Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Consensus seems clear that any bureaucrat who stops by would be justified in delisting this RfA; it's a self-nomination for a user who apparently has 87 edits and hasn't answered any of the mandatory questions. —

I'm closing it myself; there's no need for 'crat-specific intervention on something this painfully obvious. I've left my standard notice on the user's talk page, as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You can understand, though, that as neither a sysop nor a 'crat, I didn't feel any action on my part would be appreciated.  :)

Cheers! —

talk – desk

) 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What, the prospect of being yelled at for jumping the gun doesn't sound like fun? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory? Strange, it clearly reads in the form: You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants.

ee

20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While true, they aren't actually mandatory,

the RfA instructions do specifically state to answer the questions before transcluding the page. Maybe we should call them "!optional" questions... EVula // talk // ☯

// 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some of the 'crats have noticed this already, but his contributions show, as far as I can tell, an unvarying pattern of supporting every single RFA with nonsensical/catch phrases. -- nae'blis 06:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

see his userpage for explanation. Viridae^Talk 06:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have been transcluded (and is destined to fail anyway) opinions? Viridae^Talk 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed it as a failed RfA; no way in hell someone who registered today could pass RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please may I respectfully request that upon closing, the bureaucrats enter into a

I think Ryan has a very good idea. Regardless of whether the chat ends in promotion or non-promotion, it would go a long way towards preventing more arguments on

these lines. Picaroon (Talk)

18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was coming here to request the very same thing! I still believe that this chat à la Danny's RfA would be a good idea for any RfA which is not clear cut. Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pascal, you're 100% right. Any RFA which has less than 80%, but it isn't clear or not (ie. 71%) should have a discussion. Not just Danny. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that needs to happen for all request for adminships in the so-called "discretion zone," Gracenotes' request for adminship in particular is a good candidate (no pun intended) for a bureaucrat chat. This is due to the large amounts of turnout (over 200 total, and not done yet), the fall from high percentages of support to what is considered "borderline," and the fact that many supporters and opposers might change their rationales if they saw the newer comments, but have not seen them (or are wilfully ignoring them.) All that suggests determining consensus will be murky, so a bureaucrat chat would really be quite helpful. Picaroon (Talk) 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with User:R about mandating it for EVERY one w/in certain percentages - I think that's sort of process beaurocracy, but I too would be in favor of it in this particular case. In most cases, I'm quite content with leaving that to b'crat discretion. This one's a bit different because of the high number of !votes involved, and the quite high passions around it, as Picaroon pointed out well. Philippe 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan and Pascal; whatever the outcome, things will be much clearer if a couple/three 'crats can discuss this case and examine the issues involved. There's been a lot of emotion, 'swinginess' (percentage fluctuated down, and now up based on the Will Beback incident possibly), and the number of supporters/opposers makes a strict numerical tally perilous. -- nae'blis 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One Bureaucrat's Impression

While I understand the desire to have the bureaucrats thrash this out among themselves which, on the face of it, is not an inappropriate solution, I don't believe that it is an appropriate solution in this case. Going by the principle that consensus decides a nomination and that bureaucrats are charged only with determining whether consensus has been reached, having a "'crat chat" (something I discourage for reasons, inter alia, presented in my recent bureaucrat reaffirmation) this case would tend to put the bureaucrats in the middle of a highly emotional issue and put them in the position of binding arbitrators. This is not desirable if there is any chance of the community itself coming to consensus.

The "voting/consensus discussion" is currently in the area where, without intervention or deep analysis, consensus has not been reached. I think it is demonstrable that the opposers have deep and legitimate concerns. I also believe that the candidate has tried very hard to engage the oppositions concerns in a reasonable and civil manner. A problem is that the arguments have perhaps unavoidably taken on a life of their own separate from the central issue of the candidate's fitness to execute the responsibilities of an admin.

It is a disadvantage of the process in a case like this that argumentation and expressions of opinion (and "votes," if you will) are occurring concurrently. In virtually any other situation (an election, a legislative act, a referendum) the issues are argued first, and then the sentiment is polled.

Therefore, I propose the following subject, of course, to the candidate's willingness to follow this course and a consensus to approach the issue this way, rather than move the argument to the 'crats "arena":

1. Cancel and archive the current discussion without prejudice;
2. Reopen the nomination at (0/0/0) as soon as the candidate is ready to present his nomination and views again;
3. Since the lack of consensus hinges primarily on a single, important, and emotional issue, have the candidate explain, as fully as he wishes to, his developed stand on the issue;
4. Allow the community to question the candidate back and forth on the issue, and have all of the discussion under the same heading. The reason for this is to prevent the piecemeal argumentation in many places that makes it difficult to understand the whole of the candidate's position;
5. Again allow the entire community to express their support or opposition as in a regular RfA with a new 7-day period. As with any RfA the community can express its opinions for or against or comment for any reason, not just the links issue, but I would ask that the arguments about linking to problem sites but kept in one place so that none of us are arguing past each other.
6. At the end of the 7-day period with all the issues on the table, and everyone being able to express a "fresh" opinion, any bureaucrat hopefully will be able to determine the consensus of the community. -- Cecropia 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And have it go just as badly, if not worse because some people who supported before it got so "controversial" might change their mind? I don't see why Gracenotes would want to extend 7 days of agony to 14 – Gurch 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that would be Gracenotes decision. -- Cecropia 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular RfA is one for which the current RfA process isn't really working all that well (Cecropia's solution to reboot it seems sensible in this particular case, but probably wouldn't be overall in most cases). I'm worried that if there is a community consensus either way, the current RfA won't reveal it. --ais523 16:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the analysis that consensus has necessarily not been reached. At present 73% of those who have expressed an opinion have supported him. Candidates in the past have been promoted with lower numerical support levels. Taking an non-numerical approach - the opposes are almost based on a single issue. One that Nichalp felt was insufficient to prevent promotion in his analysis of a recent RfA. This falls well within the ambit of bureaucratic discretion and I hope Cecropia will consider that Community consensus is much more in favour of that being exercised (and not just in "special cases" like Danny or Carnildo) with open discussion between the crats than was the case last year. WjBscribe 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are revealing the problem I have identified numerous times in the course of my 'cratship. When 'crats are not on the same page in the parameters of RfA, the rest of the community looks for "precedents" to play one 'crat and against the other. In the case of Danny, at the least, the process failed, IMO. -- Cecropia 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should you need to be all on the same page? There's no harm in admitting that you as a group have differing ideas. That way on controversial RfAs the candidate doesn't have to face the lottery of "which crat gets there first". Instead if you combine as a collegiate entity, that should dilute the problem and provide a more consistent result. WjBscribe 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

By "on the same page" I mean in understanding how consensus is to be determined, rather than in the view of specific issues. -- Cecropia 17:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But that is also a specific issue. I don't think you can separate it from the others. There is no one view that I can see of how consensus is to be determined, either among the community or among the bureaucrats. WjBscribe 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder how much would really change in the second round. The single-issue !voters are likely to remain that way; only a handful of supporters at the most would go the other way, and vice-versa. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd rather find out then have the 'crats just pick up the community's responsibility in the form of an appeals court. -- Cecropia 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really believe that there is a consensus to be had in this RfA, as WJB stated, there have been candidates promoted with much less support (speaking in percentage terms), the only thing that is needed here is for the 'crats to remove the fire from this and discuss it amongst themselves in an open environment for us all to see to work out the result, I disagree that we need to restart it. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but what I am trying to avoid is having the 'crats (cool heads though you think we are :)) hash out the exact same issues among 3 or 4 or 5 us that 200 Wikipedians are trying to determine in a more appropriate forum. -- Cecropia 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But we're here to give our opinion, not determine the outcome, your here to decifer that opinion and come to a conclusion as to what the consensus states - quite simply in this case - is the argument strong enough reason from the opposes that would suggest Gracenotes will make a poor admin? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ryan, but I believe in this case that the way the argumentation has gone has muddied the sentiment of the community, because the arguments and cross-arguments are emotional and fragmented. I would like the community to have another shot at trying to demonstrate its own consensus with the issues laid before it in a coherent fashion. -- Cecropia 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not trying to determine it in a more appropriate forum, they're trying to determine it on Gracenotes' RfA. It would be nice if the bureaucrats could determine whether the primary reason for opposition is even true (I don't think it is) – Gurch 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. If "the primary reason for opposition [may not even be] true, a calmer restart and a clear laying out of the issues may produce a clearest result from the community; and, if it does eventually go to a Bureaucrat Discussion, the 'crats would likely have a firmer baser to finally decide. I'd like that. The current RfA has too many fragments and cross-arguments for clarity. -- Cecropia 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a comprehensive course of action, and I am not sure what to make of it. I appreciate your acuteness in the matter, Cecropia. One issue with it, however, is that the proposed forum for discussion would cast more of a single-issued cloud over my RFA that still has little to do with what I plan on using the mop and bucket for. On the other hand, it may enable me to more effectively answer some of the concerns of those who may feel that they cannot trust me, but I doubt this. I would appreciate an opinion on the matter from someone who has opposed me.

Good thought. I will post a note on SlimVirgin's talk. I know and respect her and I believe she asked the question that started this thread of discussion. I would also comment that in a reboot you could again bring up all the other reasons you should have the mop and bucket. But the link issue is like the cat out of the bag, I imagine. -- Cecropia 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. One thing I want to stress is that the decision is up to the bureaucrats, and even if we disagree with them, we should respect their decisions and move on without a fuss. So however Cecropia and the others choose to handle this will be fine with me.

Second point: Gracenotes, what you intend to use adminship for has no bearing on the issue, because there's no such thing as adminship that can only be used to help with templates. People are genuinely concerned about promoting someone who has posted sympathetically to Wikipedia Review, and some of your replies have seemed evasive (on bot approval, on the links issue, on the inflated edit count issue). I'm not trying to rehash things here, but simply pointing out that it's wrong to dismiss this as single-issue opposition.

If it were up to me alone to decide how to proceed, I'd ask the key commentators on both sides to stop posting their opinions, which are now entirely repetitive, and allow new people to vote and comment without further interference. I'd wait until the closing date and I would base my decision entirely on the percentage, after checking for any obvious sockpuppetry. If it's still in the yellow zone at that time, I'd support Cecropia's proposal, assuming Gracenotes could bear to go through this again. As for the prior discussion, I think I would ask anyone who wants to comment, including Gracenotes, to make one succinct statement on the talk page outlining their position, and then not comment any further, with no threaded discussion, and no comments on the voting page; otherwise, the current emotionality and fragmentation Cecropia identifies may be repeated.

But this is just my opinion. I'll support the outcome of the RfA whatever it is, and I'll support Gracenotes as an admin if he's promoted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems rational to me. I am also willing to support the outcome of the RfA.

Gracenotes^T

§ 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If it fails and Gracenotes decides to go through this again, I will begin to think that he may be a masochist. :-) Slim makes a point that the discussion has gotten repetitive in places, and I am not entirely sure if it isn't necessary or it may be proof that the current RfA format is not designed to accommodate "controversial" nominations. That said, I know more about this candidate than I have any other RfA candidate I've seen in my short time here. Asking or suggesting that this candidate go through this again, especially in a short amount of time, seems unfair to me. If a bureaucrat is determined to close this on pure numbers, then so be it, but I'm not sure what it will achieve to start anew and see if others have changed their mind over a very divisive and emotional issue. This is especially true if the new RfA is just to be closed on pure numbers. daveh4h 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that people are using the RfA as a bandwagon to settle personal scores. I know of several voters who only turned up because a particular person they oppose voted a certain way. I know of other votes that I'm fairly certain are sockpuppets, also there only because they want to oppose certain others. Any repeated vote is likely to see the bad-faith or sockpuppet accounts turn up more readily than the genuine ones, because the genuine ones make their point and then stop (and at some point get fed up), but the bad-faith ones are there for the conflict, and so are highly motivated to reappear. There's nothing we can realistically do about this; we can only hope that people vote and comment in good faith and if they don't, we're stymied. My only point is that the bureaucrats have a very difficult decision to make in such cases, which is why I feel we should support them no matter which way they swing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sympathetically"? Can you please reconsider that comment, as it appears to be nothing more than a personal attack? I have reviewed Gracenotes' posts to Wikipedia Review – all five of them – and I see nothing, whatsoever, that could possibly considered "sympathetic" to someone who intends to make personal attacks – Gurch 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, people have to be allowed to form opinions without other people turning up to say they're wrong. These are not factual issues. They are judgment calls. We can agree to disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. At the very least, then, can you identify which of Gracenotes' comments caused you to form that opinion? I can't believe that the purely factual one about oversight did, or the mildly humorous one about disambiguation, so... which? – Gurch 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, I don't exactly agree with SlimVirgin's analysis, but it's important that people can feel free to express their opinion on an issue, knowing that those reading it will assume good faith. I ask for the same thing, and there's no reason why SlimVirgin shouldn't.

Gracenotes^T

§ 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Gurch, there are other users participating in the RfA who have posted to WR (not me). Even though I speak on behalf of the bad-faithed sockpuppet faction, in my opinion, the qualifier sympathetically just makes a careful and necessary distinction between them and Gracenotes. —AldeBaer 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Like me, but what has that got to do with this,

SqueakBox

20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument there. You're saying that because Gracenotes has posted to Wikipedia Review he is automatically "sympathetic" to their cause, while nobody else commenting on the RfA is? – Gurch 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And if it looks like I'm picking at words, I am. Gracenotes has first been labelled as "supports attack sites", then as "opposes the attack sites policy" and now "sympathetic to Wikipedia Review". Enough; I will not let these blatantly false comments go unquestioned – Gurch 20:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If this fails after Danny's succeeded it would leave the impression that rfa is not worth anything neither are the views of teh community, but that we are a hierarchical community giving all power to the crats. I trust this scenario will not unfold,

SqueakBox

19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if you believe that raw percentage is the only way to gauge consensus. Two people in favour and one against is not the same as two hundred in favour and one hundred against. One hundred people all arguing the same point is not the same as one hundred people each arguing a different point. Arguments vary in strength, coherence, significance and sometimes truth – Gurch 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I wasnt just making my call based on raw percentages,

SqueakBox

20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also consider, SqueakBox that, in hindsight, it might have been better if Danny's rather unique case had been decided differently; take that further to the concept that an error or a misjudgment does not require that cases deemed similar by some take the first case as settled precedent to compound the mistake in the future. As to your leap of rhetoric that the "wrong" decision (in your view) would make the rfa and the community "not worth anything," I would say that the bureaucrat system was started specifically to make decisions on which there may be passionate disagreement. -- Cecropia 20:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I voted against Danny but accepted that decision, and based on what I see they should say yes to Grace too and hope they will,

SqueakBox

20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This has generated a lot of discussion, but if discussion is to continue, it should do so on the RFA talk page. This conversation is heading towards arguments not strictly interesting to bureaucrats.

I agree. This is on the question of how to proceed on the nomination, not the on the issues. Thank you all for your perspectives. -- Cecropia 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed steps, but I see well SlimVirgin's concerns about it regarding people willing to show up for the conflict. I also think a bcrat only discussion is a decent way to go as I don't share your objections to it. We would get a decision that way in a shorter time period, but that's fine, the above outlined method will get a result too. I chose not to close this myself as I'm rather biased on the issue and I think it would be better if I abstained without impressing my bias on the current discussion. - Taxman ^Talk 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object strongly to a re-run, but reconsidering the strain this RFA has brought upon my wiki activities and in real life, I'm not sure if I'd personally be so fond of it (esp. doing it so soon after the first one). If it's the only way to determine consensus, though, it should be fine.

It;s not the only way to resolve the nomination, but it could give us a firmer grasp on whether community consensus, rather than bureaucrat consensus, can be reached. If this worked well it would be a good precedent for the community to resolve it itself, IMO. Two 'crats other than me are willing to try this, but see if you really feel up to it just now. -- Cecropia 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see at

WT:RFA#Gracenotes that there is the beginning of some sentiment against a re-run. Let's see if community sentiment really wants to throw this into the 'crats lap in a 'crats chat. So let's relax until the sentiment is clearer. -- Cecropia

01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to be impatient about it; the situation is tense enough. 'Crat chat might set up a less-than-helpful precedent, but the way that this RFA has worked out has yet challenged my expectations. (I hope that, as the candidate, my comments are not unwarranted.)

Gracenotes^T

§ 02:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got back from the beach from several days with no internet access, so I came to this as a blank slate. Frankly, it's a mess. I agree with the arguments against re-running the RFA. I think we, the bureaucrats, have to decide one way or the other on this issue. I know Cecropia doesn't like it, but I think a bureaucrat chat is in order, unless someone else has a better way of deciding it in mind. Raul654 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Coin toss? --MichaelLinnear 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul, two reasons strike that a bureaucrat chat is not the best solution: (1) is my feeling that this RfA focussed on the wrongful suffering that some Wikipedians have encountered because of stalkers and harassers, rather than on the Candidate's actual stand on the issues. I would hope that a sensible re-examination would give everyone a chance to reassess the nomination; (2) there is some sentiment that every RfA that isn't crystal-clear be the subject of a 'crat chat. I'm not sure that would be helpful. However, if the community is satisfied that the results of a chat will result in an unimpeachable decision, I'm not averse to go that route; albeit some number of RfA participants seem to remain less than thrilled with the outcome of the Danny chat. -- Cecropia 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, you were (re)elected to be a b'crat because the community trusts you to make your best judgment with the available information under circumstances like this. The community has spoken once more, and hopefully for the final time, against a re-run. Whether your decision will be vilified by the few vocal editors or not, you have been selected to disregard popular opinion for the best interests of the Wikipedia community and the encyclopedia. —Kurykh 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll second Kurykh's comment above. Whether you decide to promote or not, this is squarely in judgment-land. On your bicycle, spaceman! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people will always be less than thrilled with any decision. That's not a criteria to decide the best course of action. The sentiment is clearly against re-running, basically for making a decision, with much of the expressed opinion asking for bcrat discussion to come to that decision. My thoughts would be you should either make the call yourself if you're prepared or better would be to set up bcrat discussion. - Taxman ^Talk 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My assessment is generally that Rfa is broken, and this is just another example. We are now too big for people to know they candidate they are voting for so people vote on party or tribal grounds. I think candidates should be judged on temprement and not whether they have a connection to the hated Wikipedia Review or whatever. However as a Bureaucrat my job is most defintely NOT to evaulate whether the opposition's arguments stand up. I presume the electorate (using the duck test) are sane and of sound mind. I am much more of a returning officer and a teller.

There are two ways of doing this - one is to evaulate the arguments and have what could amount to a casting vote. The other is to say that the community have spoken - but it's kind of mumbled and incoherent. I think this is 'no consensus', not to be confused with failed - although the results have tended to be the same.

I think a re-vote, with a cooling off period, may be the way forward. People should keep outside politics to a minimum and things should be referenced. If someone has posted to wikipedia review - link to the posting. If someone has inflated their edit count via a bot then give the edit count before and afterwards. If someone says they will be an admin on X state (for those who may not know) that there is no such thing as an admin just doing X.

It could be taken that we are nannying you - not trusting you to make your own minds up. Do you need that amount of bureaucrat intervention? Do you want us to be in charge and decide for you? Secretlondon 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Protect/Unprotect

I thought I was protecting the page, but the edit history seems to indicate I have now unprotected it twice... er, can someone sort out whatever it is this newbie admin has (or has not) done? Sorry. LessHeard vanU 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is protection needed? Discussion on the talkpage usually is allowed to continue after RfAs are closed... A crat can always protect it if they think its a problem... WjBscribe 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he was wanting to protect the main page, but I don't see it as nescesary given that it has archived templates round it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone adds anything to the main page at this point, it will have to be reverted. If it becomes necessary to protect it, that can always be done. Point is the content shouldn't change from closing time. -- 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the talkpage I was hoping to "preserve". I don't know what Bureaucrat action is, but I thought it might entail sifting through both pages and that by continued adding to the discussion matter may be further confused. Since I don't seem to have actually done anything like I intended I suppose this is all moot. LessHeard vanU 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As per

Done. Raul654 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! time to go delete the main page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alvin!!! -- nae'blis 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Yonidebest has indicated that he/she is withdrawing their RfA nomination here and here. Could someone please close the RfA? Thanks. - TwoOars 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA closed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on this, as it essentially means more work. :)

Not really for Bureaucrats though. Probably better to bring this up on the admin's noticeboard. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit for 'crats at the bottom. Secretlondon 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this likely to come on en:, and if so do we know when? Secretlondon 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the reviewer status would only be given to a few people (staff?) to pseudo-protect a page, while editing still goes on in the background. So really it would be a one time thing, if that is how it would be used. Prodego ^talk 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Likely to come up in en:" - that's pretty much certain. As for when, expect it to come soon-ish, as the extension is complete now, and just waiting there to be turned on.

cool stuff

) 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well brion/tim need to review it first.

Voice-of-All

04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's recently been found out that Runcorn was using several sockpuppet accounts (AN thread) to votestack, including votestacking on several RfAs. In at least one of those I've found so far, Jreferee's recent RfA, discounting the sockpuppet votes (six socks voted oppose in the RfA) would bring the total into discretionary range, and the outcome may have been different if not for the socks. What would be the best way to handle this situation? Reevaluate the previous RfA, run it again, nothing at all? Has a case like that ever come up before? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would probably best to let things go. It was a while back, and consensus can change. It's just sad it wasn't noticed at the time. I'd advise Jreferee to run again though. Majorly (talk | meet) 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that it was noticed at the time. There was a user who tried to warn several people but no one would follow through for various reasons, and I believe Runcorn then indefblocked his account(s). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Majorly above. Reassessing these RfAs will only cause unnecessary drama. And it's not like those admins are abusing their tools and their cabal membership (crap, a paradox. oh well). —Kurykh 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"And it's not like those admins are abusing their tools." I don't know anything about this case, or even if I would want the unsuccessful candidates to be admins, but I imagine the suggestion was not to desysop people who have been admins for a few months, but to consider sysoping those who were unsuccessful because six sockpuppets voted to oppose. ElinorD (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That was indeed what I intended. If someone passed due to someone else's sockpuppetry, that's obviously not their fault, and it would be entirely unfair to desysop them later just because the RfA might've failed with sock supports discounted. But it sure seems a little unfair that at least one RfA may have failed due to sockpuppet opposes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Majorly's got it right. Stare decisis, etc. — Dan | talk 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Third party comment: I didn't participate in the RfA, nor am I a sysop, 'crat, or the like. I'm a normal user. Searphimblade has a very good point, it doesn't seem fair that he failed the RfA because of socks. But Majorly does as well, and there's something else I noticed something on RfA main page: "Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support." To me, I think it boils down to this: regardless of sockpuppet votes or an RfA, does Jreferee have the qualities to be an admin?

itchy

23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want to see a reassessment, but I am indeed a little frustrated with this whole situation. As Jreferee's nominator, I was surprised to see his RfA had failed. He is a great editor, and I felt he was a great candidate for adminship. If all six of the Runcorn's socks votes were discounted, that would put the RfA at exactly 75% support, which would leave the decision up to the bureaucrats. Hopefully, this can be noted in his next RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep definitely. Especially considering Runcorn's comments weren't exactly adding to the discussion. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question/request: why don't the 'crats start a dicussion similar to the one for Gracenote's RfA.

I've put up a proposed addition to the checkuser policy on meta that RfA nominees may be checkusered at random during the nomination process. I'm suggesting this in response to Henrygb, Runcorn, and some other alleged cases of Trojan or sockpuppet admin accounts. Input from bureaucrats would be welcome. The issue is discussed on Talk:RfA too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Great. Just great. Bad idea. Checkuser is insufficient to this task. --Durin 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose this as well. It would be easy to get around a check, would require a policy change, and is a waste of checkuser time. Prodego ^talk 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Even if others do not agree with having pro-active RfA checks, I would like to note that this is good reason for candidates to only be those who have edited for a longer period of time, so that there is a higher likelihood that a vandal, sockpuppeteer, etc. who requests RfA will have in that time been incidentally discovered during other checks. —Centrx→talk • 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a suggestion for what "a longer period of time" should be, in your estimation? I'm not being at all hostile, just looking for definition. Thanks! Philippe 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of being caught in check user, the longer the better, but of course there may be diminishing returns after a certain period of time and it becomes less feasible. This is similarly the case if people are looking for "experience", or waiting until a user flips out or shows his true colors. Three years on Wikipedia may serve the checkuser and the experience purposes well, but only marginally so and would be rather infeasible. Personally, I think admin candidates should have been active for at least six months. It might be difficult to get statistics on the average duration of an undetected sockpuppet. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Might" be difficult? In the same way that "might" be an understatement? /me grins. I would tend to agree with a general "six months" suggestion, but the second I do, someone's gonna come along and say "ZOMG! Then ADMINXYZ wouldn't be an admin!" and, invariably, it'll be one of my favorite admins and I'll owe someone dinner and cocktails. I think 3 years might be pushing it a touch, as you suggest... I'm not totally opposed to the suggestion, and in fact, the mere suggestion alone might carry weight (doesn't mean we'd have to actually do it, but just the occasional random application might be enough to scare Willy-junior off; of course, it would only work if you actually caught someone and made it public, so there might be not a great deal of point). Philippe 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

At least ten years experience would be best. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I really oppose the 10 year idea, seeing how Jimbo wouldn't qualify. :). Wikipedia has only been around for six years, which means if all admins had to wait 3 years, we would only have about 200 admins. I think mandating a certain period of activity is not very productive, the RfA community can (and does) apply it's own 'soft' deadline, which can handle the exceptional users. Prodego ^talk 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about we mandate 3 years and allow voters, if they so choose, to oppose if the candidate does not have 10 years? I think that is a good compromise. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly is that relevant? Perhaps we should "

WP:AGF" and just let every user who registers have admin tools? or steward for that matter? —Centrx→talk

 • 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How? Because the 3 years figure is exorbitant. Most of our admins don't have 3 years in the project (heck, I don't), and how many complaints about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/whatever do you see? Trying to modify a system in response to one incident that has no indications of repeating itself is what engineers call a Bad Idea.

cool stuff

) 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd said exactly what I meant by that. When a user applies for adminship, assume they're doing it for good reason. If they go bad, then deal with it at that point. Every admin action is reversible. ^

[omg plz]

 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Every admin action is reversible", well most anyway. 3 years is way too long; 10 is... Prodego ^talk 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Arbitrary time limits that people have to wait to apply for adminship are pretty much... stupid, to a point. I mean, there's an RfA going right now for a user who has been here for less than 3 months, and it's hovering around 70-75% right now. But I see where people are coming from, so people will have experience in editing here. Personally, I'd say 1-2 months could work (definitely none under a month), and 6 months tops. As for the checkuser? Personally, I think it can be done like "random drug tests", to make an analogy. I mean, don't do it for every RfA, but for people who have had "problems" in the past, a checkuser couldn't hurt that much. Just do it on a random admin, and if something comes back, contact him or her via email, asking for explanation. Of course, if the other accounts haven't made edits in months, I wouldn't worry. But that's just me.

The CheckUser wouldn't return any meaningful results for old accounts. It's not just the correctness of this idea that is disputed; it is also of doubtful usefulness.

cool stuff

) 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but I'm just saying do the random check after what happened with runcorn.

itchy

16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested desysopping in April (meta link) to study for exams. They're thankfully over now, and I would like to request resysopping so I can get stuck into abusive blocking clearing some backlogs. the wub "?!" 09:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial, so I've now resysopped you. Warofdreams talk 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. the wub "?!" 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See this ANI discussion about suspicion of sock use in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pax:Vobiscum. Funpika 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there are 6 bots at

Actually 5 bots - AMbot was listed twice. As for our name, just be grateful we don't make you write it in triplicate. We are bureaucrats you know. -- Done. -- Cecropia 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kmweber, with a signature of "Kurt Weber", is starting to get to a lot of people with his "opposes" on RfAs. I'm neutral, but Kurt is opposing with reasons along the lines of "The request is a self-nom, so they must be power hungry". Some examples include here and here. There are more, but I just found these pretty quick. I know that users are entitled to their own opinions, but how do bureaucrats treat these kind of votes? What action should be taken, if any? Weber's votes don't usually alter the chances of passing/failing an RfA, but a lot of users are getting really annoyed and angry with this. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So wouldn't accepting a nomination be power-hunger? :) Evilclown93_(talk) 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bcrats take this kind of "vote" FWIW. But before wondering how 'crats would view it, how do the other participants view it? If there is some compelling argument underlying this opinion, it might persuade others to express similar opinions. In that case, there might be something to it. OTOH, if the opinion stands alone (or nearly so) it won't have much impact, will it? The community has a full week to bat these things back and forth, so they should really say whether Kurt Weber will be taken seriously or not. If what you're looking for is a reason to remove the opinion, I will introduce what I think is (but shouldn't be) a new concept: WP:WHATNEXT, meaning that if we summarily dismiss (or remove) certain kinds of opinions, what will we be looking to dump next? -- Cecropia 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking, I'm a big fan of dismissing anyone's opinion that is different from my own. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always held the opinion that it is not necessary to strike out or reply to every oppose comment. I've seen many cases where the comment tally will be similar to 60/1/1 and editors are hassling the one opposer and the one neutral to change their opinions. It really is irrelevant whether someone passes an RFA with acclamation, it just matters that they pass. Definitely do not strike out votes by anyone except anons (per policy) and socks (again per policy), but never strike out someone else's comment for being different or even what you may consider to be trivial reasons. Reply if you must, but, as I implied, and as I read in Cecropia's response, consensus will really rule the day anyways, so don't get torqued up about it. Save the angst for the RFAs that are borderline consensus and just let the others go. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that after The Sunshine Man requested a name change to User:Qmt, someone created the account and made one edit. Likewise with 5minuteautoloan and Neo6486. Maybe others. I suggest bad faith, and these accounts should be usurped. A checkuser might also be a good idea. If this is a registered user, he needs a stern talking to. Otherwise an IP block might be in order.

I second that. I'll file a check right now. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith or not, an edit is an edit, and the accounts can't be usurped. Making exceptions to the rule would cause far more trouble than it's worth. A checkuser is a good idea, though. --Tango 00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly withing the Bureaucrats' discretion to usurp these accounts, certainly when it is almost certainly bad faith after looking through the new users contribs. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I get what Tango's saying, but we need to block the underlying IP, at least for a while, before more disruption is caused. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Filed!

WP:CHECK. Cool Blue^{talk to me}

00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If these were created in bad faith - and there doesn't appear much question of that - there is precedent for usurping them. At the time, we even added a specific warning "Account names requested here are regarded as being "reserved" until the request is accepted or rejected. If someone else registers the account while the request is here, it will be renamed if necessary to allow for the requested move" - although that seems to have been removed as part of a "clean-up". I've added it back in, as I doubt this will be the last time someone tries to disrupt the process. Warofdreams talk 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Warofdreams observation. Obvious bad faith. "Cybersquatting" comes to Wikipedia user names. -- Cecropia 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't usurp an account will an edit, as that's incompatible with the GDFL (same reason why the BJAODN was deleted, can't attribute to the original creator). However what can be done is the the 'crats can rename the distruptive accounts first, and then usurp Qmt and other accounts and then rename. --Evilclown93_(talk) 10:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what usurping is. (Renaming a user registered just to block a

WP:CHU request has precedent from before usurpation was 'allowed', though.) --ais523 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC

)

Which do you think it better, would you prefer to delete the userpage so the edit goes with it and then usurp (preferably without using the template incase they are checking for this and to prevent further disruption) or to rename

Man

11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We have another problem,

Man

12:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You should not feed the trolls; there was no need for you to respond to the "namesquatter". The 'crats are smart, they can take care of this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever did register Qmt, they have just taken to vandalism and been indefinitely blocked as a result. Will (aka Wimt) 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And block logs don't move with usernames... Dekimasuよ! 15:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a suspicion.

Man

15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, this user blocked me indefinitely without comment; appears to still be semiactive (today). Someone may wish to look into it. Thanks El_C 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats do not have the authority to remove adminship, only ArbCom does.

Thatcher131

18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That response isn't really pertinent to my notice. El_C 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. Shreshth91 may have told Friday by e-mail to remove his sysop flag, but the bureaucrats still can't do it, only Stewards can desysop, either at the request of Arbcom or the admin himself. Shreshth91 needs to post a confirmation on his talk page from his own account, then you can go to

Thatcher131

00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to be impolite, but I don't need to do anything. El_C 00:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was Shreshth91 alright. He let me know via email. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NHN - I think that Thatcher's point is that an email to you isn't adequate. Shreshth91 needs to either post a note when they are logged in, or they will need to email a steward directly for verification. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington immature support for Shreshth91's attempt to retire as a user in good standing is unseemly, considering the role Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington played in provoking me erlaier on. El_C 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the wrong venue. Perhaps arbcom would be willing to issue a quickie desysop order. Coming out of retirement to issue a pointmaking block on a longtime contributor, and then refusing to discuss it is an obvious case, in my opinion. If arbcom sees it the same way, problem solved. Friday (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeking desysoping, only an answer. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's tactics are intended to provoke and inflame the situation. El_C 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that, but regardless, this does not seem to be the right venue. Friday (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's support for a user who issues inexplicable blocks & edits protected pages (not to mention his earlier support for a block-evading user) can be exposed anywhere. Here's a good a place as any. El_C 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By "editing a protected page," I think you meant to say "reverting the blanking of his talk page." As to "inexplicable," all he did (and is continuing to do) is giving you a taste of your own medicine. You're demanding a comment on the block from him after you acted the exact same way towards the fellow you blocked a couple of days ago. Double standards much? Picaroon (Talk) 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know which side you're on, but why don't we hear from someone objective? El_C 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

....and this is here why? It's not an issue that the 'crats need to involve themselves in (especially as they quite frankly can't do anything about it except voice their opinions about it elsewhere, making this

You just could not resist, again, could you? El_C 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, who are you talking to? This is the first time I've ever voiced an opinion about this, as far as I know... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please exercize restraint in edit summaries. El_C 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost... I've got no idea what is wrong with my summaries [1][2] (well, aside from a possible objection to the "what the fuck" one, but it aptly describes my response, so I stand by it). How did this become about me? My ego may be pleased, but the rest of me is confused... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have confused you with a user named ElKevbo, my apologies. El_C 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay, reality makes actual sense again! :) No worries. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As for convassing, I find that to be a rather bizzare claim, but, otherwise, I have no further comment at this time. El_C 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more of an if/then statement than an outright "this is canvassing" statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Does a 'crat potentially need to look into closing this early?

I've closed it; usually it's not a problem to close withdrawn RFAs as a non-bureaucrat, and it would certainly seem that he's withdrawn. Ral315 » 03:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. As posted on your talk page just now; is it not a little premature to assume DrKiernan has withdrawn given that, only yesterday, he stated, "Consequently, I would prefer to see this [RfA process] out to the end."? He hasn't officially stated that he has left - Alison ☺ 03:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold on here. Who can point me to a diff in which DrKiernan says that he has withdrawn his RfA? -- Cecropia 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the RfA. It is going a little too far for non-crats especially to begin removing RfAs on an assumption. In real-life elections (at least in the U.S.) even dead candidates may remain on the ballot if the election has gone past a certain point. Leave this up and let the community decide if DrKiernan's nom will pass or fail on the information they have, including that he may have left the project. -- Cecropia 03:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually going to sysop him if he passes and has left?--Chaser - T 04:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If the RfA passes and if the candidate has not reappeared to make a definitive statement of his intentions, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Either way, we will know what the community has to say about the nom in the time they have to say it. -- Cecropia 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone emailed him? I think it's pretty obvious that his intention is to leave (as some of us who have left before know, that's often easier said than done) ... at any rate, I think it would be worthwhile to email him and try and retain a good editor ... regardless of his RFA status. --BigDT 05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone already has his email address, it's no longer an option.--Chaser - T 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't have been closed, but unless anyone thinks that basically all of the next 40 editors were all going to tender their support (thus getting the RfA to around 70%), reopening the RfA was an unnecessary process. Dekimasuよ! 07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is why we have community-chosen bureaucrats. -- Cecropia 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the time that it was 13/22/9 and Pascal.Tesson gave his comments, it has gone to 31/23/8. If such a trend of nearly unanimous support continues, the situation you describe could happen. This RFA could be a turning point where people see the folly of the "he doesn't need the tools" argument and become more willing to sysop anyone who is trusted. Also, as a minor speculative point, what if the RFA were to end at 50/25/8? That would fall short of 70%, but it would mean that 37 of the last 40 !voters had supported. Consensus isn't always a numerical percentage ... --BigDT 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some pie on my face due to the way the RfA has turned out, but we've had that discussion several other places. My comment wasn't meant to reflect the way things should be, but to reflect the usual course of affairs. We know that if someone has 40 supports before getting an oppose, and then the last eight people oppose, the chances of the RfA failing are next to nil. There are some graphs floating around that show an RfA's chance of passing when it's at a certain percentage at a certain time, I think you'll remember. If an RfA is at 100% after three or four days, I can only think of one person who hasn't passed. That's probably why we had to go through the Wikipedia:Proposed adminship thing again recently. Dekimasuよ! 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the one oppose that made me turn this into something of a personal affair was the one which read "we don't need more admins, we need more active admins". This is probably the most absurd RfA I've had the pleasure to participate in and I can't blame DrKiernan for getting ticked and considering leaving the project. Some of the opposes bring slightly stronger arguments but for the most part, the comments left by opposers are almost comical in their failure to assume good faith (my favourite being [3]) and I don't think people realize how much harm they're doing to Wikipedia with frivolous opposition to RfAs. Pascal.Tesson 13:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears we were premature on this one, as he

You did the right thing initially, Demon. You asked whether a 'crat should look at it. Twenty minutes later, it was already closed, and not by a 'crat. I know 'crats aren't here every minute of every day, but it would have been seen to. -- Cecropia 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the words of
  DrKiernan
  15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  You mean Mark Twain is still alive? That's great! Is he on a book tour? I have a copy of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court I would like autographed. :) -- Cecropia 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The reports of Mark Twain's resurrection are also greatly exaggerated. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Following up a comment of BigDT's above, if an RfA is still attracting comments and is tending strongly in a direction counter to the current !vote count, would it be appropriate or within the bounds of bureaucrat discretion to extend the duration of the RfA because it appears that equilibrium has not been reached? Obviously that could be relevant to DrK if this trend continues, but I'm asking the more general question about what the limits of bureaucrat discretion are perceived to be in such cases. I could see arguments in both directions, I have to say. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Extensions have been made at bcrat discretion if a result is unclear and the 'crat(s) believe an extension of time can clarify the situation. Sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't. Usually 48 or 72 hours is the extension. Extensions have also sometimes been used because an extraordinary event changes the complexion of an RfA and participants need time to react. Most rarely, an RfA has been nullified and restarted. However, it is too early in this specific case to anticipate the "end game" as it were. This may very well close as a normal RfA. -- Cecropia 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And indeed it did. That's a nice one for the books. A complete turnaraound after a very bad start. As someone said over on

WT:RFA, maybe this shows that if RfA regulars (and other experienced editors) take it on themselves to point out the fallacies of several oppose arguments, then the correct 'tone' can be set for an RfA. Carcharoth

13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe what happened here. DrKiernan was failing at something like 13/22/4, and all of a sudden Pascal.Tesson throws in a loud "Protest support" and the rout is on. The net voting for the last five days of this RFA was something like +60 support. I have to eat my words when I wrote in the neutral section, "I suggest withdrawing this RFA because it is not goint to pass." Score one for the good guys! YechielMan 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I request the desysopping of my account (yes, again). Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't desysop. You need to ask at

(Talk)

23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done--Cspurrier 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

link. —freak(talk) 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reason this Rfa is still up, as the user hasn't edited in over 5 days. ~ Wikihermit 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Since when must a user edit during their RfA? Majorly (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The editor has appeared to leave, or has had their I.P.s blocked and are unable to edit. ~ Wikihermit 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And? They haven't left, and if the RfA is successful, they will be able to edit. Daniel 02:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I guess so. ~ Wikihermit 02:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably won't succeed, too many people who think that Charlotte is the devil for Tor usage and her reaction to a CU revealing information about her. Okay maybe "the devil" is a little too far. FunPika 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I requested [4] [5] desysopping a few days back in order to deal with exams and some personal matters. The worst of my exams is behind me, so I was wondering whether I could have my hoover back? :) Thanks! Riana ⁂ 05:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 05:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks Raul :) Riana ⁂ 05:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Riana, can you explain for a noob (i.e. me) why "exams and personal matters" necessitated you asking to be desysopped? Is it de rigeur for an admin to ask for a desysopping every time he/she is preoccupied and cannot respond to admin requests?

--Richard 07:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Personal choice. Riana (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who have access to OTRS, request. MaxSem 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like quite a reasonable request, and I know I would be asking the same thing of the WMF if I found myself in a similar situation gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if there's a bureaucrat around that has time to rename an account but is without OTRS access, please e-mail me for the username in question or if you would like an OTRS account please contact Mr. Cary Bass gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to process this request? MaxSem 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request verified and  Done. The account has been renamed (see user rename log for more details). Redux 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:) MaxSem 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone has a minute, would they mind checking WP:USURP. I put my request in on 6 June and was just hoping it could be processed soon. Plus, I'm on the top of the list of usurps so am the next to be done. Many thanks. --Breno ^talk 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Should Dannyisme be de-sysopped/de-cratted? He no longer has a need for the account. I know that b'crats cannot de-sysop, but this seemed to be the best place to discuss it as it involves de-cratting. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dannyisme did have bureaucrat and sysop rights removed when Danny resigned. See special:listusers and the log of Steward actions. WjBscribe 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I could swear that he didn't 10 minutes ago! LOL! Sorry about that. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to flag up that since

And every RfB ends up in that "there is no need for bureaucrats". Sure, there are 20 of them, but Cecropia and Secretlondon do the most work... Maybe you should try an RfB, WJBscribe. You're Secretlondon's assistant... Evilclown93_(talk) 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Who the most active bureaucrats are has fluctuated quite a bit over time. Before Secretlondon took over, Nichalp and Rdsmith4 did most of the renames - unfortunately all 3 are away at present. If you want to see the statistics they can be found here. As to your other comment - I think people expect bureaucrats to have been around quite a bit longer than I have. But it may be time to look into having a new crat (its been a while - Cecropia is far from new to the job :-) ), especially one who could help out with renames fairly regularly as it doesn't seem to be a popular task... WjBscribe 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a specialized 'crat process. I'd be happy to start doing these, but I see that some renames are accepted and some rejected, and I don't fully understand the process reasoning (as opposed to RfA, which I've been following for years). If you anyone knowledgeable can help point me in the right direction, I'll do my part. -- Cecropia 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it is pretty much common sense and I saw that the reply Secretlondon gave you here when you enquired was pretty comprehensive. Its by far the area of greatest crat discretion and from my experience each crat approaches it slightly differently. You could always just do a few that you're comfortable with - that would ease the backlog at least. In most cases you should find one of the "clerks" will have flagged up anything unusual about a given request. I know we didn't see eye-to-eye on another matter recently but I've been helping out with those pages for a few months and have a good idea of what's going on. If I can help answer any questions do drop me a note... WjBscribe 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And if WJB is away, drop me a note :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an unintended pun with User:WJBaway. On the substantive issue, I wrote an essay which you may find provocative, even if you disagree: Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. YechielMan 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely (and semi-obviously) agree with that essay. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing other things including working towards a release of Tux Paint this week. It does annoy me whenever I go away for a few days that ALL the bureaucrat renaming work is waiting for me. Renaming is pretty dull, especially when it takes all evening. Secretlondon 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, Cecropia has been kind enough to deal with most of the backlog. WjBscribe 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

YAY! I'm sick of all the grunt jobs being left to me. Of course the more you do the more people expect you to do it all. Secretlondon 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help, Secretlondon. I hesitated because I saw you have a way of doing things that I didn't want to mess up, but now I see that WJB and others vet the entries so well that I can do most without worrying too much. -- Cecropia 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone go through

Hi, my bot was approved a couple days ago and it has not gotten its flag yet. It is also blocked ATM. --Ideogram 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot is unblocked now. Daniel 09:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All flagged by Raul654. WjBscribe 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I never registered an e-mail address
2. I made my password more secure per recent suggestions.
3. Hard drive issues recently relieved Firefox of the password info I was relying on.
4. I emailed [email protected] on June 19.
5. Received response June 21 [Ticket#2007062010003033] directing me to IRC, which I am unable to use for unrelated reasons as I explained in my reply.
6. Received (date e-mailed was delivered, I didn't get it until the next day) second response [Ticket#2007062010003033] with e-mail address: [email protected]
7. E-mailed [email protected] on June 22
8. It's now June 28 and I'm wondering if there is another option as I haven't heard back.

I'd like to get access restored to my original account. To help prove my identity I created this account. Anyeverybody (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does that account prove your identity? Viridae^Talk 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it is incontrovertible proof but if you look at the contributions of both accounts the editing pattern, and writing style are consistent as well as usage patterns. (That's why I said to help prove, there really isn't any solid proof in a case like this that I can think of).

Anynobody

00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually now that I think of it, when I voted for Image of the Year on the Commons I had to make a note on my account here (both accounts are named Anynobody) in order to prove I had enough edits to qualify for voting. Does that work both ways?

Anynobody

01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Brion is really the person who can help you - I suggest you chase him up in case its slipped his mind (he is pretty busy). If you still have access to your account on Commons (it seems you do - [7]), a post from that account confirming that it is both

I was wondering, with the fixing of bugzilla:6711, did the interface that bureaucrats use to grant users the 'sysop' and/or 'bot' rights change? Are there still separate special pages for the two, or have they now been combined? Or is it the case that the old interfaces still work, but Special:Userrights is now accessible by bureaucrats when it wasn't previously, and is also capable of the same changes? --ais523 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any change in the permissions pages and Special:Userrights is still only for stewards, as of now. -- Cecropia 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --ais523 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A side note concerning the tool Special:Userrights: it is exclusive to Stewards, yes, but the Board of Trustees has decided, although not in the form of an official resolution, that there shall be no local Stewards. That is, the only Stewards that are supposed to exist are the ones on the Meta-Wiki. Currently, the only exception to this rule is Jimbo, who holds the status of a local Steward on this Wikipedia (en.wiki).
We have suggested to the developers that Special:Userrights be removed from the interface, since it is not supposed to be used locally and it is redundant with the Steward tool on Meta, but it seems that there are technical obstacles to doing this that have caused the proposal to be put on hold for the time being. Redux 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Six candidacies for 'cratship! I've never seen that before.

• It's a record. Plus, we've had one withdrawn. Seven in one week. --Durin 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps we're turning over a new leaf? Sean William @ 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe. Of course, it might be a leaf that fell two years ago and is rather old and moldy :) --Durin 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is great! Qst 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Seven 'crat candidacies at one time...wow.

  13

  21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You bureaucrats may wish to have a look at this and discuss it. Regards, Qst 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless an admin closes it first, can a 'crat close

I just closed it and left my usual note on the user's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm told a crat normally closes BAG joining requests after 7 days, and my request at

I still don't understand why a bureaucrat needs to close a BAG request, and it seems this point has been raised before, not too long ago: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6#BAG approval. Meh. Daniel 08:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is something I don't think any 'crat watches unless a request is made. I imagine if this is a "tradition" it is so there is no internal argument over the results, as there are no buttons to be pushed. Which 'crat usually closes? -- Cecropia 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter they just want a third party user with a high level of trust (Bcrat) to close so that people cant scream injustice.

∆

15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone just close it? It's way over its ending time (28th june) and people have suddenly started voting again (which I think is against policy, but I don't know). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note about late voters (of which I am one) - comments are valid until the nomination is actually closed. This is in line with the stance taken at

inp23

09:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But could a crat please close it? It is way late and I want to know how I did. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAG does not have a hard-limit to the time these things can run, sometimes they are fast, and other times not. Many times they are unanimous and we close them internally. On this particiular request 'crat judgement as to the state of the consensus is being asked for though. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk

17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It said 7 days, so that's what I assumed. At the moment this request is 18 days over that time, so could a crat close it? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe they were talking about me. But actually, in the past this happened only once: at a time when there was a larger election, with multiple candidates, to add a larger body of BAG members. I then offered to close that election in the capacity of Bureaucrat ad hoc. As Xaosflux mentioned, there are no hard rules governing the election of new BAG members, and 95% of the time they are handled locally, usually by current BAG members. Since this time we are being asked to act on this particular candidate's request to join, I'll look into it and close it. It will just be a little while, so that I can read everything that has been posted and decide. Redux 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now closed the request, as requested. Redux 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Loads of fun! ;-) Backlog from June 28. ~ Wikihermit 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Last 'crat participation was

P

21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump again. Thanks for getting me done :D

P

03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I've

I've gone ahead and closed this for you - a bureaucrat doesn't need to do it provided the candidate is withdrawing and it can be quite a long wait for a bureaucrat to drop by. WjBscribe 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes items and deleted edits are now updated too.

It's been a while since we've done bureaucrat promotions, so I'm a bit rusty. If memory serves, it's basically 10% higher than a normal adminship. Everyone agrees that 75%-80% is in the range for bureaucrat's discretion for an RFA, so presumably that means 85%-90% is in the bureaucrat's discretion for an RFB. Correct? Raul654 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. No, not really. Try and ignore the numbers. Do you think there is sufficient consensus to promote to bureaucrat? It's not a vote count, and should not be treated as one. Majorly (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fah - RFA and RFB is a vote (not a !vote, a Vote). Anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever true consensus on an amount, but 85-90% is probably the right area IMO. Wizardman 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An area somewhere inbetween 85% and 90% seems a realistic boundary. --Deskana (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Seems very reasonable and realistic. Nick 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarify please - "85-90% is probably the right area" for what? A bureacrat's discretionary range for RFB? Raul654 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unless you look at the discussion. Majorly (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Granted you should look at the discussion too, but doing both parts are common sense. Wizardman 02:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's how I see it as far as the reasoning goes - half the opposition to Andrevan is that he's not particularly active at RFA. Having been accused of this myself, I have to say that I find this a pretty weak reason to oppose. My interest in RFA waxes and wanes. That there are periods when I'm not particularly active there doesn't mean I'm any less competent to do the promotion when I am paying attention there. Raul654 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (even though I opposed Andre for it :P) Majorly (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you should personalize it that much, Raul. Is this a community decision or the bureaucrats' decision. -- Cecropia 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's personalizing it to make judgments about the quality of the reasons to oppose. Of course those judgements are going to be informed by my experiences here - the same is true of any user in a position to make judgement calls. That's the very reason we pick the most experienced users to be admins and bureaucrats. Raul654 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Having been accused of this myself, I have to say that I find this a pretty weak reason to oppose. " -- Cecropia 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should be in a bureaucrat chat instead of here with us non-crats.--Chaser - T 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a free-for-all. -- Cecropia 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the wishful thinking of everyone else, RfA/B is a vote, as it is currently operating. Just look at what happened to any canditate hinting that they would apply more discretion. The problem with RfBs is that one !vote can completely change things. For a 90% support rate, one oppose nullifies 9 supports. So I would be discretionary in my discretion on an RfB. :) Prodego ^talk 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Husond's RfB. Majorly (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the second party. As operating those requesting Bueracratship must run a fine line, between those who want RfA to be a pure vote, and consider anything else heresy, and those who want the ability to have common sense override the mass of the people. Obviously I belong in the second camp, after all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, as it is operating, go either way, and... Prodego ^talk 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That 1 Oppose to 9 Supports ratio is really wrong, in my opinion, there's no way one editors opinions should outweigh nine editors opinions, but that's what effectively happens here. Nick 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We've had some slippage in the standards over the last year. Someone under 75% on RfA was almost never promoted, now that slipped to 70% (with the range expanded up to 80%). In practice, I don't think anyone under 90% has been promoted to bureaucrat. I think you need to look at RfB as a thing in itself, not in relation to RfA expectations. My personal take on Andrevan is that the support is not there in the sense that it was for Deskana, who I would have promoted if you hadn't. I don't object to Andre if you decided to push the button, but I don't see compelling consensus. As to Ral, I have opposed. The core question was whether the Signpost could affect RfA and vv. I think it already has, with the flood of more than 30 supports against one oppose after the new edition. By contrast, in the two days before, I think he received 6 supports and 2 opposes. -- Cecropia 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since July 2004, the lowest pass was 89.94% Support and the highest fail was 85.3% Support. There have been no other test cases between 85-90% in the last three years. Dragons flight 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Stellar - nothing like chasing the middle... Raul654 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, per the above discussion, I've decided to promote Andrevan. Raul654 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because...? -- Cecropia 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because as Dragonsflight said, it's in the untested middle ground, Deskana seems to support the idea it's in the discretionary range, you said you woudln't object to promotion, and I think half the objectors are objecting on weak grounds (and one of them agrees with me). Raul654 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, affirmed. I just wanted a little more for the actual decision. -- Cecropia 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral's RFB

Ral's RFB is over in roughly 4 hours, at 3:00 AM my time. I plan to be soundly asleep by then, but (since I'm reasonably sure there will be no big swings between in the next 4 hours) it will no doubt re-hash the same issues discussed above. That being the case, can we discuss and agree on a course of action now (presumably to put that one into deep freeze)? Raul654 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want bureaucrats or are non bureaucrats allowed to give their opinion? Majorly (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to hearing input from everyone. Raul654 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ral has 87%, just as much as Andre whom you promoted. If decided that Ral's should fail, there's got to be an extremely compelling explanation from the closing bureaucrat for doing so.

In short, while RfA/RfB is not about numbers per se, consistency and appearness of fairness do matter. Any decisions which may imply bias or unfairness may not bode well for people's view of bureaucrats or Wikipedia in general. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral315's is about the same as Andrevan's, and another support just came in. Unless Ral315 gets pile on oppose in the next four hours, I see no reason to not to grant him bureaucrat status. Acalamari 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a more difficult case. I find the opposes slightly more compelling here, than on Andrevan's. However, I do think the general consensus again is to promote. Majorly (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss teh specifics of Ral's RFB while it's still open. That being said, however, I would like to note (A) in response to Oleg, that nominations that end in the discretionary range do not necessarily have to be consistent. A nomination with a lower support percentage (which ends in the discretionary range) may be promoted while a nomination with a higher support percentage may be failed, based on bureacrat's discretion. I would also like to note (B) that Cecropia has suggested simple extending Ral's RFB, which I consider an even better idea than freezing the nom. Raul654 03:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But then again, one should think extremely carefully as to why this RfB deserves to be treated differently than the other RfBs. We've had too many ill-thought or ill-justified promotions which caused damage long-term I believe. Whatever the decision should be, it should be taken with great care and be well-explained (and no, the chat at Danny's RfA is not the gold standard). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

By voted they're pretty much the same, but if we go by discussion then, like what Majorly said, the opposes are different and could be more compelling. As for extending the nom, I dunno if that would work. Certainly one would have made their choice by now, if not they may be going in the "we need/don't need more bcrats" camp, which are votes we don't need. Wizardman 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It would *ahem* be inappropriate for me to say much here :) but I'll just say that whether the nom is closed, frozen or extended, successful or unsuccessful, I'll respect the decision. Ral315 » 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really feel bad about opposing you Ral, but I think my concerns are legitimate. I would support you in virtyually anything else. -- Cecropia 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to reinforce a point Raul made, if a discretionary range is 85%-90% (for example) it stands to reason that one person might be promoted at 85% while another fails at 89.9999%, otherwise it is not a discretionary range. -- Cecropia 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Argh wtf? Why is that suddenly an oppose has to be "compelling" while a support can be crap like "no concerns?" I'm really disturbed by Raul's disregard of opposes for Andre because he doesn't like the reason. (For the record, I opposed because he's not active enough *at all* - for my taste, not *just* on RFA.) Really seriously? Why is that supports are never questioned, but opposes are? pschemp | talk 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - "Why is that supports are never questioned, but opposes are?". Answer - Raul's 10th law Raul654 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So it's easier to write an oppose than a support, I don't agree with that at all, it takes people two seconds to write "no concerns" and some serious thinking time to put together opposes...still that has nothing to do with treating the two things by completely different standards. It's morally inexcusable to be so flippant about opposes. pschemp | talk 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with easier or not. It has to do with the fundamental reasons why people support or oppose someone (as I explained in the law). Asking someone why they support someone is equivalent to asking them to prove a negative - they (generally) support due to a lack of behavior, whereas an oppose is due to an affirmative behavior. So of course it's easier to scrutinize an objection. It's rather difficult to find anything to fault about a support, which is pretty much equivalent to saying "I haven't seen anything that gives me doubt about this user". Raul654 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's difficult to find fault with supports does not mean opposes should be treated with contempt. pschemp | talk 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Given how many years it's been since we've promoted a bureaucrat, I think we can safely say that the opposes are being given fair weight. Raul654 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana made it, even under the old rules. If the discretionary range for an RFB has changed, that's fine. It isn't fine however, to disregard half of the opposes because you personally don't like them. If more than one person expresses that sentiment, it certainly is not an outlier. pschemp | talk 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the case for RfAs and RfBs is that a candidate is assumed to be competent unless proven otherwise. Please correct me if I am wrong. —Kurykh 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with one of Wikipedia's most important policies, Assume good faith. Andre (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NO, its to gauge whether the community trusts the user or not. pschemp | talk 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking from the individual !voter's standpoint. You're looking at it from the big-picture view of the entire discussion. —Kurykh 03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the original concept of RfA it was assumed that what we now think of as the admin tools were just a restricted area that you didn't want everyone to have until we got to know them, and that they wouldn't use the tools badly. So yes, it was definitely expected that someone meeting minimum qualifications would become an admin unless there was positive evidence that the tools should continue to be upheld. I would compare it to the extra conveniences you get when you edit under an account rather than an IP. All you do is commit to the project by making an account, and BINGO! you can edit semi-protected articles. Things have changed because a lot more is expected of admins now and I also think that, if Jimbo really wanted to make sure that adminship was "no big deal" than the privilege should not have had a technical sounding name like "admin" or "sysop." It might have been better if we were called something like "IP editors," "restricted editors" and "unrestricted editors." In RfB OTOH it became apparent very quickly that since b'crats were making judgment decisions, no matter how much honestly and in good faith, some proportion of the participants would complain, ask questions, accuse one or another 'crat of something. So it fast became a requirement that 'crats be people who would be able to engage the community in such a way as to build confidence in the process. BY doing that, it became much easier for partisans of this or that prospective admin to accept that a decision they didn't like would have been made fairly and non-prejudicially. This is prehaps the core reason that RfBs have traditionally been much more stringent than RfAs and that prospective 'crats demonstrate why they should be 'crats rather than simply expect that they should get the bit unless people can find enough wrong with them. -- Cecropia 06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This RfA for User:R is scheduled to close shortly. I am one of the co-nominators and was the nominator in the most recent prior RfA for the candidate (then known as TeckWiz) in April. In the current RfA, on a numerical basis, support for the candidate is at 71-72% as I type this. The vast majority of the !votes on both sides have presented good-faith, colorable arguments; I think that a small handful of opposes have presented weaker arguments that the closing bureaucrat may wish to afford a bit less weight.

In addition to colloquy on the RfA itself, there has also been an interesting and very useful interchange on the RfA talkpage about a primary concern that has been raised against this candidate (i.e., whether an editor's focus on "maintenance" or "janitorial" tasks rather than article-writing renders him or her unsuited to be an administrator). For whatever reason, this candidate has become something of a lightning rod on this issue, although other candidates with reasonably similar records have passed RfA from time to time without incident.

An editor who recently commented in the RfA supported with the observation, "Multiple RfAs and respected editors on both sides of the discussion with reasonable views. I would like to see the 'crats decide this with published reasoned arguments." Under the circumstances, I thought I would call attention to this suggestion as the closing bureaucrat(s) review this RfA to determine whether consensus for R's promotion has been achieved. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, closing bureaucrat, don't determine if there is consensus for R's promotion. That is not what RfA is. RfA is to determine if the candidate can be trusted to use admin tools properly. RfA has become too political, and this nomination is a prime example of that trend. Instead determine if there is consensus that R can be trusted. Prodego ^talk 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that this RFA is very clearly at >70% now. Other RFAs with this level of consensus have been very clearly cut unsuccessful. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It actually is at ~70.8% support as of this point, which does (to some point) fall in the b'crat discretion range, but I really don't have high hopes for this particular RfA. —Kurykh 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its now ready to be closed. I wonder what will happen. I think it may cause a little bit of a drama if promoted. Its a good 5% off what is normal. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) This one has been trending downward, slightly, over the last day. A short extension to determine where that trend ends up may be helpful to determining consensus, otherwise I agree with AD. -- nae'blis 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if it's extended, I won't be able to comment at all. I'll be away til Friday night. I guess it's not a major problem. Just saying. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The only two RfA's that passed around this % both were over WP:100, plus they're still being debated every so often. I supported, btu better safe then sorry on this one I'd say. Wizardman 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's <70% now. There should be no reason to promote this candidate, as this decision is not within the general discretion range and there are no other unusual circumstances. Daniel 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I just found this May 28, 2007 post by R: "Any RFA which has less than 80%, but it isn't clear or not (ie. 71%) should have a discussion." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my closing rationale, I don't see any irregularity with this nomination. There is no consensus to promote. Andre (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the published reasoned arguments. Now I am not just happy that you became a bureaucrat but really happy. I think if more RfA nominees near the low end numerically receive such published consideration - irrespective of the outcome - we might be able to move past the idea that Danny received special treatment. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this closure. --Deskana (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Within the bureaucrat consensus determining range (such as 85-90%), I believe that

Same with RfAs in the traditional "discretion zone". Majorly (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have two concerns with this. First is that there is a high likelihood that this would become a fighting-ground for criticizing the promotion, something that could cause acrimony. Second, that unless it is messaged properly, it might turn into a 'vote' on the appropriateness of the b'crat decision. Considering the high bar set for RfB candidates already in terms of promotion target ranges, I would expect it to come with a commensurate level of trust in their actions except for the most controversial, and there exists remediation for those in the form of RfCs and Arbcom inquiries. Is a Bureaucrat someone who is expected to implement the decision of the community? Or are they part of a 'promotion board' that vettes the appropriateness of what the community has decided? If the first, then we must WP:AGJ (Assume Good Judgment, something that perhaps should be an existent policy) in all but the most outrageous. If it is the latter, then the Danny RfA Republic approach seems to be the model for the future, and that is both somewhat controversial and should probably be formalized by community policy development. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To put my two cents into this, in my earlier 'crat days, I made voluntary explanations of just about any slightly discretionary RfA decision a standard practice when I pushed the button or removed. After a time, I found this to be a mistake, because even the best unsolicited explanation seemed to be a magnet for argument among a certain subset of RfA participants. I came to agree with some of the other regular 'crats that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This implied to me that, if the bureaucrat is generally trusted, most are inclined to accept the decision unless some feel it's really wrong (or at least questionable). I still stand ready (as all good little 'crat should) to explain any decision in response to a civil questioner, but I now feel that there are enough focii of dispute in this process without chewing over every single issue. -- Cecropia

WT:RFA archives.--Chaser - T

04:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm noticing is that bureaucrat's discussions about RfBs/(some RfAs) are becoming a magnet for argument and that the bureaucrat's themselves are being disparage because the free flow nature of discussions make them an easy target for others to imply that the bureaucrat has not given the matter much thought. This is very bad in my view because a significant aspect of being a bureaucrat is that the validity of a bureaucrat's opinion relies on a lot on the perception of trust/respect for that bureaucrat. Bureaucrat are judges[11] and if officials who preside over a court published their in chambers discussions instead of their reasoning, you would see the same disparagement for court judges. Judges typically circulate an opinion amongst themselves for revision before publication as their explained reasoning for their decision. One or more editors with significant Wikipedia experience will usually find bureaucrat decisions controversial. With their experience, they will know how to make every effort to challenge the decision. The question is whether the bureaucrats should hold out as the target for their criticism 1) the explained reasoning published in the RfA/RfB, 2) the bureaucrat's discussion about that reasoning, or 3) the bureaucrat(s) themselves. It would be nice if there were a way that no target was available to shoot at, but that is not reality given the importance of each decision the bureaucrats make. However, it is within the bureaucrats hands to decide a course of action to take to minimize the disparagement of any bureaucrat and I think that explained reasoning published in the RfA/RfB (when needed) would be the way to go. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. There has been a bit of discussion

Since this message was posted Andre agreed with another editor the rename shouldn't be done and Deskana essentially closed the request.--Chaser - T 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can any bureaucrat with a spare minute check whether they have access to

No access. It says it's for stewards only. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. The issue here is that the new Userrights supposedly has a newer, more granular interface, which allows bureaucrats to access it, making

cool stuff

) 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it that it doesn't allow bureaucrats to do stewardish things like removing permissions? If it doesn't give bureaucrats extra permissions, then I support the change. To be honest, I think it'd be okay even if it gives bureaucrats extra permissions, since I strongly doubt they will abuse it. --Deskana (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There does need to be an addition to LocalSettings.php to allow Bureaucrats access. Specifically:

$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['userrights'] = true;
$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat' ); 
$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'bot'); 

Also, the Makesysop extension is what creates the 'Steward' group, the Makesysop part of it must be disabled, leaving only the Steward group. The Makebot extension must be disabled. Prodego ^talk 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the bureaucrats have to decide to stop using Makesysop and Makebot and use Userrights instead - they can't have all three? WjBscribe 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because otherwise, the extensions conflict with each other.

cool stuff

) 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you probably could use all three, though I don't see why you would want to. Prodego ^talk 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If we go this route, we will likely disable Makebot and Makesysop as they will be unnecessary. There's nothing technically problematic with using all three, however.

AmiDaniel (talk

) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, it allows bureaucrats to remove certain groups of access specified in the

cool stuff

) 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So if there is no change in permissions, I absolutely support the change if the interface is better. --Deskana (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the interface Deskana? Prodego ^talk 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, never been a steward on a wiki. --Deskana (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You should either: (a) install a local wiki (these instructions (-the stick) can painlessly have a wiki running for you, (b) let me get AmiDaniel to make you a crat on his testwiki, which I can do for you as soon as he is available. Prodego ^talk 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could get AmiDaniel to make me a crat on his testwiki, please. --Deskana (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana: Create an account at https://amidaniel.com/testwiki and send me an email from

AmiDaniel (talk

) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the change as well. As far as removing permissions, I think we'd need more than just consensus here for that. Andre (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep; the same settings can be retained, which allow bureaucrats to remove bot flags only.

cool stuff

) 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One note, using Special:Userrights allows a Bureaucrat to be created who lacks the sysop right. Shouldn't matter, but just so you know. Prodego ^talk 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So you still need to check the box. Just make sure it is the right box. ;)

cool stuff

) 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I considered that and don't see a problem. If anything, it's a slight improvement, because it allows us to promote a bureaucrat on the infinitely-close-to-zero chance an RfB passes for someone that isn't a sysop. --Deskana (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about User:RobH. :P Andre (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, obviously crat'ed by a Steward. Prodego ^talk 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He has two edits, both to his userpages, and has no logged actions. I don't think he's that important... no offense Rob! --Deskana (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the 1 logged action and 7 edits of his meta account? :) Prodego ^talk 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

His one logged action being making himself a crat on en.wiki on July 12, 2007 - presumably to test this interface change? WjBscribe 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but AFAIK, he works more in the hardware side. The local log is interesting too.

cool stuff

) 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, Stewards could always do that. Prodego ^talk 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's the one who we call when we get the white screen of death, so I hope he didn't hear you. :P

cool stuff

) 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Our screen of death is white? Viridae^Talk 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's that nice "The servers have an error. Make a donation!!!" one. --Deskana (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh that? Isn't wikipedia great, talking about screens of deaths made me rediscover

Sad Mac, something I haven't seen since I used a mac classic at school eons ago. Viridae^Talk

00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral on the proposal. I'm OK with things as they are now, and I'll be OK with things if we switch to userrights instead. I support giving bureaucrats the ability to de-op people within the project on which they are a bureaucrat. Raul654 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that will happen, after all mw:Extension:Desysop has been available, and never been implemented here. Who knows, however. Prodego ^talk 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping will not be enabled--at least not without a great, great deal of discussion. The reason for this is deeply rooted in Wikipedia's history (see, for example, the case of Ed Poor).

AmiDaniel (talk

) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some 'crats may want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81. New England 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have simply archived the discussion. Both you and Oldwindybear seemed to be escalating the non-issue to an issue beyond all reasonable proportions. --Deskana (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks New England 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It has long been understood that in determining community consensus bureaucrats can dismiss the opinions of people offering absurd arguments (say, "I don't trust Polish people") but I would never have thought that people opposing an RFB candidate on the grounds that he was not active in RFA would be blithely dismissed as offering a "pretty weak reason". I'm hard pressed to find a fairer and better reason to oppose an RFB but since Mark has himself been criticized for RFA inactivity he feels this just isn't a good reason.[12] This is not a bureaucrat determining community consensus, it's a bureaucrat evaluating the candidate on his merits. Haukur 11:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating the candidate - I'm not the one making the claim that Andrevan is not active enough at RFA. I'm evaluating the criticisms of the bureaucrat candidate (that is, the claim that he's not active enough at RFA). I can say, as a bureaucrat myself who has been accused of this very thing, that it's just not all that big a deal if Andrevan (<- or substitute anyone else's name here) is an irregular participant in RFA. That is what we expect the bureaucrats to do when exercising their discretion - to weigh the pros and cons accordingly. That is why we choose bureaucrats who have been here a long time - because we expect them to use their judgment rather than being bean counters. Raul654 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just don't understand what you believe bureaucrats should do. Should they normally attempt to determine the consensus of the community except when the support/oppose percentage falls into a certain range in which case they should evaluate the candidate on his merits? Haukur 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a serious issue with the promotion of Andrevan. I was surprised though. I don't think any bureaucrat should be evaluating the oppose reasons from their own perspective. Instead, reasons for support and oppose need to be evaluated by the balancing contrary views; if two people said "oppose lacks experience" but twenty people said "experience not a factor", then I can see reason to discount the opposes. 7 people either directly or indirectly referenced inexperienced/inactivity as a reason for opposition. Using a liberal paint brush, 9 voiced support for Andrevan despite RfA inexperience. That's hardly consensus that the inexperience is a non-factor. I can see reasons for discounting opposition based on factual errors (using extreme example, "oppose - was blocked for incivility" and the nominee was never blocked. I can see reasons for discounting opposition when the community voices consensus that a given opposition reason is not a factor. A bureaucrat deciding from their own perspective that a given rationale for opposition is wrong? Flat out, undeniably wrong. Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate consensus. Period. They are not empowered to discount support/opposition based on their own criteria, only on the criteria of the community. They are free to publicly voice displeasure with a given rationale for support or opposition. They are not free to close nominations based on that displeasure. Raul was out of line. --Durin 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think any bureaucrat should be evaluating the oppose reasons from their own perspective" - then what exactly is a bureaucrat supposed to do when a nom falls into the discretionary range? It sounds to me like you favor discretion, as long as the bureaucrats exercise it in exactly the way you would. Raul654 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear I wasn't the only person disturbed by this. If you are lucky, he'll quote Raul's 10th law at you for justification, as he did to me above, without actually addressing the concern. pschemp | talk 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that, though I opposed Andrevan's candidacy, I'm not particularly unhappy that he was promoted. I wish him the best in his new job and nothing I say here is meant as criticism of him, only of Raul's actions as a bureaucrat. Continuing on the topic of opposition reasoning, while Raul found Durin's carefully reasoned and researched view[13] to be a "pretty weak reason" he apparently found nothing weak about my somewhat vague philosophical disagreement with the candidate.[14]Personally I think Durin offered a much stronger argument than I did. Haukur 13:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not upset about the Raul's action nearly as much as his reasoning behind it. As I said before, it is one thing to say, the rules have now changed, and 85% is acceptable, and another to discount oppose votes on whim, especially when more than one person feels that way. An RFB is here to gauge community trust after all. pschemp | talk 13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to make it clear that my stance above in this section has nothing to do with whether the bright line for promotion is 85% or 90%. It strictly has to do with opposition being discounted based on personal views of the closing bureaucrat rather than consensus (or lack thereof) views of the community. --Durin 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would also like to voice alarm at this statement by Raul. Thus, we find another personal view of Raul's; since we haven't promoted anyone in a while, give all opposes less weight. This is ignoring the community in whole in support of promoting a bureaucrat, regardless of what the community says. This is flat out wrong. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats says bureaucrats are "bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" It does not offer bureaucrats the discretion to discount opposition based on how long it's been since the last promotion or based on personal perceptions of the weakness of an argument, but based on consensus. You are expected to evaluate consensus, not apply your own metrics. --Durin 15:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I read Raul's comment as saying "the fact that it has been so long since a successful RfB has passed [implying correctly that a number have failed] it is evident that the opposes were given importance by the bureaucrats." You don't read it that way? -- Cecropia 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a possible interpretation, yes. I retract my statement barring clarification from Raul. My concerns regarding disregarding opposition based on personal metrics stands. --Durin 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I read that like Durin did, except that I felt "fair weight" was a way of Raul saying that he weighted the opposes according to his personal opinion (the opinion being previously stated that he disregarded half of them) in response to the question of why opposes were so easily discounted. Certainly if he means something else he should clarify that. pschemp | talk 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my above comment. Many, many bureaucrat nominations failed prior to these two succeeding, and we basically went years without any new bureaucrats. Clearly the oppose votes are not being ignored, your own insinuations to the contrary not withstanding. Raul654 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• My statement isn't an insinuation. Forgive me if you thought I was attempting to be subtle. To make it less subtle, I state that based on your prior comments you gave considerably less weight to opposes related to Andrevan's lack of experience with RfA based on your own metrics of how valid that argument is. Is this accurate? If it is, why did you do this when there was no consensus that this was an invalid reason to oppose? --Durin 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was referring to this insinuation by Pschemp. Raul654 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you please answer my question? --Durin 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the lack of experience but rather the recent inactivity, I think, Durin. I have plenty of /experience/, that isn't the issue. Andre (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Raul, would you please answer my question? Thank you, --Durin 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oy, Durin, isn't it clear that he used his discretion, as it was in the so-called discretionary range? Am I really worth having a big argument over? Andre (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with you. It also has nothing to do with the discretionary range. As I noted above, my question has nothing to do with the percentages. I made a statement regarding how Raul appears to have closed the RfB, and asked him if it was accurate, and if so why he chose to do this. Despite being active, he's not responded. A number of people have voiced concern about this. A response is warranted, given how bureaucrats are expected to behave vs. how it appears Raul behaved in the closure of this RfB. --Durin 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose by "being active" you mean the single edit I made this morning before leaving for work (where I am sitting as I write this, FWIW). Raul654 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • "To make it less subtle, I state that based on your prior comments you gave considerably less weight to opposes related to Andrevan's lack of experience with RfA based on your own metrics of how valid that argument is. Is this accurate?" - I gave them less weight, yes, because the stated reasons are inconsequential (and, to reiterate my above comment, at least one of those objectors agrees). Does this amount to giving those opposes "considerably" less weight? Well, if those objections had not been raised, then it would never have fallen into the discretionary range to begin with - the promotion would have been automatic. And had there been more of them, the nom would have failed entirely. So no, I do not consider it accurate to say they were given "considerably" less weight.
  • If it is, why did you do this when there was no consensus that this was an invalid reason to oppose - because, to reiterate my above comments, that is the nature of a bureaucrat exercising his discretion. Raul654 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for making it clear you used your own discretion and criteria for promoting Andrevan than that of the community. This is not what bureaucrats are empowered to do. I'll raise this issue now at WT:RFA. --Durin 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• It wouldn't be the first time. -- Renesis (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah. "I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him." That, indeed, is evaluating the candidate on his merits rather than evaluating consensus of the RFA. Haukur 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Haukur, your misgivings seem to be fully justified. Within a fortnight after this hugely controversial promotion, we have this scandalous incident, now discussed here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why VoABot shouldn't archive done requests sooner, instead of waiting 24 hours? They're done, after all, and the changes are obvious to the users. Also, WjBscribe mentioned that there seems to be something wrong with the archive function, as it doesn't seem to be moving the removed requests to the archive page. Andre (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, the last few contribs look fine.

Voice-of-All

01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was because you'd fixed it :-) ... WjBscribe 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would really like the bot to keep the page cleaner. Right now it still looks like it has a backlog even though everything is finished. Andre (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Bot is now archiving not done requests to the right archive, but not removing them from

I've noticed that in the couple of recent cases where bureaucrats have decide to suspend voting while they discuss the outcome of a Rfa/Rfb (e.g. Gracenotes' RfA and Andrevan's RfB), there has been some uncertainty as to how to indicate this to the candidate and potential participants on the page. At present there are only templates for successful/unsuccessful requests. Using the pink or green one with modified prhasing seems to slightly prejudge the result. So I have created {{Rfah}} (and the equivalent {{Rfbh}}) using a pale orange that could be used in those situations. I hope it is helpful, if not feel free to delete :-). WjBscribe 06:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion with WJBscribe, I like this template and feel it is appropriate and has its uses. --Deskana (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I always thought protecting the discussion was enough of a clue, but hey, a template is even better.--Chaser - T 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Only concern is some people may think that you use this when the time limit is up on an RfA, and they are waiting for a bureaucrat to come along and close it. Daniel 06:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it so that it says its been put on hold by bureaucrats. Hopefully that will make other users not use the template. Feel free to edit the wording, it's a bit clumsy. --Deskana (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at the new wording - what do you think? WjBscribe 07:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Me likey. --Deskana (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point - though non-crat uses of it could be easily reverted. In practice this template will probably be used so infrequently that most people won't know it exists. We can always delete it if it does cause more hastle than it saves... WjBscribe 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have {{

Rfat}}, isn't this just a duplicate? Ryan Postlethwaite

07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, that isn't sorted into the category that all the others are, so it is easy to miss. Still, I must say I prefer our new one. --Deskana (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case I've redirected it to {{Rfah}} so there's just the one template but either abbreviation will do. WjBscribe 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it so it now says Please do not modify it until a decision has been made by bureaucrats of what action is to be taken as although it should not be modified until crats have made the decision it should be clearer now that although users cannot comment at it, it has not yet been closed completely with a "verdict" (so-to speak). —

Rlest

16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the extra qualifier, so I reverted you. After the decision's been made, we edit it. So basically, once this template is on the page, it never needs to be edited by a non-crat again. The extra wording just made the templtae lengthier. --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Clear and concise, and visually different enough from other similar templates that it will still call attention to itself. Excellent work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. On the former administrators page it says, "Former administrators who resigned their adminship in good standing may be reinstated at the discretion of any bureaucrat."

I resigned my adminship in March after I had been outraged by antagonistic, unjustified comments that were made by one Wikipedian over a CFD decision I made in good faith. I fully intended to shake the dust of Wikipedia off my feet. I find, now that the dust has settled, that I do still care deeply about this project after all.

I had many messages of support on my talk page and the administrators' noticeboard at the time of my departure, and received assurances that I am a good administrator. I think I resigned in very good standing. I believe Wikipedia welcomes good, experienced admins. I think Wikipedia would derive benefit from my being given back the sysop flag.

I assure you I am not prompted by anything other than a wish to continue improving Wikipedia; I think my long contributions history and the logs of my administrator actions are convincing evidence to back up this promise. I believe restoring the sysop flag to my account will best enable me to help. If my mop and bucket were restored, before I took any decisions I would naturally ensure I was conversant with changes in policies and procedures over the four months since I left.

Will a bureaucrat please reinstate me? I understand it's at your discretion.

Thanks for your time. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Background notes
Here are Rdsmith4's kind regrets on his desysopping me at my request.

Here is why I departed; I found the comments egregiously insulting; the most objectionable comments were, what's more, made after I had, without question, reversed the deletion following DRV. I was disgusted.

My reasons for asking to be desysopped were twofold: firstly I really didn't expect to return and it is well known that if you want to stand by a difficult decision you should announce it as publicly as possible to make it harder to go back; secondly, I work in an IT sector where security is important, and it is therefore my habit to automatically regard dormant privileged logins as a security risk. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been  Done (I love that template), let me know if you need anything else. Andre (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can invoke SNOW, not just bureaucrats. That's sort of the point. Andre (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay I just closed it. New England ^{(C) (H)} 06:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another user reopened it, but it will likely be snowballed again (to avoid COI i won't do it again). New England ^{(C) (H)} 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alison is right in some respects: four five opposes is usually considered too early. —Kurykh 06:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoy the bloodbath. If I did not then I would not have self-nominated.

When a 'crat has a moment would you judge if there is consensus for a prospective editor joining

Has BAG gotten so formal that you need a Bureaucrat to close a request that is 70% oppose? That seems silly. Dragons flight 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you could have closed it yourself. Nonetheless, I did so. Andre (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We had previously closed these ourselves, and this was a no-brainer as far as I was concerned, but in prior !votes (e.g.

ST47's) it was suggested to leave this to 'crats. Thank you for your help though, — xaosflux ^Talk

03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It was this ridiculous beuracracy that got the BAG taken to mfd in the first place... Viridae^Talk 06:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps another MFD is in order? Sean William @ 06:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Viridae^Talk 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is happening at

WT:BAG regarding a new process now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot)

01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Saw that, which is why I held off the MfD. Would rather it sorted itself out rather than being forced to. Viridae^Talk 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81 isn't showing up on tangobot's RFA report? New England ^{(C) (H)} 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to do with being finished some time ago maybe...? Viridae^Talk 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant

Wikipedia:Request_for_adminship/TomStar81_2. He was renommed a few days, but I didn't notice it until a few hours ago (its live but not on tangobot's RFA report). I am not planning on participating it, just curious. New England ^{(C) (H)}

06:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering too, and asked about it here a few days ago. Interestingly, it's on it now. ElinorD (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This administrator has requested for his administrative bits to be removed. The whole discussion thread is available here. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, bureaucrats can't change the access level of another user with the exception, of course, of the makesysop function; only stewards can do that. -- S ^up? 11:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I already asked on meta. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to know for sure how bureaucrats determine consensus, so this post is purely for my edification. :) In situations where an oppose reason is generally considered ridiculous by a large number of people, what weight do crats give to it? Does it depend a lot on whether there is a well reasoned rebuttal in response to it on that particular RfA? Or is it enough if there is a general sentiment in the community against such an oppose, as expressed in other fora such as

Different 'crats have different opinions and ways to determine consensus. It is best to ask them individually on their respective talk pages. Cbrown1023 talk 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Questions that have bearing on policy or decisions should be asked right here, or better at

WT:RFA so everyone can see the colloquy, including other bureaucrats. If your question is of any importance and could be interpreted as getting a "private opinion" from individual bureaucrats, the question should be moved out of user space to a more appropriate forum. -- Cecropia

Ok, I did say it was purely for my edification :). But I believe it is of some interest to the community too. I am hoping that each bureaucrat will give their take on the issue, here. Although, I do not see how there can be "different ways" to determine consensus. - TwoOars 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I know your question is asked in good faith but it is not useful for the RfA process to in effect be polling individual bureaucrats to see their "takes" on consensus. We have two warring camps on "votes" vs. "discussion" here and some attitudes are pretty one-sided. Bureaucrats must use their judgment within broad guidelines that evolved over four years. When the guidelines have been seriously bent, we have had major upset and massive verbiage. Looking to see where individual 'crats stand is an invitation to "bureaucrat shopping," which we really don't need. Obviously 'crats are going to have some differences based on personality, experience and perspective, but all try to keep consistency in their actions. If you want to know what the thinking is, read back into the archives at

WT:RFA and see how different contentious nominations have been handled. -- Cecropia

16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:GRFA may also be worth a read. I think it sums it up pretty well. S ^up?

16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

S, actually, that section does not really explain anything. :) - TwoOars 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, but it makes a pretty good case for why it doesn't explain anything. ;) I believe Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, "You [can] only see what you know." (sadly, that one does lose something in translation). S ^up? 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, while I understand what you are saying about the contentiousness of the issue, especially in view of the "warring camps", it appears to me like the actions of a bureaucrat are the least transparent in all of the processes on Wikipedia, perhaps necessarily so. But while explanations for individual bureaucratic actions are often counterproductive, I thought a broad explanation of where the bureaucrats stand would be of help. The main point of my post was what I think, a fair question: "Does it depend a lot on whether there is a well reasoned rebuttal in response to it on that particular RfA?" And I did come here after reading about a few contentious RfAs. But no matter; if you think this is disruptive, I'll leave it at this. - TwoOars 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to determine; I don't blame you at all for asking, but I feel I always try to keep on eye on issues that might be picked up on by others to use as wedges for their RfA POVs. It isn't hard to envision someone saying: "Bureaucrat A ruled thus and so, but Bureaucrats B and C would probably have ruled differently based on their answer to a question," and so on. Just say that in each case where there may be controversy bureaucrats need to have a good working knowledge of the current status of community sentiment and the way the bureaucrats as a whole are handling matters. If they have doubt, they should either consult other bureaucrats or else leave the issue to another 'crat who feels more confident in dealing with that particular issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecropia (talk • contribs)

I've responded to this issue more fully here. -- Cecropia 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, we've modified the template system for BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved, now unflagged bots will be {{BRFA|Cherybot||Approved|15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)}}, and once a bot is flagged, it can be changed to {{subst:BRFAA|Cherybot||Flagged|15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)}}. Note that the 'completed' template is BRFAA and we're substing to avoid the transclusion limit, but it isn't a big deal, as bag people can change them. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please speedily promote. -- Y not? 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. We can't properly evaluate him as a contributor, because he hasn't been a very active contributor; normally someone with 103 edits would be speedily rejected. He needs the tools as the legal counsel, but the process is meaningless. And we already made the obvious joke, so that's done. :-)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No. If he's decided to put himself through the process for adminship, he's to go through the whole process. If he wanted a quick and speedy promotion, he could have asked the board, and Jimbo could have done it, since he's a steward. --Deskana (banana) 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this should either stand or be removed by the candidate. If this stands and does not reach consensus, no bureaucrat should set the bit. Remember Danny's RfA. If the editor must have these rights, then the organization should direct it. -- Cecropia 15:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be better for this to be done under instructions for the Foundation rather than through RfA. I'm not sure Danny's RfA is a good comparator though - that RfA was expressly because he had resigned his adminship when he left his Office role, he no longer held any official position at the time. WjBscribe 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is like Danny in that it has the potential to disrupt confidence in the process if it fails to reach consensus but the editor is promoted anyway. The RfA does not meet almost anyones criteria for a usual RfA. The question of giving him the bit or not should not be on the community or the bureaucrats if he needs the bit for Foundation work. -- Cecropia 16:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, then don't promote him, but please speedy close the thing anyway. The discussion is serving no purpose as Mike Godwin has no Wikipedia record to discuss. Danny had a real record as and editor, Mike Godwin simply doesn't. He's being evaluated on things outside that, and that's a terrible precedent to set. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference. Think of it this way, if he is admined automatically to perform his duties as legal counsel, that is one thing. But if the community decides to trust him as an admin then he can have the discretion in non-legal matters that admins are given. I don't think an admin that was admined solely for the purpose of performing duties of a legal counsel should use their tools in non-legal matters. But if that admin has passed RfA, then go for it.

(1 == 2)

15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From reading the discussion, I see most of the supporters supporting so he can perform his duties as legal counsel. So interpreting this as the community deciding to trust him as an admin in non-legal matters would be incorrect; I don't see very many people saying that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to set a precedent of speedy promoting. I have expressed my opinion of this on the RfA. -- Cecropia 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if he consented to go through the RfA process, either the RfA should be removed/withdrawn by Godwin, a board member, or Jimbo, or the request should be allowed to run its course. I do think that the opposes are quite silly, however, as they seem to be opposing the process rather than the individual. Andre (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked both Jimbo and Florence to comment on the RfA. --Deskana (banana) 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Until, if Godwin is promoted through an RfA he will be an admin, if he is promoted by the foundation, he will have the sysop bit to do his duties as legal council. For example, if the RfA passes he would be able to close AfDs, since he has been judged capable as an admin. As a foundation appointed sysop he would be restricted (in theory) to foundation matters. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But the people supporting him for admin aren't supporting him to be able to close AfDs, they're supporting him because he needs the tools to do foundation matters, just read their comments. If you judge this that way, the supports are being made under false pretenses. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are, though I understand the logic behind the supports. RfA is supposed to be Requests for Adminship, not just requests for sysop powers. I think it would be detrimental to set a precedent that foundation appointees are automatically capable of being administrators, as this would essentially do. Prodego ^talk 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I supported because he's trustworthy - that is the purpose of RfA's, correct? If he is a foundation employee, he should meet the main criteria for adminship of most people. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a perfectly good reason to support to me. I just don't like supports that are made because he 'needs' adminship to do his duties, all he 'needs' is to be a sysop, and there is subtle distinction there. Prodego ^talk 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming the closing crat will take less weight to both the "He doesn't need a RfA" opposes, and the "He needs adminship/sysop bit to do his job" supports. If not, i'd recommend so, because they are both invalid RfA reasons. Opposing for having a RfA is unusual, because those same people would probably be complaining if jimbo sysoped him and then he did admin tasks. For the supports, if he got fired, then he would have to loose adminship as it was only for his job - this way he keeps it if he looses his job. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I made him sysop. Anthere 23:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Anthere, that seems a much more sensible way to do things. WjBscribe 23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, though his response to me on his talk page may indicate he would have preferred otherwise. Prodego ^talk 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also, Anthere. That was the common sense closing. -- Cecropia 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, all. I just want to add that, although you shouldn't count it as adding to my record for RfA purposes, I was editing Wikipedia quite frequently before I created a login -- I've been a pro-anonymity activist for years, and it seemed appropriate to me to demonstrate that an anonymous editor could contribute responsibly. And as a matter of principle, I was editing without signing in more often than not even after I created a login. As we say on the WELL, "just a data point."

MikeGodwin

04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been creating accounts at

 Done. --Deskana (banana) 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, problem solved.

(Talk)

00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for the 'crats that there's socking at Elonka's RfA; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2#Sockpuppetry for details. Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not actually true - see my subsequent posts at

WP:AN for more details. There was one meatpuppet vote, which has been struck out - the rest of the vote has been unaffected. Rebecca

11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note there's no disagreement between myself and Rebecca on this point. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we "strike out" comments at RfA? Aren't bureaucrats recommended to determine consensus and disregard comments by meatpuppets etc when doing so? And since when is RfA a "vote"?

saran

(formerly Salaskаn) 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was stricken as a result of this investigation, and RfA's not a vote. Andre (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca just said: "There was one meatpuppet vote, which has been struck out - the rest of the vote has been unaffected."

saran

(formerly Salaskаn) 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca misspoke. Andrevan indented those votes [15] and then unindented them [16].--Chaser - T 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I needed to ask here or if you have a scoreboard someplace you would have seen, but my bot got approved [17] and needs its flag. — Coren ^(talk) 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved on my watchlist, so no need to ask here. It's been done, though. Andre (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Thanks. — Coren ^(talk) 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested my sysop bit removed back in May, as part of a self-imposed wikibreak. I'm back now, so have I get my bit back please? (Its already been done on Commons).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back! --Deskana (banana) 15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just closed this RfA in accordance with

At a glance, looks fine to me. Andre (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I just wanted to make sure. As I said, I've never closed an RfA until now. Acalamari 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it's not being

Seems like a good idea. I know a few admins deliberately prefer not to be on that list though - usually to avoid "random traffic" of users looking for help. Is it possible that your Bot could have an opt-out list for those that really don't want to have their usernames at

WP:LA? WjBscribe

23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible - so far, only one admin has asked not to be included but I'm handling this user as a special case in the code (not through a general opt-out list). If this becomes more common, I'll implement a user (admin) controllable opt-out mechanism. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A subpage in the bot's userspace, that's fully protected, containing an optout list? That'd be perfect, as it'd be admin only by virtue of the protection. --Deskana (banana) 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A slightly unusual situation has come up here. An anonymous user requested the creation of a Wikipedia user account at

Since the account was created about 2 weeks ago, we need to take a security precaution, something like what we do with usurpation requests. In this case, we need to 1) leave a note on the user's talk page; 2) most importantly: even though the account has no e-mail active on the website currently, since the original requester had to provide an e-mail address in order to request the creation of the account, we need to have a trustworthy user send a message to that address, informing whoever it is that there is a request to usurp the account (note: we need to spell out what "usurp your account" means, since it may not be obvious to an uninformed newbie). 3) After that is done, we need to wait a reasonable amount of time, about a month. After all that, if there is no response from the e-mail address or a proper logged-in post on the account's talk page (or elsewhere) from the account itself, then we can proceed. This is necessary because it is not uncommon for people to create an account and then leave it dormant for sometime before starting editing — we even have admins who left their accounts inactive for some time after creating it, before they started contributing regularly. Since there is no absolutely safe method of verifying the account's owner's identity, and we can't be certain that s/he is in fact locked out of the account, we have no choice but to proceed with caution. Also worth noting that, although the IP coincidence is a positive evidence on the new requester's favor, it is not absolutely sufficent for us to wave a safe waiting period: siblings, other relatives or friends can and do try to prank someone by posting from their own computer. There is just no way we can do this immediately. Redux 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the answer might be something like that; I don't see how there can be a way to be completely safe here unless the requester gets access to their original email account back. Looks like we'll have to go through usurpation, then. --ais523 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and even this process itself won't guarantee us any kind of absolute certainty, as it is with usurpation. But by taking the longer road, we at least ensure people that we've done everything possible to give them a fair chance in the process.
In the interest of reducing Bureaucracy, since I'm already aware of the process, you can keep it on WP:ACC and process this there if it will be more practical. Once it concludes, and if it is the case to actually go through with the usurpation, just contact me directly and I'll take care of it.
Although, technically, this would be a sui generis "self-usurpation". In cases where the individual controls both accounts and can demonstrate that by logging in to both and posting, we carry out the request immediately; but if that's not the case, we go through the "regular usurpation procedure". And in this one, we cannot usurp an account that has been created less than 6 months ago. So if you decide to post this on WP:USURP make sure to tell the whole story, or it will end up being denied on grounds of "account creation being too recent". Redux 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on

Cyde has requested[22] that the bot account be given sysop access so that the script no longer needs to use his personal account for the purpose of deleting categories. Given the community support and long track record of sysop access by this bot (using Cyde's username rather than its own), I would like to raise the possibility of a bureaucrat granting sysop rights to Cydebot's username. This would be in line with the wishes of the community, which has already granted the script access to Cyde's sysop account to perform its tasks. — Carl (

Just as a note, Makebot cannot be run on an account that has +sysop added. In order to do it, you have to be a bot first, then add the sysop flag, not the other way around...or maybe it is the other way around. I can't remember, but there is an order to it. ^

^{[omg plz]}

 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it can't be added to an account that is already a sysop (see here). Majorly (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I confirm this request. --Cyde Weys 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Should there be an RfA or not? To gauge all the community's consensus on this, as not every user who comments in making admin-related matters will see this discussion, and obviously be surprised to see an account with "Bot" at the end doing admin actions. And that the difference, I'm afraid. They don't mind it running on Cyde's account because they don't look into it closely enough, but when they clearly see a bot in the deletion log, that makes a difference. Maxim_(talk) 17:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already passed RFA. The community trusts me with admin tools. What is at issue here is an issue of a bot task, not an issue of trusting someone for adminship. We've already tried to do admin bots through RFAs and it simply didn't work, leaving everyone on all sides dissatisfied. It was like trying to shoehorn a square peg into a round hole. It simply didn't make sense. For instance, look at the default RFA questions. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you say doing it through RfA doesn't work - ProtectionBot was on its way towards passing if not for the change at the developer level that was seen to supercede it and a lot of the objections were about not revealing the source code, not the fact it was an admin bot. WjBscribe 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See also bugzilla:10597. --ais523 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is that to do with this? Majorly (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it (from memory, so I may be wrong), the bot would be used to edit protected pages; the bug I linked would make it possible to give the bot just the 'editprotected' right rather than the 'sysop' right, which might make it more acceptable to admin-bot-opposing users (in particular, it would make it impossible for the bot to unblock itself, which I think is highly unlikely to happen anyway, but which might help it through an RfA; see ProtectionBot's RfA, for instance). --ais523 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot empties and deletes categores after the go through

CBM · talk

) 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New user permission groups are unlikely to be implemented on Wikipedia. The general answer is "If you trust that user/bot to perform this sysop action, they should be trusted enough to do that sysop action also." ~Kylu (u|t) 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest at least bringing this to the attention of users at

WT:RFA before going forward. I agree with Maxim that there's a distinction to be made, and RFAs for bots have failed before. Dekimasuよ!

17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between those failed RFAs and this situation. This bot already has sysop access, and has for a year, using Cyde's username. Giving the bot username sysop rights would aid in accounting the bot's edits, but would not grant the bot powers it does not already have. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't for bureaucrats to decide. This is a community decision. I'll happily push the button (or not, as the case may be) to implement the community's decision. --Deskana (apples) 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To distill the argument above, it is that community consensus already exists. If it is the bureaucrats' position that the RFA process itself is necessary before an admin bot is ever created, then I think that position is counter-productive.

Chick Bowen

21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I was saying. The first time I read this, it seems like some attempt to get us to do something that there wasn't community support for. I understand what you're trying to say more clearly now. --Deskana (apples) 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without comment on whether an RfA is necessary or not, I'm not sure why people are so sure one would be unsuccessful. ProtectionBot's RfA was on the way towards passing - it was withdrawn by Dragons Flight because of a change in the MediaWiki software that achieved much of what the Bot was intended to do. And much of the opposition to ProtectionBot was due to its source code not being released, rather than an objection to admin bots per se. ProtectionBot was supported by 185 users - only 43 opposed, and of those half did so due to the source code issue. It think it would be a good idea to have an express "yes" from the community to a Bot with admin tools at RfA, which would open the door to more such requests. So yes, maybe CydeBot is a special case that does not need RfA, but I think it might benefit the community if an RfA did occur. WjBscribe 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with WJB scribe, and would expand slightly to this: I'm not sure that community sentiment is against a sysop-bot. I am sure, however, that unless we run one through and have it granted sysop permission, there will always be those who feel like they were cheated and the first (legitimate) admin bot came in through the back door. It seems to me that CydeBot may be the perfect test case: we know that the task is uncontroversial, we know (because Cyde has told us) that the code is clean and commented, and we know that Cyde is a trusted member of the community. This may be one where all the stars lean us right - if I were tryin to get admin bots routinely sanctioned, this might be a perfect test case. If it fails, well, then we know how the community feels, don't we? If even a "dream" case fails, we know the community does not approve. - Philippe | Talk 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to chip in as a member of BAG, and a botop: NEW adminbots should go through RfA, however this is a special case. No matter what the outcome of this RfA, it gets sysop powers. If it passes, it gets to be accountable and obvious it's a bot, if not, it's hard to find the bot's deletions. An RfA at this point is un-necessary, the community already supports it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not bring up the issue here to avoid an RFA, and I would have high hopes if an RFA were carried out for the bot. The key difference between this bot and other bots that have been put up at RFA is that this bot already is a sysop bot, and a legitimate one in the only important sense: it has been running publicly, in a high-visibility manner, for a year with wide approval. When it was discussed six months ago, consensus was that it could continue running with sysop rights. In short, the goal of this request is not to determine whether the bot should run with sysop rights, since it already does; the request is only for the bot to run with sysop rights under its own username.

There is a fledgling discussion in the ANI thread about a process for new sysop bots to be approved, but I think that is a different issue than the one at hand.

As a minor correction to TheFearow, I believe Cydebot flags all of its deletions as "Robot" made. That is why several users have noticed that it runs on Cyde's account. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My biggest issue with Cydebot being a sysop is that it has been repeatedly claimed that when errors were made, it was someone else's fault (for a bad listing on

WP:CFD/W or whatnot) admins should be completely accountable for verifying their administrative actions manually. This would not preclude the possibility of an admin feeding a list of actions that they manually reviewed to a program to execute, but to do so without is problematic. — xaosflux ^Talk

01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware it marks it as Robot, but even so, it becomes annoying identifying bot deletions among Cyde's possibly large deletion log. Also, I would assume that a condition of the bot being given the sysop bit is that Cyde agrees to be responsible for all actions undertaken from the bot, no matter who's fault it was. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that whether the bot is moved to another account or not, Cyde isn't personally examining each of these deletions, nor could he reasonably be expected to do so; that's the whole point of having a bot execute the function. It's a waste of time to have every CFD examined twice over, given that most of these are uncontroversial. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the community know you are running a bot under your admin account so saying that this is the status quo isn't interesting for me. We cannot give admin access to your bot without the say so of the community. Currently people expect admin functions to be done by a human who checks them etc. Deletion bots are controversial. This has to go through rfa. Secretlondon 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been obvious for a very long time, as Cydebot's edit summaries have never tried to hide that it was a bot doing the deletions. I think sysopping Cydebot would be a good thing, especially because it would make it even clearer which part of Cyde's deletions are his own and which are just usual CFD work. The main disadvantage of the current situation is that Cyde's logs and contribution history are filled with automated edits. I don't think the bloodbath of RFA is the right way to approve adminbots for current admins: all that the failed bot RFAs have done is show bot operators that it is much easier to ask for pardon than for permission. Sysop bots have been unapproved since the days of Curps, and have always run without significant opposition. I think it is time to acknowledge this reality by allowing admin bot accounts for admins with a sufficient bot background. Kusma (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

His bot already has admin access (else how is it deleting articles); the question is whether it should run on his account or on a separate account. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with WjBscribe's sentiments, but one thing really sways me on this issue: the number of RfA's by board members who already held the bit, and the hostility that ensued partly because of that - people thought they were wasting the community's time discussing a foregone conclusion. This, I fear, will happen again if Cydebot's made to go through and RfA. I say this even though I opposed, for example, Danny's RfA. Whether the bot gets its own account, it will keep on doing what it's doing. In other words, whether the RfA fails, it will continue to do sysop chores. Thus an RfA will be a waste of time. Xiner (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sysop Permissions

I've decided not to leave just yet, can I please have +sysop back? Thanks. ^

^{[omg plz]}

 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Andre (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, you don't *have* to use those little icons everywhere :D

Voice-of-All

02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 Unlikely that he'll stop. --Deskana (talky) 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please remove the bot flag from NavouBot (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Do you want to use the account for manual edits? That would be a problem, because it still has "bot" in the name, so you would have to rename it.

talk

) 23:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• • It doesn't seem that the bot is used anymore, and the purpose we don't usually allow "bot" in a username because it could be misleading to newer users, and it could be used for vandalism. Navou has access to the bot account, so that isn't a problem nither. Thanks
    ^Sports!
    01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand. I'll not be making any manual edits, or edits outside the bots approval. I do not plan on using the bot for a while so I thought the removal of the flag until I use it again would be appropriate. If the flag must stay, thats ok also. Navou ^banter 02:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject members sinking an RfA

It appears that members of

WP:Israel are joining together to derail the RfA for Number57. The evidence contained in the RfA includes canvassing on at least two occasions for project members to go and vote in the RfA. They apparently don't like it that Number57 has taken some actions to remove POV from Israel-related articles. I'm not sure what can be done or if something should be done, just bringing it to your attention. Cla68

11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be very clear evidence of canvassing - such as here and here. In the past RfAs have been extended to try and minimise the effect of canvassing but as this one still has 3 days to go I dunno if that's necessary. Canvassing often creates it own backlash though so the balance may be redressed naturally.

As a new suggestion, how about a neutral message asking for more input from uninvolved people? Maybe a message at

WP:AN along the line of "This RfA has been canvassed, in order to dilute the effect of canvassing, uninvolved parties are encouraged to join in neutrally assessing the merits of this candidate"? WjBscribe

12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats the usual rememedy for such blatant canvasing? Its disruptive at the least. Viridae^Talk 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't necessarily the place to discuss this, but I think this episode shows that the process for electing admins needs to be changed. I like the idea that a bot selects a random group of editors and notifies them to vote in the RfA. Anyone can comment on the RfA but only those editors randomly selected can actually vote. This would probably eliminate the instances of cliques sabotaging RfAs for POV reasons as is occurring here. Cla68 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've warned Dland that if he makes any further attempts to disrupt the RfA he will be blocked - it's completely unacceptable what he did. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very serious. I'm not sure what we can do though. Automatically disenfranchise all project members from voting on that RFA? Raul654 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a little late now as it finishes tomorrow, but I agree we should come to some compromise with this as what happened is completely out of order. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it seems like the project members have just about soley sunk the RfA - would it be wrong to suggest that they are discounted? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's at 72%, just in the lower range of decision making of a crat, and around the same range users like Krimpet and Ryulong was promoted. I supported to try to cancel out one of those votes, it's a shame when politics play a factor in RFA.

^Sports!

02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Not sure if this is the place to come, but it seems someone has messed up the totals in my RfA, as the four comments at the bottom have been counted as neutrals. Whilst one of those who have commented at the bottom did say that he was changing his vote to neutral, one of the others is made by someone who has voted above. I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to fix it (as whilst one is definitely not a vote and one is a neutral, the other two are ambiguous), but I would appreciate it if someone else could have a look. Thanks, Number 57 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think those comments are meant to be separate from the neutral section so I've edited the page to make that clear. WjBscribe 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

...and just as WjB was doing that, I was moving the commentary to above the Support section, since that's where that type of commentary goes. I think it would do well to be moved to the talk page as well, but that's just me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. Number 57 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The nomination's time ran out. Given the issues we have above with the possible organized attempt to sink this nomination by the wikiproject, I put the nomination on hold. (It's at 74%) I didn't feel comfortable making a call on this until I'd heard from more bureaucrats. Raul654 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly uncontroversial promote to me. Unless people feel a strong need to have a discussion over it or someone has a solid reason it shouldn't be promoted I'll likely do so soon. Or someone else can. :) - Taxman ^Talk 02:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As an (uncanvassed) oppose !voter, I would just like to say that I think it is only right that Number 57 be promoted. Even if you include the canvassed participants (which you shouldn't) there is precedent for promotion at this percentage.

Talk

05:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to promote and would have done so myself. Secretlondon 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work everyone, the system works! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would have promoted the candidate in this situation too. --Deskana (talky) 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Thread at Jimbo's talk page. CO₂ 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing we can do. Contact a developer to see if you can get the edits reassigned. --Deskana (talky) 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - there have been cases where it took a long while for edits to be reallocated fully to the new name. But usually its resolved after 10/12 hours. Worrying that the some of the contribs are still spliced across 2 accounts. I suggest asking in #wikimedia-tech if someone can assist. WjBscribe 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"The job queue length is currently 2,823,885."; it often gets high during server problems. Reattribution of edits through a rename is done via the job queue, so one possiblity is that the servers simply haven't got round to it yet. (At least one developer disagrees with this method of doing it, by the way.) --ais523 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you thought Jimbo could help you... Asking here first would be much more useful - we even have a note on this edit allocation problem on

WP:CHU. Secretlondon

18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2

I noticed that someone who is not a bureaucrat closed Betacommand's RfA [23] [24] [25] [26] I agree 100% that there was no consensus to promote, know that that user know's he/she is not a bureaucrat or sysop, and that it was certainly done in good faith. I just think that the bureaucrats should be aware. The only time I've seen regular users close an RfA is when

U.S.A. (talk contribs

) 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of non-crats closing requests in such circumstances can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 99#Caldorwards4's RfA. I expressed some reservations about the practice as I don't see the harm in unsuccessful requests waiting for a crat to close them and I think its a courtesy where a user has not withdrawn to allow a crat to determine the outcome. That said the crats who commented on that discussion made it clear that they had no problem with users closing as unsuccessful RfAs where support was below 50% after 7 days. WjBscribe 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unusual to have an editor do it, but in such clear-cut cases, it's generally accepted (I've even been taken to task for doing it, and I recall at least one 'crat saying that they didn't mind specifically because consensus was under 50%). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's best to leave this to the crats. There's no real need to hurry. In cases that drew a lot of attention ,like Betacommand, people may feel it's more official when a crat comments, even if the answer is (apparently) obvious. Remember, we've seen "obvious" cases before that ended up surprising people. Friday (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Double edit conflict) Thanks everyone. I think everything is OK.--

U.S.A. (talk contribs

) 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted as well) I'm not a fan of that, if for no other reason than it sort of perpetuates the idea that 'crats are magical creatures that are the only ones that can do things (specifically, the only ones that are allowed to do certain things, which is different from folks allowed to do certain things via a technical restriction, such as the distinction between editor and sysop, or sysop and 'crat). If an RfA has out-and-out failed (under 50%), it's pretty clear.
Anything over 50% I would highly recommend no non-crat close, unless they specifically wanted the can of worms opened. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Under 50%=

U.S.A. (talk contribs

) 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, but this is different. The RfA had run its due course (the full seven days), so SNOW isn't even at play here; it's just a failed RfA, with no additional policy/guideline attached. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reasons for non-bureaucrats to close a failing RfA are (1) to spare the candidate from the negative impact of further pile-on opposes, and (2) to spare the community from having to invest time investigating the qualifications of a candidate who has no chance of succeeding at present. Neither of these rationales would seem applicable when the RfA has already run for 7 days. I don't think any harm was done here, but I think the better practice would have been to let a bureaucrat close the RfA as per usual. Newyorkbrad 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Deskana (talky) 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for the concern caused here. I will reconsider all my edits, and probably create a editor review. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 05:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't beat youself up over it. It was obviously (if you know the history) a bit of a hot potato so it was best to avoid it and leave it to one of us. One of our 'jobs' is closing RFAs. Secretlondon 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Secretlondon is absolutely right. No harm was done, and I'm sure you were acting in good faith.--

U.S.A. (talk contribs

) 06:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In extremely clear cases of no consensus (as Betacommand's was), non-crats should be allowed to close RfAs. However, the only issue for me is that the RfA was closed by someone who had participated in the discussion, which should not have been the case. Walton^One 15:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, they shouldn't. You are arguing for allowing the camel's nose into the tent - the rest of the camel isn't far behind. No harm is done by allowing these nominations to wait until a bureaucrat comes along to close them. Raul654 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think non-bureaucrats should close RfAs like that one, but there's no point making a fuss over the fact that Hirohisat did. --Deskana (talky) 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In most cases it's not a big deal, but I really think that to avoid unforeseen issues and pie fights at AN/I (or wherever) bureaucrats should close RFAs (I suppose excepting "snow" closes of RFAs by new users.)

RxS

15:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing for allowing the camel's nose into the tent - what? I don't understand this metaphor. Are all non-bureaucrats now assumed to be untrustworthy and to have poor judgment? All RfA decisions should be made by the community as a whole. If a non-'crat closes an RfA controversially without community consensus, they may be reverted; that's how things work. Bureaucrats are not special, and should not exercise special power. Wikipedia is governed by the community; the job of bureaucrats, like the job of admins, is to implement the will of the community. I am in favour of virtually anything which reduces the arbitrary power of bureaucrats. Walton^One 11:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) See camel's nose. (2) Then try to change policy. Until then, it is bureaucrats - and bureaucrats alone - who close RFAs. Raul654 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I strongly disagree, and I don't like your attitude (the implication of your remarks is that the rest of us are not trustworthy enough). My point of view is grounded in existing policy; bureaucratship is a technical function not a political office, and bureaucrats are supposed to implement the will of the community, through determining consensus. I agree that in highly contentious cases, bureaucrats are trusted to exercise some judgment. However, non-bureaucrat admins, and plenty of trusted non-admin editors, are perfectly capable of determining consensus on a clear-cut case. This is already allowed in cases of

WP:SNOW; I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed on any RfA where there is a majority in opposition (in which it is self-evident that there's no consensus to promote). Walton^One

15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deciding on promotions is a bit of a big deal- otherwise we wouldn't have crats. Anyone can count beans and push a button - from crats, we expect more. Friday (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of to echo Walton here, there are already plenty of instances where non-crats close RfAs (though generally it is only

snow closures; I know I've probably got a couple of dozen of them under my belt at this point). I'll also agree with Walton that I get a strong sense of exclusivity from your post (I'm not saying that you're being an elitist here, since I've never seen any evidence of that from you before, but that's certainly the feel I get from the above post); 'crats aren't any "better" than anyone else, and are strictly a technical position. Yes, they have the trust of the community, but so do most admins, and so do some editors; the only difference is that they haven't gone through a particular process to formalize and quantify that trust.
I understand and entirely agree that non-crats shouldn't be making judgement calls on RfAs that are anywhere near the realm of discretion, simply because yes, that is the definition of a 'crats job, but an RfA that has clearly failed is a different beast altogether. Hehe, I can only imagine the amount of flak that the promotion would have gotten... it would have made Danny's RfA look like a walk in the park. :) EVula // talk // ☯

// 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Except you don't have that trust [27]. 86.137.127.139 11:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW isn't a policy, using it to argue a change in policy is like dancing on sand. The B'crats are tasked with RfA wrangling, both promotion and not-so-promotion. Being dramatically offended by them requesting that they be allowed to do their job doesn't seem to make sense. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See my policy proposal at

WT:RFA. Walton^One

18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And now that that proposal has gone down like a lead balloon, I expect you to drop the matter here. Raul654 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect you to drop the matter here - huh? On whose authority? Bureaucrats do not

WP:OWN this or any other page, despite it being called the "Bureaucrats' noticeboard". And I was under the impression that discussion of policy issues is not only permitted, but encouraged. Walton^One

15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Err yeah. Kinda rude. Secretlondon 15:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't mean to be rude. However, I don't see why I'm "expected" to "drop the matter". Walton^One 15:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a weirdly imperious and patronizing remark. It was also a bit of a non-sequitur since you hadn't actually said anything here in a day - and then you waited two more days to respond to Raul's comment. It's not like you're spamming the page. Haukur 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Walton, I think SL was referring to Raul, not you, I think. *

Aillema

15:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was! Telling people to "drop the matter" like they are your parents or something is bizarre and non-wiki. You are allowed to question, it's even encouraged! Wikipedia is supposed to be pretty non-hierarchical. Secretlondon 15:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that last bit ("non-hierarchical") is at the core of a lot of the disagreement in this thread (I won't speak for others, but I know it was the guiding thought on my posts). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to close RfAs, have an RfB. It's as simple as that - really. 86.137.127.139 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm 99% sure I would fail an RfB (probably with a majority in opposition), partially because of the arbitrary de facto requirement of having served 1 year as an admin (I'm only on my 5th month so far), which is one of the things wrong with the present system. (Even after a year, I personally would probably fail anyway because of having annoyed too many people, but that isn't a problem with the system.) Walton^One 15:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(<-) So what you're saying is, the community doesn't trust you to close RfAs, but you want to do it anyway? 86.137.127.139 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, you don't trust the community to choose the right people to close RfAs. 86.137.127.139 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No big deal at all. Even if someone does make a mistake that is okay. This is a wiki and it can be reverted. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Resysopping of Jeffrey O. Gustafson

By Arbitration Committee decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson, decided on August 21, the administrator privileges of Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) were suspended for 30 days. The 30-day period expires on Thursday, September 20, and Mr. Gustafson's adminship should be restored then. Newyorkbrad 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been done by Deskana. Picaroon (t) 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Percentages

While I of couse realise that RfA isn't a "vote" per se, we sort of go by percentages in pass/fail. Is it still 80%? or has that changed? - jc37 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The figure I've had in my head has been 75%, though after a fair amount of searching, I can't find this (or any other) figure written anywhere. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaining of adminship is nothing but the strength of confidence shown by the community. We interpret that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of administrators were promoted at 80%+, though several had less, and to my knowledge the lowest ever "pass" percentage was 61%. At least, that's the data as shown at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats, which was evidently marked as "historical" earlier this month. --Elonka 17:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to promote the candidate? If true promote else do not. It's that simple, really. Or that complicated depending on the way you look at it. --Deskana (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RfAs are determined by "rough consensus", not consensus. A true consensus requires an almost unanimous verdict, which certainly isn't required on RfA. It's definitely not as simple as you make out. --Tango 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can predict the outcome of the vast majority (> 95%) of RFAs, by expecting a 75% threshold. 76.231.189.193 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there is the duality of "counting" the ubiquitous Support and how much "weight" should lengthy explanations receive. And I also wonder whether we're determining "concensus" of a head count, or a consensus of trust. But then I'm of the belief that even a single oppose showing clearly why the community should not trust the individual with the tools (proof, with citations/references), could be enough to not promote. We trust our Bureaucrats to act for us in this, just as as administrators, we're trusted to discern consensus in various discussions. Hence my question: Since we apparently have this amalgam of voting and concensus, what's the dividing line? - jc37 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat common sense? — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 14:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back over my comments, I think I suggested that we trust in that. But "common sense" may or may not be "common" amongst all bureaucrats, and if "common" should be at least somewhat readily definable? After all, based on that, a bureaucrat could choose to promote someone who had 51% of the "vote" (or even less, based even on the strength of a single "support vote"). But I presume that that is not current convention... So I'm asking what is : ) - jc37 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

51% could happen, if there was major canvassing and other issues. Secretlondon 18:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the conventions are more or less made up along the way, like most of Wikipedia. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving in "controversial circumstances"

Wikipedia talk:Former administrators#Jaranda and similar cases

There is some controversy going on about the practice of marking some listed admins having left under "controversial circumstances" - meaning the tools can only be regained through RfA rather than by simple request. As ArbCom seem to regard this as a matter of bureaucrat discretion, it would be helpful if some bureaucrats could express a view on the matter (and on Jaranda's case in particular- which has resulted in revert warring). Input from others also helpful... WjBscribe 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would not promote Jaranda without an RFA. From what I understand, Drini was about to emergency desysop Jaranda, but I stated that I did not think it would be necessary. Had I not said that at exactly the right time, then nobody would argue that Jaranda could simply ask for the rights back. --Deskana (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• If being here for 4+ years has taught me anything, it's to avoid speculating on hypotheticals. We have enough to argue about without going out our way to add more. Raul654 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well it is nice to have the needed information at hand. Currently deciding if there were controversial circumstances can require researching in a lot of different areas to find out what was going on. I would prefer that there wasn't some sort of marking acting as if it is a black and white situation that there were controversial circumstances or not. Though it would be nice to have links to the relevant conversations and or situations to be able to evaluate them. - Taxman ^Talk 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of not prejudging the matter is well made. I have accordingly removed the tags from all users unless there is an express ArbCom finding that the user left in controversial circumstances, as all other are a matter of discretion rather than a clear-cut "black and white" demarcation. WjBscribe 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppets

Hello Gents/Ladies, I via

WT:RFA came across this rfa, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/williebruciestewie. From the look of it, the nomming editor is probably a sock of User:Williebruciestewie, as he has only 5 or 6 edits, everyone of them in contact with the nominated editor User:Williebruciestewie. Now, I'm a new admin so I don't how to respond here. Somebody help. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much since the request isn't transcluded and since it would survive for about 5 minutes on RfA. Most likely, these are real-life friends and it's probably best to politely point out that the RfA request is doomed to fail. Pascal.Tesson 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

locating bureaucrats/Sysops in other projects

Hello, I'm an admin in malayalam wikipedia (User Page). I would like to find out the admins/bureaucrats in the related wiki projects (wikibooks and wiksource) in an attempt to move it forward. Thanks --Jyothis 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A check of the relevant user rights logs reveals that there are no admins at the Malayalam Wikibooks (in fact, all save one or two accounts are the unused placeholder accounts of editors who are active across projects) and two, Manjithkaini and Sadik Khalid, at the Malayalam Wikisource. If there are particular sysop-related tasks you need to undertake at ml.wikibooks, you might want to seek temporary adminship at meta (to-wit, here). Joe 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, use the Special:Listusers page and then pull down the group menu by the Go button to the desired group you're looking for. You can find, admin, bcrat, checkuser, oversight, etc there. Good luck getting those projects moving. Getting the interface translated may help the project get off the ground, and also network in real life with Malayalam speaking groups. - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot flag

Please set the bot flag on User:MercuryBot. Basically, the approval from User:NavouBot carries. Thanks, Mercury 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In case the reason for this request is not immediately apparent, User:Navou has been renamed to User:Mercury. Instead of having his Bot (which is flagged) renamed, he appears to have opted to create a new account - User:MercuryBot. Presumably he intends to use the new Bot to perform the tasks that User:NavouBot was approved and flagged to do. WjBscribe 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes... and it appears I have duplicated the request at

WP:CHU/U. Apoligies. Mercury

17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

I closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2. Navou ^banter 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Ronnotel 01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to vote and comment on that RfA. I don't check the RfA forum everyday which is why they're supposed to run for as long as they do. I've seen other RfAs suddenly go in the opposite direction in the last day or two of the running period, and I don't think it hurts anything in the community to let it continue even if it doesn't turn around. Instead, it gives the appearance of cutting off controversial discussion, which I think is unfortunate. Cla68 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was not generating consensus for a promotion was extremely unlikely to do so. It was very divisive. This was the right thing to do out of respect for Kelly, and the community. Navou ^banter 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kelly states that she wanted the RfA to run its full course [28]. Was she asked her opinion on it before it was closed? If it was really out of respect for her as one of the considerations, then I would assume that you would have asked her first before closing it. Cla68 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Off wiki links notwithstanding, I believe this was the correct thing to do. My above statement stands. Navou ^banter 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So you didn't consult with Kelly before closing "out of respect" for her. Got it. Cla68 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you would do it, Navou, but in cases like this one, it is really necessary to leave the closing to the Bureaucrats. I do see that it seemed to be heading towards a snowball, but Kelly is a very high-profile member of the cummunity, and RfAs such as this one sometimes move in unusal manners. Let me be clear that the problem is not that Kelly asked that the RfA run its full course, but rather that it was not closed by a Bureaucrat, which are the ones empowered to make a judgement of "no consensus and early close" in cases where there is a need to exercise binding judgement on the outcome of the RfA. Whether or not the candidate wants it to run a full course is not an essential issue on our judgment of whether or not to close early. RfA is not a peer review tool, but a consensus-building situation aimed specifically at determining whether or not there is consensus to make a user a sysop. If the Bureaucrat can determine this earlier than the 7-day period for a compelling reason, then the RfA gets closed early. But this is done by the 'crats only. Now we are left with the issue of the validity of this early close. I will not simply "declare" it "void" and restart the RfA automatically, since that would be a merely bureaucratic (no pun intended) decision that doesn't necessarily have community support. But if there is sufficient protest against this (and I realize that "sufficient" is a rather subjective term), I would feel compelled to restart this RfA. If it snowballs definitively, then we will have a Bureaucrat make the call and close early on a "no consensus possible, WP:SNOW" reasoning. Redux 04:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Now is a restart necessary? Surely a re-opening would do the trick if it is such a big deal. A restart would just mean that everyone has to place their opinions again - waste of community's time. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A reopening would probably be better than a restart. Cla68 05:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support reopening. The editor has expressed the wish that the discussion should run its full course and is not a newbie who might genuinely misunderstand the community's requirements for admins. Many long-term editors don't check RfA every day and the early participants could conceivably be biased. Espresso Addict 07:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think by "restart" he meant reopening the closed RFA. Bureaucrat intervention isn't required to start a new one.--Chaser - T 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Restarting/reopening seems extremely unlikely to change the conclusion (it's 27 support to 78 oppose after all), but it will almost certainly smack of giving special favors to a long-time contributor. Whether or not the close was proper, it was done, and I doubt that trying to reverse it now will be good for either Kelly or the community. 76.240.228.205 07:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"smack of giving special favors to a long-time contributor"

Despite what Wikipedia's critics seem to believe, treating every editor equally, bar none, is not a necessary practice to produce an encyclopedia. Yes, we quickly SNOW RFAs of editors with 250 edits who have never required admin intervention, let alone admin tools. Ensuring adequate discussion for a serious candidate who makes intelligent (if often harsh) criticisms of Wikipedia is a favor only to the encyclopedia. In this particular case, the chances of a favorable consensus emerging are almost zero, and perhaps that's a good thing. But in general, "favoring" long-time contributors as such ensures that we get experienced people as administrators, and that's definitely a good thing.--Chaser - T 07:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to reopen this, it clearly is not going to pass and is just going to get silly if it reopens. Personally, I can fully understand the close by Navou, and I fail to see how this particular RfA is any different from any other

snow close. Ryan Postlethwaite

11:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• (general comment) Who closes what discussions aside, I don't see any difference in crats, admins, and editors. But thats another policy discussion all together. / It is easy to tell from the discussion that this was not getting consensus and was very unlikely to do so. Is it really the best thing for the project to continue this type of discussion on an editor? Do you really want this? Navou ^banter 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just a heads-up: Miltopia reverted (or half-reverted, he left half the closing template still there) Navou's RfA close and supported Kelly. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am in support for a reversion, a re-opening is definitely not good for the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a bash at fully reverting it becuase we couldn't leave it as Miltopia did. It's ready to be re-listed now if someone wants to do the honours. I personally don't see the point... Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've relisted it as we can be having people commenting on an open RfA that isn't transcluded. got to shoot off now, please try and get a consensus to close this one ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to do 1RR, so I won't revert. I support a revert, delist. I'm very disappointed. But as Ryan, I to have to "shoot off". Please try and find consensus and get this one off the books. Navou ^banter 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

People, please. This is really a bad precedent. We can't have people closing RfAs and reopening them at will. So far, the RfA has been closed, then people got reverted because they posted after the close, then that got re-reverted; then the RfA was reopened, then someone thought it was really still closed... you see where I'm getting at? This is one of the reasons why we need to leave this to the Bcrats.
Now, since it's been reopened and people continued to participate, I'm declaring the RfA open, until a Bureaucrat closes it. If the RfA runs its full course, and I am not saying that it will, I will consider (meaning: depending on an assessment of the state of affairs at the time) an extension to offset the time during which it was closed when it shouldn't have been.
Now, because I've made this decision, I believe it would be more appropriate that another Bureaucrat make the call to close early or, if running the full 7 days, that another Bureaucrat does the consensus assessment and determines the outcome. Redux 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, Wikipedia opts to continue a pointless, showy conflict that will change nothing. Not like we've ever done that before. 76.240.228.205 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't forget the Crats can promote against consensus on any whim a friend of their own - I for one have not forgotten the Carnildo charade.
  Giano
  13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the crats would be insane enough to promote Kelly Martin against the overwhelming opposition of the community. If they did, I would no longer be willing to participate in Wikipedia. Walton^One 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You never know. This is the Mother of All "X Process is Not a Vote"... -

Mailer Diablo

16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious the only intent of the RFA is to get people worked up... although I believe the nominators didn't realize this. At any rate, a b'crat should really step up and close it before it causes any more of the desired wheel-spinning. --W.marsh 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree. Continuing this serves debate no purpose other than providing fodder for Kelly's blog (in which we are all apparently committing acts of seething idiocy at this very moment). Can someone please re-close this now? Ronnotel 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no way that she is possibly going to become an admin; it's just degenerating into a slanging match, which is wasting the community's time and doing no one much good. Walton^One 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea: let's just ignore the damn thing and let it run its full seven days. People who want to make an ass out of themselves will do so whenever and wherever they want. Yes, I think the

WP:SNOW closure was a legitimate move (at worst, it was a very well-meaning edit that missed the mark on our ghost policy for such closures), but such closures should be pretty much undebatable (by really anyone other than the candidate), which this one obviously was not (to put it politely).
It's just a website, people; take it off your watchlist and hit Special:Random a few times. :) EVula // talk // ☯

// 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The community is remarkably bad at ignoring stuff like this. I don't see the benefit of keeping it open... do you? --W.marsh 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no benefit to keeping it open. It's wasting bandwidth and the community's time and attention, and making

WP:RFA unnecessarily long. To be honest, I don't see why we should respect her wish to keep it open; having one's RfA run its full course is not an automatic right. Walton^One

15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That particular RfA is a remarkable

WP:SNOW is a derivative), said action shouldn't have occurred. EVula // talk // ☯

// 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If she wishes to gauge community sentiment for her suitability as an admin, then let her. Honestly, those asking for an early close are just wanting to do it because it's not what she wants. Go find a new game, being mean to Kelly Martin got old a long time ago. ^

^{[omg plz]}

 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong... --W.marsh 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"If she wishes to gauge community sentiment for her suitability as an admin, then let her." is an argument to never close an RFA early until the submitter asks for it. Do we do that? In my experience, we close the hopeless ones. And, with respect, there are sufficient examples of community sentiment already stated. I have no intention of doing this to oppose her, I would be thrilled if she would again be the person who won adminship back when. But when I checked a few days ago, for the last year, she had made under 100 main space edits. That's not recommended behaviour for someone who wants to be an administrator. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I once had an editor whose RfA I had snow-closed complain and ask for it to be re-opened. His complaints were fair, so I reopened it... just to watch it burst into flames even moreso than before. What's important, though, is that the complaints were listened to and the closure wasn't done as if by a heartless bot. I do think that, to a certain extent, the candidate should have some control over whether or not the RfA continues. Though I think the initial re-opening of the RfA was fair, I also think the re-closing is fair as well: the situation was re-evaluated and found to be even worse than before (and was done so by a 'crat, eliminating a potential point of contention for the closure). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If your goal is to prevent wheel spinning, this discussion is achieving the opposite effect. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I Just asked the b'crats to close it... I didn't ask people to make various replies like yours to just prolong things. --W.marsh 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Close it. Good Christ, the nominee has already revealed Wikipedia's propensity for self-evisceration—a year ago. Why it needed reverting I don't know. Marskell 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier: a candidate's desire to see the RfA run a full course is not a determining factor in a Bcrat's decision on whether or not to close early. The only way a candidate can effectively influence that is if s/he withdraws, forcing an early close and an automatic "fail" result. Other than that, the decision falls to the closing Bureaucrat. What we require is a clear enough outcome that outlines itself early, not the wishes of the nominee or the nominator(s).
The result appears to be plain enough here. Since I've recused myself because of my role in the re-opening of the RfA — although I didn't actually reopen it myself (see my comments in the section above this one) —, we need to wait for another Bcrat to come around and address it. Redux 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the RFA. At over 100 and 30 support, it is unlikely to garner an additional ~400 supporters to push through successfully. Continuing on any further is pointless. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, three cheers for that. Feel free to poke me next time I say anything bad about bureaucrat discretion. :-) Walton^One 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp. 86.138.190.45 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this should not be prematurely closed.

Phil Sandifer

20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumb 136.152.131.213 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

well it is closed again now, cos I have just closed it!

Giano

20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fully-protected the page to prevent similar edits. It's done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe that, however once a bcrat closes it, it is final unless a group of bcrats decides it needs to be kept open. Re-opening it by a non bcrat is clearly edit/wheel warring and is not helpful. I believe closing it now is clearly in the best interests of the project, and it shouldn't be very hard to see that. As Redux said, the candidate's desires are not paramount over the better functioning of the project. - Taxman ^Talk 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

...and I remember very clearly Taxman what a group of Crats can do!

Giano

21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright that's enough. We're not only beating the dead horse, we're veritably massacring a whole load of horses. The RFA is closed now, and that's fine. Why don't we just drop it and move along? We've got nothing to gain here from debating it endlessly. --Deskana (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the

Giano

21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting, what, that Kelly be permanantly banned from requesting adminship?

Phil Sandifer

22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFA, this was an extension of her fool's license. Like a pilot's license a fool's license must be extended every so often, or it may become invalid. 70.16.220.156 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Related

What would the community attitude be toward a policy making closure of RFAs by non-crats blockable? Milto LOL pia 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be no. Prodego ^talk 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be anyway ;-) Surely people may see the value of preventing this nonsense rather than going through the above drama again. The comments made above by the 'crats show a need for avoiding non-crat closure; perhaps it's time it's enforced. `Milto LOL pia 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not really consistent with practice that "

any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing". But besides that, blocking for improper closures of the rare RFA of an experienced editor that gets majority opposition in the first 24 hours is an extreme step considering how many green editors apply in their first 500 edits, get eight opposes and leave the project in disgust. Better to nip those in the bud, even if non-crats close them.--Chaser - T

23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's not consistent with existing policy then it can simply be changed. However, you do raise a good point regarding that other thing. Milto LOL pia 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I closed

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/dustihowe today because the candidate had basically no edits at all. It's not the first time I've snowballed an RFA either. It's helpful if Muggles like me respect certain limits, i.e. not to snowball the RFA of a high-profile user when it might cause more trouble than it's worth. (That said, I think Navou had the right idea, and I might have done likewise if I were monitoring the RFA at that time.) However, it would have been unnecessary to continue the new user's RFA, which was doomed to failure. As a user without any advanced access level, I strongly believe, and have believed for many months, that people like me should be allowed to do what we are technically able to do: take care of the easy cases in order to let the admins and bureaucrats focus on the hard cases. The specific details of balancing efficiency with equity are open to debate, but to go to the other extreme and block (or censure) any non-admin who closes an RFA is clearly a mistake. Shalom (Hello • Peace

) 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to pick on you specifically, but if a non-crat is going to close an RfA, please follow the instructions on doing so. I definitely don't see a problem with a non-crat closing that RfA (and I'd be surprised if anyone did have an actual problem with it), but if you're going to engage in editing like that, please follow through with all of the necessary steps (though it doesn't mention it, I'm of the mind that snowballed RfAs should always have the edit stats added, otherwise there's no way to verify the validity of the close well after the fact). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wholly unnecessary. Non-bureaucrats reverting bureaucrat closures, on the other hand...

cool stuff

) 03:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a crat close. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was the second time - Nichalp's close was also reverted... WjBscribe 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punitive measures, they're preventative. A block for snowballing RfAs is punitive; if someone is snowballing RfAs just because they want to, that's disruptive in and of itself, and is perfectly blockable outside of the fact that the disruption stems from closing RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has been known to ban for snowballing discussions. Sean William @ 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean, there is some context to go with that. He was banned for that in conjunction with warring. I did not revert. Just to set it right. Navou ^banter 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole idea is ridiculous. Non-crat closures of RfAs in clear-cut cases of WP:SNOW are acceptable. If a non-crat closure is controversial, then it can be reverted, and re-closed by a bureaucrat when the community feels it's appropriate. Unless someone is acting in clear bad faith (which was not the case here), there's no reason to block. Walton^One 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Nichalp's close was unacceptable. I can't believe that actually happened. --Deskbanana 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Nichalp was right to close when he did, and Phil Sandifer was wrong to revert the close. However, I certainly don't advocate blocking him or anyone else. Let's not give Kelly Martin and her case all this much attention (I suspect it's what she wants); I think it's best if we all just move on. Walton^One 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've requested Phil not to disrupt the RFA process in the future. [29] =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for disruption

I want to address this. Its no secret my involvement here, so thats a disclosure. However, the blocking for closing in contrary to how things are done, and how we are set up. We already have a system in place, its called a block for disruption, to prevent disruption. I can see it if an editor closes an RFA, gets talked to about it... and continues to do bad closes, then you have to block to prevent disruption. But to make closing an RFA a blockable offense, no. Navou ^banter 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there's a clear consensus on this point. Walton^One 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, who got blocked?

^{Denny Crane.}

19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Navou was just responding to Miltopia's proposal above. Newyorkbrad 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone reverted a b'crats close, was told not to (and the RfA was reclosed), but did it again, I would then consider a block. Up until the stage that they revert after being told not to by a b'crat, the

assumption of good faith should be used (unless we're dealing with an obvious single-purpose troll account, etc.). Daniel

00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's fair. Then again, I think if a 'crat closes an RfA and someone reverts it, the re-closed RfA should be locked to ensure that it doesn't happen again, to drive home the point of "this is closed, move along" (and wouldn't entirely be outside our protection policy). Protecting the page is even easier than a block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, the type of person who would do something similar to what I mentioned in my 00:54 comment is also the type to revert-war on a protected page </generalisation> Daniel 04:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the page would limit the revert wars to admins. IMO, an admin who revert wars over a bcrat closing and ignores the protection on the page probably shouldn't be an admin. Chaz ^Beckett 12:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we could run RfAs like this one and then have a 'crat snowball it to weed out the admin population! ;)
In all seriousness though, though the potential for a mini-edit war is still there, like Chaz pointed out, it'd be limited to the admins only, who would (hopefully) not make such edits. If they did, we could address those separately. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)