? Then open the process to more users. In example, every week choose 25 random users with knowledge about Wikipedia (that is, not recently created users), and post a note in their talk pages informing that Wikipedia is currently needing their opinions in the RFA, explaining the process and welcoming them to give a hand. After a couple of months, you have have enough people in RFAs to make that small elite group not being able to get consensus for "their" candidates. And in some more months, that group may not be able to prevent a good candidate from becoming an administrator. Make sure you don't nominate or get nominated, or give an opinion in RFAs so that people don't think you are harvesting votes for a particular candidate. In example, I only vote when I have had past experiences with the candidate. For giving an opinion, I prefer to write an editor review. My last participation was in Folajimi and HRE in July, plus some formatting, tallies and questions since then, so I guess I could do this without being seen as someone with an agenda.

I must say, though, that I have never liked The X-Files, so I don't buy into conspiration ideas. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, terrible ideas. I see no point in punishing people for participating in the community. I think more people should participate, not fewer. Also, I've seen a pattern of people participating in RfA and then submitting their own. This is beneficial in it helps potential noms self-evaluate and improve their skills based on an understanding of the community's consensus on RfA. I have learned a lot about policy just by reading and taking part in these discussions. I believe that a number of unsuccessful noms would not have happened if the users had taken part in RfA discussions and used the lessons learned before submitting their own. Finally, this is a Wiki. It runs on consensus. How can we reach consensus without thorough discussion without limit or reprisal? It would be un-wiki to do otherwise.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No no no! This completely goes against any community spirit Wikipedia has, and it will be incredibly difficult and unfair to carry out. I strongly oppose this. --Alex (Talk) 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not say it better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

These create too many loopholes that troublemakers might exploit. Wryspy 04:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The only serious problem I see either of these proposals creating is sockpuppetry, although, in this case, that's enough of a concern that it has to be looked at carefully. I do see a strong need to either broaden participation enough that a small group can't control the process, or narrow it, so that routine participation by any group is discouraged. Limiting the frequency of participation is one way, creating a "cost" for participation is another. I see doing something along these lines as giving the community as a whole more of a voice, because we'd have more diverse voices, and less people firmly entrenched in the process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One loophole is that someone can wait until people who don't like them have reached limits. Another problem would involve penalizing those who participate most. That would include the people who may be most competent, most active, and most knowledgeable about process and history. Wryspy 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to try to keep a list of all of these various RfA and admin related proposals, to make it easier to look them up in the future. I am bound to miss a few, so please feel free to update the Subpages about adminship list. Thanks, NoSeptember 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with people who are very familiar with RfA participating avidly? How would it be beneficial for those who lack experience to have a pre-eminent role? I, for one, have a better understanding of how to evaluate an admin candidate then when I first started. What's to stop all and sundry with an interest in !voting to take part in the discussion and !vote as they see fit? If there is an RfA cabal, its membership has changed over the last 6 months. That is to say, there are more names I don't recognize from when I started than there are those I do recognize. That there is turnover shows there is not an entrenched bureacracy lording their power over adminship. Despite the turnover, some people pass who I think should not and others fail who I should think should pass. Also, though there were some who felt the process needed reform then as now, the names of the advocates of reform have also changed. The process does not always work to my satisfaction, but it does work.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Everybody should have the right to vote in any RfA. It is rediculous to limit it. -  Mike | trick or treat  15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose the limitations in participation in any aspect of wikipedia. People who use the RfA often are more qualified not less. If the same people keep voting and they have an agenda then it will become evident over time. The system is not broken, it does not need to be fixed. HighInBC 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• The first proposal is simply not a good idea, as explained by others here. I can see the point of the second, but I don't think it is necessary to codify it. It may be desirable to (1) prevent present nominees from voting, to block them from gathering support by supporting other candidates; and to (2) limit the frequency of a failed candidate's renomination, since there have been some people renominating themselves every month or two. However, the first has not been demonstrated as problematic; the second tends to work out because participants will oppose a frequent re-nom. >Radiant< 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To much of

Ms. Daugherty's line of thought can also lead to a two-stage process, in which the RfA candidate is thoroughly "interviewed" for 3-4 days, after which begins the "comments" (a. k. a. "voting") phase. Since recently the Q&A sections were moved up to emphasize their importance, why can't we simply give a couple of days for people to just ask questions, study responses and go over the record. The participation of just 5-10 editors in the first stage can make it meaningful. Rama's arrow 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This will also give cause for most people to avoid giving reasons like "less than 4 months," or "under 400 projectspace edits," as there will be steady evidence exhibiting the nominee's understandings of the process. Rama's arrow 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I would like to see questions play a greater role in the RfA process, which definitely reduces the vote-politics element. Rama's arrow 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... much like the featured removal has two steps, a review and a votation, splitting the RFA in a review and votation? Hmm... it sounds good. However, I like the fact that at any time someone considering a candidate may come across a "new evidence", post it in the RFA, and see some editors that have previously stated an opinion change due new facts. However, that would just making an editor review obligatory before RFA, right? -- ReyBrujo 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A 3 day "no voting" buffer sounds like a great idea. Anything that gives a moment for the cantidate to respond to questions before being buried under "drive-by" voters, who may never return. I think 3 days is long enough. That makes the whole process 10 days (3+7), and of course the questioning/discussion can continue during the 7, of course. - jc37 07:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An editor wanting to go for an RfA can prepare in any number of ways on and off WP. Sure anybody can go for an ER, what's the harm? - even schools often have preliminaries. This proposal does avoid excessive policing measures and bureaucracy. I would say 3-4 days on questions, and 3 days on "voting" - no particular need to elongate the process (as bureaucrats already have powers to extend the process).

The best way to use this scheme is to ask a lot of questions - as long as you ask questions different from those in an ER, what's the problem? Also, more people participate in RfAs than ERs, but ERs aren't a negative aspect.

Now what do we do to attain consensus here and implement this idea? If it really is do-able, we shouldn't let it go by. Rama's arrow 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought

WP:DFA got rejected? --ais523 13:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC

)

Consensus can change. -- nae'blis 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Billions of blue blistering barnacles in 10,000 thundering typhoons! Talk about re-inventing the wheel! I was re-inventing the re-inventers! Rama's arrow 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I review the !votes after my own, consider comments and rationales, and will change my !vote if I see reason to do so. RfA is already a discussion/consensus building process. I see no need to overly complicate a process that meets the essentials to acheive its purpose.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that I was beating a dead horse, I'd only recommend that more questions be asked of the nominee, so that the emphasis shifts to actual understanding of policy rather than random limitations like 3 months, 2,000 edits, etc. This will also help shift the focus from simply tallying votes. Rama's arrow 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To add, I now don't think I was beating a dead horse. For one, no substantial debate has taken place over

WP:DFA. Perhaps its an idea that can be revived? Rama's arrow

14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• There was substantial debate about it. See Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship/Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_47#Suspension. --Durin 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that reviving

WP:GUS; publicise it, and let admin candidates decide which process to use. (The point is that DFA is always followed by a full RFA anyway, so that it wouldn't require changes to the existing process, which is the useful point here.) --ais523 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC

)

• You're suggesting a person do a process like WP:DFA and then also go through WP:RFA? Seems like a lot of hoops for a person to jump through. --Durin 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For a while, JoshuaZ was posting questions to get a better picture of admin candidates. I've been known to do so as well. Anyone can already ask "bonus" questions during the RfA process to this end. Other users have criticised this as making the process too grueling. Others may feel it violates

CREEP to add another layer to a process that is criticised by some as being harder than it needs to be.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim

15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dlohcierekim. As someone looking to request the extra buttons in a month or so, I can tell you that the process is very intimidating as is. Why add another step? People can (and should) ask lots of questions during the course of the RfA. That tends to break it up more for the candidate so they're not overwhelmed: I can just imagine someone thinking, Oh, jeez, I don't want to go through an Inquisition ^{(I'm not entirely serious in that reference!)} and then have my record examined in gross detail! Srose (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the concept behind WP:DFA come up several times since it was rejected (largely because it was shoved through prematurely, and didn't identify the problems it was supposed to fix). Another go at trying a more discussion-based, less !vote-based variation of the current RFA system seems to have some traction. Making it optional has the peril of turning out like

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination) though, wherein he tried to implement a "Commentary and evidence" section that was completely ignored by both supporters and opposers. I believe anything we do to encourage discussion (which is harder than a drive-by "vote") will have to be across the board to be effective. -- nae'blis

16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

However I do propose that we can at least make this an option for nominators/nominees. Its a choice, something both nominator and nominee should decide when a nomination is drafted. Rama's arrow 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On Srose's comment: I hardly think it is an inquisition. People want to know more about a nominee - how well do they understand policy? Have they actually gone through the reading list? An analogy I can give in response, is that the present system may often come across as an unfair trial - where the prosecutor says "not enough time", "not enough mainspace edits" and there is no smooth way for the nominee to discuss that feedback. Rama's arrow 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In most elections (yes, yes, RfA is hardly an election), there is always a slated time of campaigning and debates where the electorate learns of the choices they have. This proposal is not unlike the Senate confirmation hearings for SC and cabinet appointees. These are real-life, practical processes. Rama's arrow 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think explicitly comparing this to a Senate confirmation hearing is likely to improve the chances of this succeeding; Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy, and we try to keep the partisanship to a minimum. -- nae'blis 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The U.S. constitution written between 1787 and 1789 is a great example of how to create a government where branches balance each other. What's happening now is more due to political culture now than the design of the system, which is the relevant issue for us. Rama's arrow 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the present system, a nominee may spend a couple of months finetuning their contributions to meet the general criteria of most RfA regulars. In this system, at least you give both nominee and other editors equal time and opportunity to examine each other. And the questions one party asks the nominee can prove a useful guide for other editors who may choose to visit the RfA after the questioning phase. This is all an effort to provide more information, de-politicize and make it a process equal to both nominee and participating editors. Rama's arrow 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a fast reply! The Inquisition reference was something of a joke (and a means of studying, sort of... I'm trying to remember the differences between the Inquisitions). Anyway, if you ask me (and even if you don't, I'm forcing it on you :P), !voters will still say, "Not enough edits," because the most important thing is to see the candidate enforcing the policy in action. Anyone can come up with the right answer to a question, but it takes real knowledge of a policy to enact it in a real-time situation. Yanksox's questions (I forget which recent RfAs they were used on - he hasn't been around frequently, unfortunately) are the only questions I can see as proving that a candidate knows the policy because they imitate a real-time situation. Anyway, I'm digressing: the point I'm trying to make is that people will still oppose for too few edits for the aforementioned rationale and to make a candidate answer what could become dozens of questions is just adding on to the grueling part of the process. Srose (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I too was using inquisition as a metaphor. What a nominee does after getting the tools is beyond RFA - we can't fix that thru RFA. Questioning is the ideal way to determine the candidate's suitability - even if he/she takes time to prepare, to answer, there's nothing wrong in that. As an admin, he/she can crosscheck to be sure. In the example I gave about a Senate hearing, senators are always free and do vote on partisan lines, reducing the usefulness of the hearing. Nevertheless, it does a lot of good as there is more information for other editors to make a decision on, rather than just boarding the bandwagon on either side. I think the nominee will also gave a sense of responsibility - he/she will learn how to think as an admin and that there is a need to live up to the expectations of others. Rama's arrow 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In this context, the RfA process is going like this: the president names a court nominee or cabinet secretary, and the Senate automatically votes based on Republican or Democrat standards - which in this case, translate to occasions of incivility, block record, editcount, time, participation in AfDs, etc. There is no opportunity to convince senators to cross party lines, assess the nominee through a different lens, on basis of some more information. But its never like we can tell them how to vote. Rama's arrow 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems and solutions

IF we are going to move forward with something like this, then it is imperative that we answer the questions asked since before

1. RFA currently is susceptible to incorrect, inflammatory, or outright false claims which prejudice other participants' reactions. Even when the claim is retracted or refuted, many subsequent participants do not revisit their opinions given. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
2. RFA nominations and voting patterns are stereotypical - nominees often finetune their contributions to suit the general admin standards. And editors who comment/vote often respond with stereotypes based on edit counts, period of activity, etc. Rama's arrow 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   The result is that the nominee cannot discuss/respond an objection based on stereotype/generalities, and the voters cannot fully judge the knowledge and suitability of the nominee. Rama's arrow 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Many previous proposals speak of overhauling the entire process, creating new requirements/restrictions or bureaucracy. The problems are not serious enough to significantly alter a time-tested, working process. Rama's arrow 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Solutions to above problems, by number

1. A discussion period before polling started would allow clarification of controversial/confusing edits by the nominee. This could be structured similarly to the Questions currently posed by individuals, and it would not forbid additional diffs/complaints once polling had begun (especially when the action takes place during the span of the RFA). -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Allow "voters" to ask questions pertinent to adminship and adminship issues, in order to gauge how well is the nominee versed with the admin reading list, policies/guidelines and what principles will guide his/her actions in difficult situations. Rama's arrow 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
3. The RFA process is broken down into 2 stages, both completed within the present timeframe of 7 days. No further complications. The importance of voting/voting patterns is significantly reduced.

Rebuttals to supposed solutions or perceived problems

• It is likely that Bureaucrats already discount "votes" that are based on false/misleading information. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  If so, then I would like to strongly suggest that this is re-affirmed somewhere. (And to be clear, I support it.) - jc37 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  However this can probably only be done for those who explicitly state that their opinion was based on the bad information. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  My experience has been that they do not do this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:ER will become a dress-rehearsal for RfA. Rama's arrow
  18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Reply so what? People on RfAs can ask different, even tougher questions. More people take interest and participate in the on-goings on RfAs. And an ER beforehand will only make a better administrator. Why be hyper-sensitive about dishonesty, especially as we have no protection against it now. Rama's arrow 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  WP:ER is already used as a "dress reheasal". And when voting neutral or oppose, editors often suggest ER to the nomineee. So I don't think that this changes anything. - jc37

  19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  ER is only useful if there are many contributing. We are too few there for the editor to get a real insight of how people consider him. It happens in the article namespace as well: you send an article to a peer review, and get one suggestion. So, you send it as featured candidate, and get nine or ten oppose votes with information about how to fix that. It will happen with ER/RFA as well: you request an editor review, get one reply, and so try the RFA, where you get nine or ten telling you what to do before the nomination is speedy closed. -- ReyBrujo 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I so agree with that. That was part of why I suggested above that the

  WP:ER and RfA pages be merged. - jc37

  23:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Intensive questioning can become an "inquisition" of sorts, hurting the nominee's desire to do an admin's job. Rama's arrow 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• It's actually hard to tell which "solutions" are being proposed, But I Support a 3 day DfA (if that is the term we're now using for an admin version of
  NPA, among others). - jc37
  19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  My original idea was that Solution #2 would answer Problem #2, and so forth - however the Rebuttals section seems to be getting a little muddied. Feel free to refactor for readability here... -- nae'blis 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Shall we re-open
  WP:DFA for a fresh discussion and debate? Rama's arrow
  20:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that's the right direction to take. DFA is a solution that might be good or might not be. In short, it's a creation of a solution before the problem is determined. Analogy; it's like saying let's saying let's change all the tires on the car and then finding out that the real problem was loose lugnuts. There's effort above to determine the problems with RfA. That's a good direction to go, in my opinion. --Durin 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting. My solution was not taken into account. I guess it is because most here, after all, want to still have the power of deciding who is to become admin and who is not, and only want to remove candidates that are destined to fail. -- ReyBrujo 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Which suggestion? "every week choose 25 random users with knowledge about Wikipedia (that is, not recently created users), and post a note in their talk pages informing that Wikipedia is currently needing their opinions in the RFA, explaining the process and welcoming them to give a hand."? That's something that could be done without instructions/mandate, though it might be seen by some as disruptive. I don't think anyone here has said that they want to be gatekeepers, so please assume good faith in the motivations of others. -- nae'blis 22:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, I assume good faith, all right. I was just taking into account that the OP had proposed two solutions because she thinks the process is being managed by an elite. Considering that, the solutions of making applicants go into a "pre-process" or "review" in order to apply does not solve the OP problem. Somehow, the original complain was twisted from "hey, there are a few who design administrators, let's restrict them" to "hey, there are too many newbies trying to apply, let's force them to accept a review and trainment first." -- ReyBrujo 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I think we're viewing this page very differently. After the resounding rejection of SD/Triona's idea under "limits for participation", the section above this one started an entirely different tack. In the original poster's motivations, it followed somehow so that he made it a subsection, but I don't consider the two really closely related. Your idea of getting more "uninvolved" people here seems to be orthagonal to both suggestions... -- nae'blis 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• One problem with asking the candidates too many questions is that it assumes that all or most voters will read through all or most answers and take them into account. If that were false, many questions are pointless; if that were true, candidates would be encouraged to give "socially acceptable" answers. Asking a candidate's opinion on some controversial issue might draw in irrational supports and opposes regardless of the answers given. >Radiant< 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that is to ask questions solely on policy and procedure in duties. If we ask hypothetical questions, asking "what you'd do in a (particular scenario)?", that will make a nominee defensive (especially if the questioner has "other motives"). But his/her answer to the former question will either be strict interpretation or a slightly cautious, make-sure, double check approach - either of this is good for Wikipedia. Keep the questions technical, and not hypothetical or principle-based. The key element is also accountability - the community can exert moral pressure or hold the admin responsible for fulfilling his basic commitments, but this can't be done if the questions are such that the nominee gives no information or a defensive reply. No information and indefinite information are the enemies. Rama's arrow 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is foolish to think that we can control how anybody will vote. But that's not our purpose anyway - if we can provide sufficient information for those concerned about giving somebody janitorial tools, we should be satisfied. Rama's arrow 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1000 edits to vote in RfA? (Archive 73)

I missed this coming out, I think. Seems a bit stringent.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be no restrictions on who can and cannot vote in an RfA, nor should there be any restrictions on how often it can be done. I am actually for allowing anons to vote in RfAs as well. Just look at User talk:68.39.174.238 for an example of a comitted anon. And there are many others out there, they just don't have fixed IPs. - Mike | Talk 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no "opinion" floor on RfA; but as with IP editors, there is a simple solution--register. Then it matters not if the IP is fixed or dynamic. -- Avi 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a measure to prevent

Sorry, I can't see where this is? Where am I forgetting to look? -Splash - tk 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I've seen "1000 edits" cited in two RfAs now as if it is actual policy now ... Did that actually happen without discussion here? I didn't/don't think that can happen. Confused per Splash. Newyorkbrad 11:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought myself somehow to have missed the surrounding discussion, and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is perplexed; I rather assume that no such standard has been implemented. In any event, though, if RfA is not principally a vote, ought we really to be concerned about carpet bagging or sock puppeteering at RfA? Whilst a closing bureaucrat might find reviewing the edit count/history of every participant in a given RfA with whom he should be unfamiliar, there are surely many RfA participants who would serve (and already, where appropriate, do) identify those !votes about which uncertainty might exist (a less-than-substantive !vote is likely to be accorded little weight irrespective of the edit history of the !voter). I suppose we might suggest that, whilst anyone may partake of an RfA discussion (in, for example, the comments section), only those editors with at least xx edits may edit any of the support, oppose, or neutral sections, but such a suggestion seems unnecessarily complex. Joe 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1,000? Shouldn't it be 100 at most, like in the deletion processes? Not that you can't vote in an AfD with under 100 edits, but if you have that many we assume you aren't a sock/SPA. --

Somebody, at least, thinks there is/was a new rule [6]. See partic. the edit summary. I was just wondering where the editor had seen that. Someone else (maybe the same editor) also used it in another debate that is no longer on the project page. There are no rules like this that I'm aware of. -Splash - tk 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean can !vote? Anyway, I only had 330 edits or so when I first participated in RfA. This is foolish.

masterka

21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean "Not that you can't !vote". An individual with under 100 edits can vote in AfD, they just run a higher risk of being SPA flagged or otherwise discounted. See

tjstrf Now on editor review!

22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed the "not that you" part. I'm aware of sockpuppet policy, thanks.

masterka

22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

L.O.L. I saw a comment about how a candidate lacked sufficient edits to vote, let alone run. I thought I'd missed something! I'm pleased to know this is not an official policy. It sounds like just too much to me!Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim

I think Esperanza membership regulations are good: 2 weeks of being a Wikipedian, and 150 edits. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit low maybe double? 300 edits, 4 weeks experience?

†he Bread 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A question (Archive 76)

Can anybody vote for or against the future administrators? What is the rules, is there a minimum of edits for a user to be able to vote? Thanks. Ajor 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no minimum, except having an account. However, things like the first edit being a vote on a RfA will probably cause the closing bureaucrat to ignore them, so it's not entirely unrestricted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah if you have about 100 or even less you should be fine, but if your edits are only in relation with the user and the particular RFA assume that your vote won't count. —

Seadog_MS

06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Ajor 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't it say all this at the top of the page? >Radiant< 10:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It does, but it doesn't hurt for someone to ask if they are unsure. Essjay (Talk) 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nom !voting in RfA (Archive 77)

I've just made my first nomination on RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller). I was unclear from the instructions whether I can support the nomination myself and fear of "malforming" the RfA stopped me. Perhaps this could be clarified in the instructions, or (better) could the automation make the nominator the first support !vote? --Dweller 09:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you support you nominee in his/her RFA. Isn't it a bit obvious. :P I don't think we can make the nominator being the first support vote, since the user may decline the RFA. Terence Ong 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the "support" is support of the nomination or support of the nominee. Grammatically/logically, it makes more sense for it to be the former, which makes it a nonsense for the nominator to support himself. Yeah, I'm a pedant. I think it probably makes me a useful editor... if a bit of a pain from time to time. --Dweller 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The nominator is allowed to, and should, post a support !vote for the nominee. (Unless, of course, it's a self-nom.) Newyorkbrad 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for pedants! (or is that huzzah?) Anyway, if you can think of a better way to word that, I'd be in favor, because this isn't the first time I've seen that question... and the fact that it's different for self-noms and nominated RfAs doesn't help (logically, the initial nomination should count as your support !vote, but that screws up the ordered list count). -- nae'blis 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice (Archive 77)

In response to a request for advice on an application as an RFA, I suggested that being nominated by someone with less than 150 edits may create a "red flag" where the voters would most likely give the nomination additional scrutiny because the person nominating and vouching for the trustworthiness of the candidate, although assumed to be a good editor, is not yet what i called a trusted member of the community. The nominator wanted an example where someone didn't pass because the nominator was so new. Because I thought it useless to point out nominations that are quickly removed because of such defects (since the nominee usually also has very few edits - and in this case the nominee had over 4000), I pointed out my experience is that the nominators are usually trusted members, and that of the current RFA's no nominator has less than 4500 edits. This did not satisfy him/her. Therefore I am asking - do you think I am out of bounds suggesting that a nominee consider finding a different person to nominate them, or is my prediction that to go forward might subject the nomination to additional scrutiny (which is not necessarily a bad thing) completely unjustified. --Trödel 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean gorter interesting. If the nomination is worded well enough (and perhaps the nominator mentions they are quite new in the nomination) there may not be a problem. Emphasis on the "may". I can't take responsibility if there is a problem. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I had remembered that happening a couple times. I agree there may be no problem especially if the nominee is excellent - but it seems like you shouldn't introduce a possible objection in the nomination language. --Trödel 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good example. There is a big difference between being nominated by a fairly new user and being nominated by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. I would suggest the candidate in question just makes a self-nom, going around trying to get someone to nominate you seems to be gaming the system to me. --Tango 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the point of someone else nominating you is that they think really well of you and want you to be an admin. Going around and actively seeking out someone to nominate you defeats the point, and gives a slight implication that you're too lazy to write a nomination statement yourself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thx all --Trödel 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)