Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 30

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.

Could the bureaucrats (or someone) come up with a way to make it more obvious that an RFA has been closed/removed, and what the outcome was? As it stands now, it is often not easily apparent to someone watching an RFA that it has been completed. Thinking of other examples,

I agree. Could a template bre created? --Terry 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What about something like this:

--Terry 20:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

After a candidate's adminship has ended, the transcluded VFA page is removed from here. I don't see any harm in using it, but I feel it should be reworded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with rewording. I like the concept, but would tweak the wording - "resolved" sounds like there was a problem or disagreement which has been fixed. How about saying "the discussion of this request for adminship has been completed"? Also, "for or against" doesn't capture the occasional neutral comment, so I would suggest "relating to" there. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Or how about simply "This nomination has ended and has been archived. Please do not edit this page." ?Acetic'^Acid 01:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So how would we go about making this some type of policy? and would it be possible to protect the page once it is "archieved"?Terry ^{T | @ | C}

No need to protect the page, really. They never have been, and old VfD's aren't either. Any tampering with a page after the closing date would be obvious in the edit history. As for policy, it's already policy that RfA's end at a set time, and no comments should be added after that time. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here is the example that I think I am thinking of.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWattsDotCom was put up but there was so much ill will a bureaucrat User:Rdsmith4 removed it from the main page of RfA. From what I read the whole RfA should have been considered closed. However, you will see that people are still voting there, likely because the nominee is posting the link to it. Of course, still being a noob here I did not catch on that it had been removed until I noticed its absense from the main page. Thus why I think something that stands out needs to be placed at the top of closed RfA's. Especially the one's that close earlier then the date posted. Hope I got my thought across... Terry ^{T | @ | C}

Ah, now I see your point - I thought you meant "protect" in the sense of an admin locking the page from editing, but you mean just something to signal potential posters that the debate is over, a la closed AfD debates. Yes, that makes perfect sense, and I would wholeheartedly endorse such a marker. I still don't think it requires any policy change, as it were, to start posting a template to bookend such articles that would warn awat posts. It would basically just restate the existing rule out loud. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

How about the wording now? Terry ^{T | @ | C} 11:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Better, but the word deleted seems odd, perhaps reverted would be better. It would also help if the result of the RFA be displayed like we have in VFD. eg. {{tl|RfA closed|P}}or {{tl|RfA closed|NP}} =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tssk, tssk, Nichalp, there's no VfD anymore! ;-) But your point is quite right! -- BD2412 ^talk 13:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

!!! Old habits die hard :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Terry, could you also include a result field in the template? I'd like to start using it right away. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reopened this nomination at Gordon's request. The policy of premature removal is intended to protect candidates from undue stress; however, he stated on my talk page that he doesn't mind the "ill will", and I believe this should be his choice. Please let the nomination run its course. — Dan | Talk 15:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole debacle is damaging to the reputation of the Wikipedia project. A stop should be put to this now. The application os obviously going to fail, and no good can come of further debate on the subject. The candidate's views are now immaterial to the outcome, and there is no good reason to proceed with this. Giano | talk 17:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Frankly, this is ridiculous. "Speedy removal" does not simply spare the blushes and stress of the nominee, but also avoids ill will in the community as a whole (and stop everyone wasting time and electrons). He may not care about ill will; I certainly do. I respect his strong opinions and committment, but it is abundantly clear that a significant amount of water will have to pass under the bridge before he becomes an admin. The only reason to keep the nomination would be to clear the air: well, some thing are better left unsaid. I have

been bold and deleted it again. -- ALoan (Talk)

17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The other bureaucrat involved and I have voted you down 2-1. I have restored the nomination. "The only reason to keep the nomination would be to clear the air" Let it run its course to clear the air -otherwise RfA's will continue to be toxic from editors forming insiders cliques instead of following policy. "He may not care about ill will; I certainly do." I do too, but ill will is going to occur if you don't follow the rules and let the nomination proceed; As Dan has said, only I can declare "ill will," and I do not. Besides, if another user claims to feels ill will from this RfA, then they can log onto another page. No one is forcing them to long onto this RfA. What harm can come from just stepping back and letting it run its course?--GordonWatts 13:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, the vote is doomed, and continuation of this is pointless. You would need in excess of 100 support votes to gain adminship, why are you still persisting? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, this isnt a popularity contest, an unpopularity contest, an election, a democracy or a request for comment; it is a method for bureaucrats to build a consensus, for better or for worse you are not going to get a positive one so there is no point in letting this run its course. Martin 13:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Bluemoose. Also, to answer your question, Nichalp, not only is there a chance (however slim) that I might make Adminship (example: Clinton beat Bush, Sr., even though Clinton was "way behind"), additionally, check this out: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk" --Thomas Paine Do you see my point? The policy isn't being followed in all cases, and this is wrong -even if some people want to do things "they way they've been done" with good intentions -still wrong, and this is part of the reason many RfA's and other parts of Wikipedia are cesspools of "ill will," angst, and frustration.--GordonWatts 10:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have believed for some time that early removal of candidacies accomplishes little. Let it run its course and then it will be gone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with Uninvited Company on this one. While I think both arguements have merit, I agree with Aloan and Giano that removing guarenteed-to-fail nominations early spares the nominated person the embarassment of tremendously lopsided vote. Bear in mind that there has been an unfortunate trend in the requestes for adminship for (1) recrimination - "I have an axe to grind, so I'll get him back by opposing his request for adminship"-ism and (2) politiking (as GraceNote [aka Dr. Zen] has been doing lately with respect to inclusionsim vs deletionsim lately). Also, I've noticed this page has a tendancy to "avalanche" - once three or four people oppose a nomination, subsequent oppose votes start to accululate very quickly. So given these conditions, I see plenty of value in ending certain RFAs early. →Raul654 18:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Raul, as so often is the case, you mischaracterise the views of those who you don't like, or who don't agree with you. I have not been "politiking" with respect to inclusionism vs deletionism. I've said, clearly and openly, that I don't oppose a request for administrator status on the basis of an applicant's perceived "deletionism". I don't think that should be a basis for opposition. It's a difference in philosophy. I've shown willingness to discuss my views reasonably with "deletionists" -- particularly the more thoughtful among them. Just because you feel it is best to label those who don't share your views "trolls" and ignore what they have to say doesn't mean others feel the same (although, yes, you'll surely be able to dig up a diff where I labelled someone I disagreed with a "troll" and where I haven't been reasonable -- we all have our moments). I have opposed those who have a record of using speedy tags incorrectly or over-hastily because I feel it would be detrimental to the project to allow them to delete articles without any discussion. Is that politicking? I didn't oppose Nandesuka just because he's a deletionist. -- Grace Note

While I might not have captured all the careful viewpoint nuances that you claim to have, I think you have already summarized them quite clearly: "Oppose. New content creators, however misguided, should be welcomed. I don't want to empower editors who do not have that view... You're not just a deletionist, by the way. You are a rather unpleasant, pisstaking deletionist -- just the sort of thing that makes the AfD pages a bit of a cesspit." (emphasis added). So, you claim here that you don't oppose someone based on their deletionism, and from that earlier commetn it's quite evident that you did. So, which is it - were you lying then or are you lying now? →Raul654 07:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Raul. I have also commented on the b'crats noticeboard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific case, I support removing nominations early where a success is unfeasible. I'd say a reasonable rule of thumb would be 20 votes total, with no more supports than opposes. Pakaran 19:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with early removal only if the nominee consents to the nomination being removed. If he/she does not, then let it run its course.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

My other reason was simply that I felt that GordonWatts would be less likely to renominate himself repeatedly (cf. Terri Schiavo on FAC) if he became convinced that he really wasn't trusted by the community. I will respect the other bureaucrats' opinions, though I would rather have seen some time for discussion before the nomination was removed for a second time. — Dan | Talk 20:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am currently under nomination for adminship and one oppose vote has come. Should I explain my position by writing something as noted below the Oppose vote or somewhere else? OR, Just let the nomination run its course:
“Would you please come closer to me and explain the exact reasons for opposing my nomination for adminship? Do you really feel that wikipedia should have materials, which do not conform to the guidelines? I invite you for a chit-chat, and I shall certainly endeavor to remove your doubts. Thanks.”

Suggestions are requested. In case, I came to the wrong place, sorry pals. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't please everyone, just let it run its course. Martin 15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The user is well-known enough has given a legitimate reason to oppose, so I'd let this one go. From the looks of it you'll pass no problem. Live to fight another day, ma man. gkhan 15:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It does spoil a cent-per-cent vote I agree, but at 43:1, and a day and a half to go, I don't think its absolutely necessary to respond to each oppose vote. Some users oppose to bait a candidate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nevertheless, I clarified my position at the appropriate place. --Bhadani 14:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

We never finalised previous discussion on inactive admins, and I found this from the commons website;

== Inactive admins ==

As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive administrators may have their access removed. According to this policy, any sysop inactive on Commons for a full year will be desysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and fewer than 50 edits in the last year. Inactive administrators may re-apply through the regular way.

Shall we conduct a straw poll to see if we can form a consensus on having this as policy here as well? Note: i know we all hate polls, but we have had more than one discussion on this, and this is a quick and painless way to finally do something about it.

I'll start a poll on the admins notice board soon unless anyone can think of somewhere better to have it. Martin 14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please not on the AN. That page is usually half an MB in size, and a poll will push it even further. A wikipedia namespace would be better. See also

WP:CS =Nichalp «Talk»=

14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, not AN. Wikipedia talk:Administrators, or a subpage of this page, would probably be more appropriate. [[Sam Korn]] 15:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point I have made it at

Wikipedia:Desysopsing inactive admins. See you all there. Martin

15:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Meh, this is a solution in search of a problem. Where can I vote for the desysoping of active admins who are a pain in the butt? ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple preventative measure, which is policy on commons. Martin 17:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

btw, in life you'll learn that "pain in the butts" are people who resist change for no reason other than it is change. Martin 17:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Martin, I was just making a joke, unrelated to the merits of the above proposed poll. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Martin 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin User:Taxman, before he went on break, said (and I agree) that this was the right place to bring my concerns: "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places. That way it's not you trying to argue your way into adminship, but the issue is still handled." [1]

Note: It looks like the Bureaucrat who had initially reposted the RfA and said to let it run its "one week" course was outvoted, and other Admins have locked both the RfA page ("vote closed" reasoning) and its associated "talk" page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts.

It appears that my attempt to "talk about it" on the talk page was not even permitted: A clear attempt to stifle my voice. (They gave a reason, but I don't buy it; My attempts to voice my concerns over my failed RfA have moved to this page here, and I'm keeping a copy on my user page and my computer's hard drive -for archival and backup purposes.)

Why do they have such a talk page, when it is clear that they are afraid to talk about it in a public forum? They lock even the talk page! Wow.--GordonWatts 20:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditionally, an action or allegation by a person (or group of people) can be shown to be false by contradicting one of three gold standards.

• Contradicts:
  • Known Laws / Rules
  • Itself
  • Gut Feeling

(Actual actions by voting editors contradicts: Known Laws / Rules)

Admission: The RfA can legitimately vote me down

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies," so even if I am totally right, I don't think that Jimbo or anyone with power should promote me to Admin by fiat. If the users who voted on my violated policy, however, they may be subject to sanctions.

Was Wikipedia Policy on RfA followed in my RfA?

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, which is current Wikipedia policy, says that "adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins." In addition, Wikipedia:Administrators states that "Current (de facto) Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community..."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales...In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should."

That is the policy, and I am a user in good standing:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWattsDotCom

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWatts

Neither my old user name, not my current one were ever blocked (except that my "old" name was permanently "blocked" when I switched user names, but that was not for disciplinary reasons, just to switch names).

Conclusion: The policy is quite clear: I should be accorded Admin status, since I am an editor in good standing, who has made close to 3,000 edits on over 239 pages, not as many as some, but quite a few! Kate's tool to count my edits ~~ I've been here since my first edit, 2005-05-02 16:20:23, and while I have been criticized for focusing too much on the

If the editors don't like policy, they should change it; If they don't change it, they should follow it. The other criticisms against me are addressed in the sections below, and this affects other users, not just me, so this is a "general problem" with Wikipedia: Not following the Policy.

As a side note, I think that standards should be raised for editors: I think we should be forced to post our real names, work addresses, and phone numbers, with email address, like editors at online newspapers, because this would increase accountability and improve edit quality. However, this is not current policy, so holding me to artificial standards accomplishes nothing, and these political games and insider clique clubs are a major reason why many people leave Wikipedia in disgust and frustration.--GordonWatts 20:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

For the N+1th time: There is no hard policy stating RFA voters have to vote a certain way. We can have any standards we want. ~~ N (t/c) 20:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is, however, you did not read it closely. Let me highlight the relevant section: Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. I meet both definitions: I am part of the red-colored "anyone" above, and I obviously was a trusted member of the community, since I was allowed to upload images (a sensitive power, given Copyrvio laws) -and edit in very difficult pages, all without and disciplinary record. Why do we have these rules and this policy if people can vote any way they wish, pray tell? To simply have an "insider's club?--GordonWatts 20:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no "insider's club" or "clique". If there was, I wouldn't have got in, certainly not on my first (serious) try. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that editors always think like that, but the actual fact is that they have made up their own version of the rules and policy that differs from what the current policy really is; The fact that you just happened to meet their standards does not mean that they used the right standards; It simply means that you waited to build up enough edits and that your edit profile here was something they liked. Their "changing standards" may be better, but if they feel that way, then they should seek to change the policy before they do it that way; This way, editors who apply for RfA would not feel cheated or get a big surprise when the rules aren't followed.--GordonWatts 10:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I dislike engaging in such discussions, I would like to point out what it actually says:

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Admins have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. That said, adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins.

There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits.

Notice that it says should and are often (conditional tenses) all over the place and the community grants (meaning its us, not a policy that decides - otherwise we could create a script that automatically promotes admins). It also (and probably more relevantly) The are no official standards. That disproves your agrument that by opposing you we are breaking some policy: there is no policy. Please stop flooding the place with arguments and complaints at everyone (for that loses you trust and actually can be percieved as vandalism). I, however, do wish you good luck in your future as an editor and hope you continue to contribute to articles. --Celestianpower ^hab 13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(Contradicts: Gut Feeling: Need more admins.)

"We have ~23,500,000 edits, ~2,300,000 pages, ~440,000 users and ~580 admins. That means each admin is effectively responsible for 40,500 edits, 4,000 pages and 750 users. That sounds like 580 full time jobs to me~ --Alterego 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" (quote from Jimbo's talk page) [2] I don't know where he obtained his figures here, but I will (initially) take them at face value.

Conclusion: The desire to highly restrict Adminship to an "inside clique" simply goes against "gut feeling": It would be numerical suicide of the highest proportions and unnecessarily overwork the current Admins.--GordonWatts 15:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

(Contradicts: Gut Feeling)

"Editcountitis is particularly bad. There was a case recently where someone had been around for two years, made lots of good (and lengthy) contributions, never caused any trouble, had helped people out, but was blindly rejected because he had only made 1,000 edits or so...In short, adminship should still be no big deal. We should work at loosing the RfAd culture up. Pcb21| Pete 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" (From Jimbo's talk page) [3] I have no reason to disbelieve Pete, here.

More Data:

• User:GordonWatts, (apparently prematurely failed) RfA candidate [4]
  • Total edits 2801
  • Distinct pages edited 238
  • Edits/page (avg) 11.77
  • First edit 2005-05-02 16:20:23 Kate's Tool for GordonWatts
• User:Phroziac, successful RfA candidate [5]
  • Total edits 1605
  • Distinct pages edited 965
  • Edits/page (avg) 1.66
  • First edit 2005-06-02 01:29:59 Kate's Tool for Phroziac
• User:Robchurch, "failed" RfA candidate, but it was close, and many (like Pete, quoted above) say that someone of his caliber would make a good Admin: (33/9/4) his vote his failed nomination
  • Total edits 2183
  • Distinct pages edited 1211
  • Edits/page (avg) 1.80
  • First edit 2005-07-01 22:43:42 Kate's Tool for Robchurch

Conclusion: I've only listed three (3) candidates, to keep things simple, because each one is representative of a larger sub-group. GordonWatts was criticised harshly for his rebuttals in his failed RfA, but his initial problems centered around his "stats," so we look to the other two groups for clarity. Robchurch was in the same boat as user that Pete described in the quote off of Jimbo's page: A good editor who failed but did not complain about it. GordonWatts also had other complaints about the way that he handled his recent FA-nomination, but those critiques are minor and shall be discussed in the "Double Standard" section here. (Criticisms of Watts' constant rebuttal to each and every answer also were a factor in his failed RfA, but they did not come initially, because the RfA's voters could not have anticipated this in advance, and thus could not vote on this.) Now, assuming all of the foregoing was correct, we can conclude one thing: All three of these candidates, Robchurch, Watts, and the anonymous editor described by Pete, were experienced at the outset, but "did not have the numbers," either in total edit count or "diversity." This does go against the "no big deal" policy for every editor in good standing, but moreover, it goes against gut feeling: What used to be an open club has become a closed clique of insiders, who arbitrarily raise the bar, when arbitrarily denied users would probably be good admins: Although the writer of this analysis has his personal differences with

• Special note on differences: In looking at the above, it is apparent that GordonWatts started editing exactly one month before Phroziac and has almost twice as many edits. Phroziac, on the other hand, has edited 1211 "Distinct pages," many more than GordonWatts, which is more "diversity," by far. However, GordonWatts has edited 238 "distinct pages," and with the many months and many edits of experience, 238 is not a small number. It surprised Mr. Watts when he saw that number, and since he was criticized for being too focused on the
  Terri Schiavo articles, it is apparent that these would only comprise at most 10-15 pages; the other 223 or so pages (238-15=223) would be "non-Schiavo-related" and thus still very diverse (even if not as "diverse" as others like Phroziac). Before Watts began objecting (protesting the RfA process as applied to his RfA), his "edit numbers" were the main criticism, which also caused Robchurch to fail, but the "numbers" that Watts and Church have are still very strong, and neither one was a "newbie" when they were failed. This is additional evidence of "gut feeling" speaking.--GordonWatts
  17:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Aquillion 21:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?" Well, Aquillion, it is because I am not defending myself in this post (where I'd use first person), but, instead, defending a standard. (I am writing an article, and good writers, of which I hope I am one, speak objective third person, not "subjective' first person, to avoid being myopic or giving the impression of bias.--GordonWatts 12:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

(Contradicts: Itself)

Are RfA candidates criticized for things that Admins do all the time? - Two case examples

The "SlimVirgin" Edit War

(Note: The writer of this post thinks that SlimVirgin was not at fault in this example, but many others harshly criticised and reverted her; FuelWagon has alleged that three (3) editors quit on count of her, but that may be coincidence that Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and ghost all quit at that time for other reasons.)

• 22:21, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc, the last stable version before the attacks. Please no more reverts until proposed changes are talked out on Talk.)
• 21:41, 11 July 2005 Ann Heneghan m (Reverting to SlimVirgin - can't see what was wrong with that edit)
• 20:09, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon ((revert to last version by Stanselmdoc)
• 19:53, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by Duckecho to last version by SlimVirgin
• 19:47, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
• 19:17, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin
• 19:17, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
• 19:10, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin
• 19:08, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
• SlimVirgin had put "in use" tag on and did major copyedit

As a side note, while I think SlimVirgin was not at fault in the edit war above, my points were two-fold: She was never scrutinized like an RfA applicant would have been; Secondly: Here, in the page protect logs, SlimVirgin made these spicy comments about me, thinking I would never see them:

• 10:28, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (I'm hoping Gordon has gone to bed)
• 09:46, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (temporary protection against GordonWatts)

Hmm...--GordonWatts 20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Then, after those questionable remarks, Admins at the talk page of my RfA would not let me post my comments to it, making excuses that my comments were not relevant to my RfA, but general: True, they were "general" in nature, but they were also specific concerns I had about my own RfA, and they should have not prevented me from posting them, but now they are here: Questionable actions abound re my RfA.--GordonWatts 20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent Main_Page Edit War between at least seven Admins & Bureaucrats

• 05:36, 4 September 2005 Pharos (revert; see Template:Wikipedialang displayed at the bottom of the page)
• 05:44, 23 August 2005 Rdsmith4 (revert - the space is much too large, plus it's not balanced with the other column)
• 11:43, 20 August 2005 Violetriga m (rv. - redirect bug fixed)
• 17:02, 14 August 2005 Raul654 (rv - as I already said on the talk page, this section is awful)
• 16:46, 14 August 2005 Talrias (insert become an editor section - thoughts welcome)
• 16:18, 13 August 2005 Raul654 (rv - see talk)
• 20:12, 8 August 2005 Oven Fresh m (Reverted edits by Oven Fresh to last version by ABCD)
• 20:10, 8 August 2005 Oven Fresh m (revert: html is being used becuase of the "Misc. --> Auto-number headings" option in preferences)
• 16:32, 6 August 2005 ABCD (use clean wiki syntax for headers, not buggy HTML)

Comments: Can someone say "Revert War?"

• Wikipedia_talk:Request_for_comment/SlimVirgin
  plus a lot of heat.
• The front page revert war shown above involved at least seven (7) Admins and Bureaucrats and almost certainly one or two of them were in the wrong, since all competing "versions" could not necessarily be right; Further, even if they were all reasonable, why couldn't that talk it out on the talk page first?
• The admins and bureaucrats involved may not have done anything other than be human, but are they worthy of Adminship and Bureaucratship?
• Here, we have User:Allen3 (Revision as of 16:00, 13 September 2005)] telling me in my recent RfA application that my four reverts were out of order when I had the authority or permission to do them in three cases, and the fourth, if I were wrong, was a misunderstanding, based on the fact that Nichalp said that I had the right to have a FA-candidate.
• In this diff, Andrevan, an Admin, posts a question to the page after it was locked, and I could not answer it there: He criticized me for getting "sysop" and "admin" mixed up; They mean the same thing. It is true that I made a human error, but he does not criticize Admins and Bureaucrats for much more serious and questionable actions.
• Claim: I was the subject of a double standard: These users contradicted themselves when in my RfA application, they nit picked at me for what were possibly minor violations (nothing serious and no revert war on my part, unless I was actually justified). Even if I were not qualified to be an admin based on this behavior, why are other admins, and even bureaucrats (supposedly held to even higher standards) allowed to do this without so much as a peep from these RfA voters? Are RfA candidates, such as Mr. Watts, being held to higher standards than actual Admins and Bureaucrats?

One Possible Answer: "But [Adminship] is not a job. They are just powers. Originally, they were conceived as powers withheld, which you would be granted if you kept your nose reasonably clean. Now people are opposed because they don't vote on deletions, because they have made enemies, because they aren't "trusted" (but not "trusted" not to delete pages, "trusted" in a sense defined by whoever is using that as their reason), because you once bickered with somebody over something stupid, because someone once called you a troll and his mates piled on. Gordon should be an admin if it's no big deal. He wouldn't do any harm with it. He just blathers and tries to push his POV. If that was a crime, we'd be locking up half the editorship. Grace Note 02:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)" (Taken from Jimbo's talk page; Emphasis added for clarity.) [7]

Conclusion: If Admins & Bureaucrats were treated the same as RfA candidates, we'd be de-Adminning about half of them.

Conversely: If RfA candidates were treated like Admins and Bureaucrats demand that they be treated, then most of them would not have to face such nit-picking over relatively minor details.

This RfA process affects me, but it also affect many other editors, and misapplication of the rules is a factor in the current trend of users quitting and becoming frustrated with Wikipedia. Another example of this is my recent nomination of

Here, I got nearly half of the votes, about 6-11 or 7-10... I may have mis-counted somewhere, but it was not a lopsided vote.

Then, a number of editors and I fixed all of the problems that the FA-editor, Mark, had identified, and most of those that others had found. So, here, in this diff, the last one, we see my nomination, but it was soundly defeated. The only thing that had gotten worse in the article was a vert short-lived edit war; the defeat was because many people thought the article had to "wait several months" becasue "that's the way we did things," and since I didn't know these "unwritten rules," that was proof that I didn't know enough to nominate a good article. My answer?

• If the rules were "unwritten," then they should have been ignored anyway, in light of the "real" policy: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status."
  Template:Fac-contested

META CONCLUSION: So, the violations of Wikipedia Policy affect a great number of users in a wide number of projects. These abuses must stop so users don't become frustrated and quit as they are doing.

I just wish to enquire, is there any reason why the comments part (when an RfA gets long) shouldn't be a separate section? On R. Fiend's RfA, he changed it so that it was and Ceropia changed it back. Just wish for clarification, thank you. --Celestianpower ^hab 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not separate sections so as to not spam the TOC. IIRC, I've seen they changed to separate sections when the RfA gets really long. --cesarb 22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

So is it okay in R. Fiend's case as he asked for it? --Celestianpower ^hab 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not needed; it's not that long. You should ask a bureaucrat, since they are usually the ones to "manage" the RfA page (oh, wait, isn't Cecropia a bureaucrat?) --cesarb 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, the page is titled "Requests of Adminship". It differs from "Vote for adminship". If your vote is failing miserably bureaucrats have every right to remove it from the page. The page is created to ascertain if the candidate is suitable for further responsibilities. If the voting trends dictate a downward trend, continuation of the whole excercise is pointless. You don't gain from it, others don't gain from it either. Maybe you don't want face the ignominy of having the nom called of early, but its better than getting more oppose votes and wasting everybody's time and energy.

• You may want the nomination to continue as you hope some of the oppose votes might get changed to support. If that's the case you may contact all those who have voted here and ask them to withdraw/support instead. If they refuse, well no point pursuing it any further.
• Current standards mentioned on the page say that 80% support votes are needed. If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship.
• Under the first section, '...The community grants administrator status to trusted users.... Instead of you proving if you are a trusted user, please find out why the community think otherwise of you.
• If adminship is no big deal then why are you still persisting? Get 1000 edits in the main namespace, get three articles featured. Participate in the Village pump, AFD, IFD; hunt and find spelling errors, copyvios etc. Prove your worth as a potential admin not by your word, but by your actions. Public opinion is notoriously myopic, and if you are civil and volunteer for the above tasks, I see no reason why you can't wait and succeed in two months time.
• If you continue to post such large replies I shall assure you that its going to be speedily ignored, and archived faster.
• Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What say ye? .

(Quoting you) "If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship." I see your point about getting concensus on policy issues; While I personally think a very slim 4-3 concensus would be OK, I don't think others would agree, and will accept the 80% figure for now as the standard. (The 4-3 concensus is good enough for a small edit on an article, but maybe not OK for Adminship. That is debatable, but not certain.)

(Quoting current policy on the project page here) "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits." I would add to that, so it reads:

• Proposed Policy: "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation, one thousand edits, and most of their edits spread out, not primarily concentrated in one article or category."

(This would change policy to reflect the concerns that many have raised about me concentrating most of my edits in the

Vote Count (1/1/5/0)

1. Support Current Version

1. Not that I believe voting is appropriate in this case, but this talk page confuses me too much to figure out where to put my comment. I have no problems with the idea of an editor becoming admin despite editing mostly a single article or category -- it may often be inappropriate, but shouldn't be considered a major issue. Especially since I'm pretty sure GordonWatts is the only instance where it's ever been brought up. Tuf-Kat 18:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   I voted with my critics to be a good guy --- plus it might make them be quite for once.--GordonWatts 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   Thx 4 voting; Actually, I agree with you, but I voted against my conscience so I would vote "with" my many critics, and that was a higher "conscience" reason. Additionally, I just now made an edit change to that page reflecting the concensus (with which I voted, even though I actually agree with you here 100%.)--GordonWatts 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon decided that Szyslak ought to have voted here and added a vote for him. Gordon, it's enough that you try to bully people into voting on your poll, voting FOR them really is too bad. I have removed it (it's pasted under its own heading below), and adjusted the vote count. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Support Proposed Version

1. I support the proposed version because it tells the truth of what standards are for those voting.--GordonWatts 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Voting Is Evil

1. Don't vote on everything. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. As above. --Carnildo 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Ditto. The voters supporting/opposing an admin can decide for themselves. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
4. This is requests for adminship, not votes for adminship.
   khaosworks (talk • contribs
   ) 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
5. This is useless. Gordon, reflect on what I have to say and try again after two months or so. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
6. I agree with Nichalp. Gordon, stop complaining about the current RfA process, and apply again after a couple of months. If you can leave this controversy behind you, I think you'll make a good admin. — JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Agree. Special cases may apply. Leave it to the editors voting on the RfA. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

4. Voting is good

1. In principle.  Grue  12:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

5. Neutral

Comments

1. I will not get mad if my version does not get concensus, but I will be peeved if the rules, whatever they end up being, are not followed: We must strive to keep our word.--GordonWatts 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Consensus is not achieved by voting. 4-3 is not consensus, neither is 8-2. Consensus is when everyone concerned in a debate can agree sufficiently with a particular outcome so as to be able to live with it. Consensus is not about one or more parties getting their way, it is about avoiding win-lose outcomes. Given the level of strongly-held oppose votes in your particular RfA, there was no earthly way that consensus to promote could ever have been reached. If I may be so bold as to offer some belated, retrospective advice, the sensible course of action for you to adopt would have been a quite withdrawal from debating the matter here and elsewhere around the 'pedia. I say this as someone with no particular axe to grind, having been away from here for most of this debate and having no interest whatsoever in the Terri Schiavo article; I just hate to see people banging their heads against brick walls and distracting so much admin time and energy that could otherwise be put to more fruitful use. Now I realise that by responding to you I am inviting a prolonged, multi-coloured reply. I will read anything you say, but I may as well warn you know that my position on consensus is not likely to change, being based on fairly unshakeable principles. I should also add that I intend no particular criticism of you because you fail to understand what consensus means; many more experienced Wikipedians than you evince the same blind spot. Filiocht | Talk 12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   I believe you mean well, and you are right that this would have been better for me in the long run, but I was thinking of the next person who would come to an RfA and get judged based on dry numbers or picked at over trivial matters that had recently occurred, in which editors were looking myopically at small things and missing the bigger picture. This is not to say I am the most qualified candidate, but I would not have applied if I thought I was unqualified. That being said, it may be moot: I may be too busy to edit on a regular basis (and, hence, Admin as well). However, I do understand concensus -it is that ideal; So... would you care to vote on my request for feedback here? Vote any way you like, but be forewarned, I hope to seek enforcement for all equally of whatever the result is -and that means retroactive -that is, if the policy remains as is, you may hear me inform editors that the policy was not followed by those voting because they in fact did criticize me (in part) for concentrating to heavily on one area of the 'pedia here. However, if they were right, then change policy by all means.--GordonWatts 13:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   As I understand it, there is no policy to be changed. People are nominated or nominate themselves. Others come by and vote one way or another. A result emerges and the nomination passes or fails. People are free to support or oppose as they see fit, for whatever reasons take their fancy. The great glory of the process is its lack of structure. Anyone whose nomination fails is free to come back and try again after a month or so, but they are well advised to consider why they might have failed the first time and what actions they should take in the interim to address both the explicit and implicit objections that surfaced. As a general rule, going around the various fora complaining that one was the victim of an injustice or that the process needs to be changed is not generally speaking the best approach to adopt. To quote from one of my favourite books, "Master thyself, then others shall thee beare".

   As for your invitation to vote, I'll decline, if you don't mind. I'd rather seek consensus, on the whole. Filiocht | Talk 14:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   I quote:

"If you want to make enemies, try to change something."
-Woodrow Wilson

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1. "As a general rule, going around the various fora complaining that one was the victim of an injustice or that the process needs to be changed is not generally speaking the best approach to adopt." You did not read what I wrote; I am not asking for change; I am asking for concensus. You may support or oppose my proposal. "As for your invitation to vote, I'll decline, if you don't mind." Well, I do mind if you criticize me for not seeking concensus, but when I finally do seek concensus, you criticize me; If this is not the right way, then pray tell, what is??--GordonWatts 14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   Please re-read my first post above, which begins Consensus is not achieved by voting. Now, do you not agree that by voting on your proposal, I'd be contradicting myself? Here's my proposed RfA procedure, quoting myself again: People are nominated or nominate themselves. Others come by and vote one way or another. A result emerges and the nomination passes or fails. People are free to support or oppose as they see fit, for whatever reasons take their fancy. The great glory of the process is its lack of structure. Anyone whose nomination fails is free to come back and try again after a month or so, but they are well advised to consider why they might have failed the first time and what actions they should take in the interim to address both the explicit and implicit objections that surfaced. Please note what aspects of this description of the process you disagree with, if you want to initiate a discussion which might or might not lead to a consensus. Please also note that the point you are inviting votes on is not a policy, but a guideline. Note also, in the light of your edit summary, that I did not post the

   There is a policy that covers that kind of thing. I'll be leaving this PC shortly, so please do not take my failure to respond further today personally. Filiocht | Talk

   14:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   "Now, do you not agree that by voting on your proposal, I'd be contradicting myself?" I disagree because voting and achieving a concensus are not mutually exclusive: you can do both at the same time. I am using a mathematical method of solititing feedback to see what the consensus is; it is more accurate than random questions, in which the amount of concensus is oft times misquoted. "Note also, in the light of your edit summary, that I did not post the Woodrow Wilson quote above." I saw that Nichalp posted it, but then I forgot: Oops! I am human. I attributed it to you. "It may say something about your general willingness to take things personally that you managed to read this broadly sympathetic intervention by User:Nichalp as a criticism." you misread me; I'm sorry for being ambiguous; I did not mean to either criticize or praise you (I though you had posted it), but merely to nickname you, as a way of providing an explanation point -somewhat humorously, like when one does it verbally. I think I'll be less ambiguous in the future. I agree that Pres. Wilson might be right, but I'm not looking for one particular outcome, so his humor is moot, but interesting. "My guess is that you are generally pissing people off, though I may be wrong." Both: I am both irritating and also beneficial: I have already been the catalyst for one change in policy: See the link below, where the "edit war" was added to the list of prohibitions for Featured Article candidates; I also prompted some to consider making the "vote closing" template stronger, but nothing came of it; I am -in this venture for feedback (and the link at bottom of page) trying to get clear on what's the real policy, according to concensus, which can change the policy if there is concensus to do so. As far as "how many votes" constitutes a clear concensus on my questions here, I will leave that to the Bureaucrats who traditionally count the votes and do this function, as in RfA. "If you are actually not that interested in being an admin but are just trying to make a point, please desist immediately." I'm not trying to "make a point." I'm trying to convince people to either follow policy, or change it -so the next guy in line here is not mistreated. OK, my turn for a funny quote -which you may have seen posted elsewhere: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk." --Thomas Paine [8] In other words: I am trying to prevent the rights of one from being violated, so this doesn't spread to hurt other editors.--GordonWatts 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

2. I think it would be useful to add a positive rather than a negative to that statement - i.e., 1000 edits which demonstrate a breadth of involvement in the project. That is the reality - 1000 edits with none to the Wikipedia namespace isn't going to work in most cases, nor is 1000 VfD edits. Of course, it's an observation and not a rule, something to bear in mind if you are seeking nomination or to nominate another. Guettarda 15:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: Feel free to vote in opposition to my proposal if you like. See also: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard for related proposals.

Incase you didn't notice, it wasn't a criticism, it is a famous quote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I said this on your talk subpage, but it never got a response and you haven't otherwise addressed the point that I've seen, so here it is, for whatever good it may do:

I think your RfA proves that you are not a trusted member, which is not something easily determined beforehand. Perhaps I can only speak for myself: I don't trust you. Not being blocked for blatant abuse is not sufficient to establish trust. It indicates a lack of active distrust, or at least it indicates that no one has yet believed you were doing anything that was so destructive to the wiki that a note on your talk page wouldn't suffice to stop it. And no more than that. I do not trust you to follow community consensus, or to avoid getting into disputes with other admins, or to handle disputes in a reasonable manner; I would oppose your request for adminship because while you are known you are not trusted and thus you fail the second criterion. (And I don't give a damn about how many edits in what namespaces you have or how long you've been here, beyond the minimal standards needed to establish some sort of investment in your identity here.)

Perhaps I am wrong, and you would not do any of these things I fear. But I do not trust you, and your actions over the past week have not inspired confidence that I should. We have these loosely-defined guidelines so that we may interpret them liberally with judgment and discretion, and are not locked into a strict quantitative system which could be easily gamed. There are many flaws in the RfA process that have caused suitable candidates to fail to reach consensus. I do not believe your non-promotion is an example of this. You have received an expression of no confidence from the community, and so your trusted status was not as obvious as you may have thought. Policy was followed.

[end original posting]

For someone to be violating your "rights" you have to have had them in the first place. You seem to think you have, which is not the case; the loose guidelines expressed for qualification for adminship do not entitle anyone to anything. You have the privilege of editing; you have requested the further privilege of a few extra technical capabilities, which with most—but not all—regular contributors there is no reason to deny. With you we denied them. Which does not impair your ability to use the site as you have been in any way. If we were really trying to censor you, you would have been blocked and your nimerous postings deleted, but as you can see they still stand.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It's intended to be a community of reasonable people with the goal of building an encyclopedia; such policies as we do have are not intended to be hard rules robotically enforced, because reasonable people can be expected to use good sense and know when a guideline should be followed and when to adapt further to an individual situation. And when they disagree, to discuss. The only one here who seems to believe you have been mistreated is yourself. Please consider that this may mean that you have misjudged the community standards, rather than that the community has done you a gross injustice. Pushing the issue is helping neither you nor Wikipedia. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kat here. Adminship is "no big deal", as you've so many times noted. But it's still something that we don't give to people if we don't think they can handle the responsibilities. I know that if I overstep my boundaries as an administrator, I will receive a sharp reply from involved editors (and well I should). And if I do something wrong as an administrator, I know that I will apologize for it, and attempt to make amends. That's all I ask in an administrator- to be able to admit when they're wrong, and make up for their mistakes. But you're showing me the polar opposite here. Ral315 16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First, in answer to Ral315: I came here to seek consensus, but instead of helping with the solution (voting above, either for me or against me), you gripe about a problem. You talk about problems, but you do not contribute to the solution. Talk the talk? Well, walk the walk. Also, while you may be disciplined for an overstep, I've already demonstrated several examples where a double standard has existed, implying it still does. (Quoting Kat) "I do not trust you to follow community consensus..." Sometimes policy trumps consensus -if the consensus is not willing to change the policy: My being criticized for the RfA renomination was a good example: Both policy and Mark, the FA editor (see Jimbo's page) said to go ahead, but Mark caved in to the other editors' concensus, which violated known policy: Consensus is not binding when it conflicts with policy, which allowed my FA-renomination, because the editors were perfectly able to change policy and didn't. This was double standard application, holding me to a nonpolicy standard. Also, sometimes concensus is "wrong." If you don't believe me, then please explain why the Titanic shipbuilders' (experts, no doubt) insisted by concensus to not include sufficient lifeboats on that big boat? Concensus is not always right. Don't forget that, Kat. "Perhaps I am wrong, and you would not do any of these things I fear." Well, I never had any problems before these people started deciding to use their own standards instead of policy. That is so easily remedied: Change policy -which is what I am trying to determine right here: Is a change in policy needed? You gripe about my actions, but you have not voted either for or against me above. If you want to complain, then earn my trust: Cast your vote, you and Ral315. You and anyone else that wants to talk, do something constructive instead of just talking; Then, we can talk after the work is done. Otherwise, your arguments are not persuasive: I'm doing my part. And you?--GordonWatts 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Policy never trumps consensus. Rather, consensus defines policy. If you think that the Wikipedia community is wrong about some issue where the community has reached consensus, you are entitled to attempt to convince the community of the errors of its ways by talking to us about how we're wrong. Make an argument. Explain why we're mistaken. But lawyeristic appeals to policy statements (which are nothing more than attempts to put our consensus opinions into words so that newcomers aren't totally confused while they make the transition into full members of the community) will get you nowhere.

It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that should be no firm standards for adminship; rather, an editor will be promoted to administrator when the community decides that that editor is trustworthy to bear the extra responsibility. Many people have tried to introduce firmer standards (such as a minimum edit count or minimum time on the wiki) but such efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed. The statement on the RFA main page is merely an empirical observation of what seems to be the historical realities of candidacies for adminship; it is not a statement of policy, even in the weak sense of "policy" I outlined above. If you want to change policy, then change the consensus. You're not going to do that by demanding a vote, but rather by making an well-reasoned civil argument to the thousands of Wikipedia editors who comprise the community. If you convince them that you're right, then consensus will shift, and policy will be changed. If not, then not. Kelly Martin 17:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Policy never trumps consensus. Rather, consensus defines policy." It's supposed to be like that, but since no one changes the policy or voted or said anything constructive to identifying policy, it didn't work. "If you think that the Wikipedia community is wrong about some issue where the community has reached consensus..." I did not say the policy was DEFINITELY wrong; I merely said I had a preference; I was not seeking to change policy; I was seeking to identify it, so I could know what the standard is! Now, the lack of enforcement was definitely wrong. "If you want to change policy, then change the consensus." I was seeking to IDENTIFY -not change, hello? Did you not read my post herein? Now, "identifying" is definitely done by voting; I can't read minds, lol. (I was trying to identify policy so I could know how to act, what to expect, what not to expect, etc. Part of my problem was this: People can't read what I write. I;'m not mad, just frustrated; Take care,--GordonWatts 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to cast a vote. This "vote" that you've organized is invalid. If you want to change a policy, the accepted way to do so is to propose an idea, allow other editors to criticize, add to, edit, or reject said idea, and if the idea proves positive, implement it. You tell me to do something constructive. I don't call disrupting multiple talk pages with your views on radically changing policy because you think you should be an administrator "constructive". You tell me to stop "griping about a problem". Well, that's EXACTLY what you're doing! If you really wanted to be an administrator, a few months of good editing, respect for other users in general, etc. probably would have got my vote. And you have shown a lot of contempt for Raul654, a VERY well-respected editor on Wikipedia. At this point, I wouldn't support a RfA. Nor would I a year from now, until you can prove that you can handle the tools. And complaining on RfA's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, etc. won't prove anything to me. Ral315 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"And you have shown a lot of contempt for Raul654, a VERY well-respected editor on Wikipedia." No. I am very glad he helped out a lot initially in the FA-process, even helping edit and stuff, but then when he had promised it would be OK to resubmit Schiavo for FA (see Jimbo's page for details) after a few weeks, he went back on his word, based on concensus; This time, he had the authority to override concensus, and since the article had been fixed, it was ready -and he reneged! The edit war, the only other concern, was over shortly after it began, so I am at the least disappointed in Mark AKA Raul654. He played politics instead of merit, but I am hoping he will "come around" and honor the hard work of the many Schiavo editors -not just me.--GordonWatts 18:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"...and if the idea proves positive, implement it." Meh! Beat you to it, Big Dog! Look at the front page; I changed the text and implimented ths unopposed (and apparently good?) idea. I don;t like it, but it is more honest with the "way things are." We can't lie to people when we write polocy.--GordonWatts 18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to concur with both of you guys, but try not to bite him too much, huh?

His RFA failed, but instead of being so angry or disturbed (thats the way its seems), he should try to address the issues that others have with him, since we are the ones who actually vote him in. All his demands etc really accomplishes nothing, and he should know that this will hurt his chances of becoming an admin; I dont reckon that many others will support him after seeing how he handle disputes.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

"he should try to address the issues that others have with him" I'm trying to do that here, but you are just talking and not doing anything: For example, tell me this: Are my proposed policy changes good or bad? If you don't give me any answer, I will be more than justtified in

being bold and making the changes myself, so now's your chance: If you don't like my edits, then tell me what the policy should be. Vote above.--GordonWatts

17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Re: Bishonen's suggestion to not vote above: OK, then how do we determine "concensus?"--GordonWatts 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • By talking. android79 17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, "talk" in that voting box above, you space alien Android you. Vote for me or against me, but VOTE, and let your voice sing. Then, no matter the results, let us use the rules equally for all. OK?--GordonWatts 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • We've been talking in the comments box above...and on other pages...and on your RfA...you just don't like the results. Ral315 17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Voting is not discussion. Polls do not necessarily determine consensus, though they can demonstrate it after discussion has taken place. It is this basic concept that you are failing to understand that is leading to all of your problems here. I think your proposed policy change is a bad idea because it sets arbitrary and artificial criteria for something I feel ought to be more of a case-by-case thing. My thoughts on administratorship are
        WP:IFD would be much messier as a result.) android79
        18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no further comments to make. Whatever I say honestly, patiently and sympathetically leads to a long reply and doesn't even stick to the core topic. And since Gordon thinks I've criticised him, well, I've said what I have to say, and I sincerely hope he reflects on my thoughts from another angle. I'd rather not waste my time 'criticising' him any further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your advice, Nichalp, is generally good, but you have not voted on the above, so I am having a hard time ascertaining concensus. You don't have to vote in my favor --wait a second; This is moot: I already made the edit change in question. If you disagree, then revert, but please, if you do so, log in an "oppose" vote with some reason in the section here in talk.--GordonWatts 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello RfA regulars - This might be just my own opinion of the matter, and I don't expect it to be held by others; however, am I the only person to think that RfA seems to be fundamentally in need of an overhaul?

• The name itself suggests so, since "Request for Adminship" suggests a request being made for adminship, not a vote to determine suitability for granting adminship - it should be called VfA if it really is a vote.
• In addition, civility has completely vanished in certain circumstances, leading to adminship requests being used as a manner of putting good faith users down, often for nothing more than being yet to contribute a particularly large quantity to a particular area of Wikipedia. Since the majority of RfAs appear to be nominations by others, rather than self-nominations (possibly due to the stigma attached to it) it would seem quite wrong that people should be criticised to the degree they are when they themselves have not directly requested it. It is no wonder, I believe, that users feel disgruntled with the process, since the level of animosity and unkindness involved here has far surpassed levels of decency.
• Edit counting is a key issue, in my opinion, too. At present, the vast majority of RfA votes appear to be based on numeric edit counting, via the determination of whether a user meets appropriate edit count criteria (usually considered to be around 1500-3000 edits, depending on the person voting). Let me give an example - Say I write a whole article, carefully proof read it, and save the page. I would get 1 edit. If I corrected 4 minor typos in that article, I would get 75% more edits - in short, receiving more credit for doing less work. In addition, drawing and uploading a map or diagram only earns 1 "point". I hardly think this is a valid means for determining the level of contribution a user has made, and to me at least it would appear to set a concerning example towards large numbers of trivial or low-quality edits rather than working on harder tasks and careful attention to detail. Moreover, what is to say a user who has not yet contributed a large quantity of edits is not a responsible admin? So long as they've been on Wikipedia for some time, learned how things are done, and helped out a bit, they may well make an excellent administrator.
• The method of determination of votes, and the current voting procedure, would appear to be totally silly. Why this 85% support requirement? All it takes at present is for five or six users of a like mind to vote Oppose on an RfA that otherwise was dominated by support votes, despite the fact that the majority of the votes were Support. I also hold the view that the word "Oppose" is fundamentally unpleasant to the user being considered for adminship, and it may be better to split votes into "Support / Not Support" rather than "Oppose/Neutral/Support".
• Subjectivity of bureaucrat opinion is an additional problem. Different bureaucrats appear to have different ideas according to what constitutes consensus on RfA, and I have seen some votes be closed as No Consensus that had a higher support vote than others which had been closed with a Support consensus. I think there should be some kind of more rigid criterion for determining the status of an RfA.

I would be most grateful if people would give me their opinion on the above, and possibly come together in an effort to address the above issues.

Best regards, --

Answering you, YES, it's broken. That's the "problem." I offer a solution: Let's vote on these proposeals here and at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard, a related proposal. Then, no matter what the outcome, let's follow the rules -for all.--GordonWatts 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Nick, in reguards to your method of thinking...

1. I don't think the name itself is not a problem. I personally don't see why ppl would confuse a request from a voting process.

   Following the current policy (whatever it is) is more important than the name.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

2. From my own RfA, I don't think civility is an issue. Everyone had good reasoning for me not being an admin, and comments were not shall we say "over the top".

   Most of my opponents were civil, but there still was a lot of throwing of words, and I took the greatest heat and targetting of abuse. I did not complain; I merely replied and rebutted politely but firmly most times.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't dispute that. I did see some throwing of words, but IMO most (the majoraty of ppl) who come to this page and either vote and/or give an oppinion are not ppl who are out to get you, though that doesn't say that no one will snap at you. My best policy on those who do toss crap is to ignore them, and if they persist, contact and admin/bureaucrat or the aberation (sp?) commitee about the problem. --Admiral Roo 18:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I do agree on the count of editing. If one were to have an extreamly low count (like say, 50 in only three months), that may warrent oppisition for the request. But higher counts (say 200+) should not warrent neither opposition nor acceptance. I think that the content of a person's edits should outweigh the number of edits s/he has.

   I think that the intent of the person is more important the numbers, but you have to have a few edits to have a basis to get by.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

2. I don't think I totally understand what you are saying in the method of determination of votes section.

   He probably means that 55-60% should be enough. I agree.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Now that you cleared that up for me, I do agree with you and Nick. IMO it is kind of rough to judge a count baised on an 85% consensus, compaired to a 55-60% consensus. --Admiral Roo 18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Finnaly, I think their will always be a debate between bureaucrats on what constitutes for a consnsus. Voting in nature is not always clear cut in my opinion.

--Admiral Roo 17:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, how do I fix my numbering system in here? --Admiral Roo 17:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just delete the blank lines between the points. Did it for you. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Thank you BD2412. Much appreciated.  :) --Admiral Roo 18:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA is bent, but not broken. Here is my proposal to diffuse some of the problems that have arisen in RfA. It may be horribly complicated, and technically impossible to implement at the moment, but I think that if the technological framework existed, it would work wonders towards reducing the incivility and politicization of the RfA process. I call it "gradual adminship", and the basic idea is that instead of getting all the admin powers at once, an editor should be granted them in stages, giving the community the opportunity to see how that editor uses the powers he has before he gets more.

There are four basic abilities that an administrator has that the typical editor lacks. These are:

1. Rollback button
2. Protect/unprotect pages
3. Delete/undelete pages
4. Block/unblock users

I propose that, instead of getting all four of these in one fell swoop, editors must seek and receive approval for each one individually, in order. Furthermore, the standards for granting each power should be adjusted to match the breadth of that power. In other words, anyone who has a few hundred edits and, say, 50% support should get the rollback button (which basically is a shortcut for doing something any editor can do manually); protecting and unprotecting pages should require a higher level of support (say, 60%), but should not really be a big deal, because any editor can sit and watch a page and revert at least the first few objectionable changes to that page; the power to delete and undelete pages should then require 70% support, and the power to block users (which I think is the most potentially confrontational ability) should require 80% support.

Editors who have been granted a power would have to wait a certain period of time - say 4 weeks, to ask for (or be nominated for) the next one. A list would be maintained of which editors are at which level (with a clear disclaimer that a higher level brings no greater say in consensus issues). In this scheme, a bureaucrat is just like an admin with one more level of power, that being the power to raise admins from one level to the next. De-adminship (also a frequent topic of discussion) would be a reverse version of this process - inactive editors would gradually lose powers as they remain dormant.

I welcome comments. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is not a bad idea. I support this. Also, with ppl like me, this would be a good way to prove ourselves worthy of proving that we are good admins once we are at "stage one" of our adminship. --Admiral Roo 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem bad. I would expect more problems with the gradual de-admin process, but not many... I suppose a protect-happy admin could fairly easily lose unblock privileges and then be blocked temporarily, so I guess that works. To respond to Admiral Roo, though, I don't think it will affect the prove you're a good admin bit at all. That comment seems to most frequently arise with regard to vandal reversion: People will likely still expect slow-style rollbacks in advance, and will likely formulate new non-reversion expectations for awarding additional responsibilities. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

institution creap. Oh and the second abilty you are giving out gives the power to vandalise every page on wikipedia simultainiously.Geni 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current system works. Reason? I can't think of any failed applications that should probably have passed, and certainly no successful ones that should have failed. I also think the above suggestion would introduce much unnecessary bureaucracy. Current problems (i.e. Gordon) are a result of his lack of understanding of our policy, and importantly, how it is applied. Martin 19:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

To Geni: the second ability you are giving out gives the power to vandalise every page on Wikipedia simultaneously. Could you clarify that? What second power? How would it give the power to vandalise every page on Wikipedia simultaneously? — JIP | Talk 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the implicit third part of the ability to protect and unprotect pages: the ability to edit protected pages. Much of the boilerplate text of the site (such as the tagline "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia") is on protected pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Edit one of those pages, and you can put Goatse on every page of the encyclopedia. --Carnildo 07:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And how does that differ from what admins can do now? — JIP | Talk 07:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should split rollback out from the rest, since it's simply a faster way of doing something that every user can. --Carnildo 19:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

m:instruction creep. Vote for a trusted person or vote against him/her. Rollback function is not a really big tool anyways. Even an IP can revert. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp to an extent, but not wholly. This is how I see it: deleting is a power withheld from new users because they might abuse it for vandalism. There's no reason we can't give any user who has proven themselves not to be a vandal. I am thinking of GordonWatts here. I guess the rollback tool can go here as well. Blocking and protecting (along with allowing editing of protected pages) can be considered powers granted to users trusted to look after disputes if they arise. I don't see why a distinction shouldn't be made here. That's with the proviso that the bottom tier is "no big deal at all". [[Sam Korn]] 20:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And there is even an emulator of a rollback button that you can add to your monobook.js. --Celestianpower ^hab 20:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, my point is that it would be less contentious to be granting people individual powers at a time as opposed to the total package that comes with the current adminship process. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I support this idea. I don't see it as creep but disentanglement. - Tεxτurε 21:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not support this idea. Think of how contentious RfA's occasionally get...do you want this to happen 4x as often? We're just creating more bureaucracy. Adminship should be no big deal...having to apply separately for each power makes it seem like a very big deal. Ral315 21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I do think that a request for an individual power would be much less contentious than a request "for adminship" as we have now. I recognize that it would create an increased load in terms of the voting, but I don't think it would be 4x as much, since not every user will want to go up each level (just as not every admin wants to be a bureacrat), and those who lack the support to go, say, from level 2 to level 3 would simply not be able to apply for level 4 powers. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, are you expecting people to go for the rollback after 4 weeks, Protection 4 weeks later, etc...? So, you get all of the powers in 4 months - enough time to get experience of responsibility, disputes and a grounding in WikiPolicy. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Something like that, but of course you would not have to seek an additional power every four weeks... we had an AfD recently where the admin candidate quite clearly expressed that all he wanted was the one-button revert. Certainly a user could opt to go to that level, and no further, and not worry about whether they were trusted with the power to protect or delete or block. In fact, that user had made a similar suggestion to the effect that users could be given a short-term blocking power, receiving the power to impose longer blocks on a path to having full admin powers. I would also support that if it can be done. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. It adds far too much bureaucracy and makes the whole process needlessly complex. Yes, there are some problems with the current RfA process, but it works just fine for the vast majority of candidates. There's no need for such a radical revision. Carbonite | Talk 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you support a process for editors to get the one-button rollback separately from the more contentious admin powers? -- BD2412 ^talk 22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do support separating rollback from the "real" admin powers. In fact, a while back I proposed a similar process whereby "super-editors" (bad name, I know) would have access to rollback only. However, instead of request the power, users would gain rollback automatically after a certain number of edits and time spent on Wikipedia. In cases of problem users, a bureaucrat would remove this power. The specifics were never really fleshed out, but I believe it would be workable. As for the rest of the admin powers, it makes sense to keep them as a package. Any problems with RfA would be exacerbated by requiring multiple requests. Carbonite | Talk 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Suppose instead of a super-editor, we call this a "junior admin", and throw in the ability to temporarily protect pages and block non-admin users? That would make this a slightly more graduated system where recipients of these powers would be able to demonstrate that they understand when it is appropriate to use them. I don't think any kind of advance should be automatic, however - anyone could easily rack up 1,000 edits endlessly tweaking their user-page, or edit-warring over the content of Britney Spears-related articles. At the very least, they should have to ask a bureacrat, who could review the editor's contributions for signs of bad behavior. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, rollback isn't really a true administrative power. It's more like a handy tool that admins have access to. Any user, even anon IPs, can revert a page; rollback just speeds it up. In contrast, page protection and blocking are impossible for non-admins. RfA works fine the vast majority of the time. Most users are promoted or rejected overwhelmingly. The contentious RfAs simply stand out so much that they seem more common. I just can't support a system where a candidate would have to go through multiple RfAs to gain all the admin powers. The candidates that pass easily now would face a greater burden while the obvious rejections would still get rejected. A few borderline candidates might benefit from the proposed system, but that gain would be far outweighed by the increased bureaucracy and sense of hierarchy that would be created. Carbonite | Talk 23:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I see nothing wrong with the current policy. No major problems have been experienced until G.W's adminship failed, and I don't think that any changes should be made because he is unhappy about the outcome. G.W should just do what everyone who fails does; try to improve his contributions, address the problems that prevented him from being promoted, and wait one month to try again. The policy should not be changed; it has worked up until this point and no one has complained. Additionally, edit counts is a good measure of a person's contributions. Ofcource many other things should be considered, but the only way to tell if someone is truly committed and experienced is if he has made many edits in many different namespaces. I fully concur with Martin and Carbonite .

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

G.W. is not the only applicant where such a problem arose - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leonard G.. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

He failed right? Well, to tell the truth, he is a very good editor, however, he hasnt gotten enought experience with wikipedia. Mind you, he does good work uploading pictures, writing articles etc, but even though he has been here since Feb 2004, he had trouble setting up his own nomination until I had to offer to help. Also while he has over 10,000 edits, not even .01% are to the Wikipedia namespaces. You see, so far, the process has worked. Those who should become Admins do, and the others dont. Ofcourse the process has its faults, but nothing is perfect, and the candidate always has another chance in one month.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

So what's wrong with giving him (and others who try and fail) some minor tools and something to work for? -- BD2412 ^talk 23:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just dont think anyone should be given the powers in stages, its an unnecessary procedure with uneeded complexities; first it was just Admin, then Bureaucrat, but now it would be "level 1 Admin", "Level 2 Admin", "Level 3 Admin" then "Level 4 Admin". I still feel that the user can try again if he fails. Adminship will become a big deal, and, according to Jim Wales, it shouldnt be. Most of the time, users who fail deserve to fail; maybe they are immature, unready, unscrupulous ect. So far, community consensus has been competent in promoting new admin.

On second thought, how about letting the process run, then if the original request receives only 50%, then only the Rollback botton is given, but if the person gets the standard support (upwards of 80%), he gets all four powers? The way I see it, many persons are ready for all 4 powers now, and to make them wait 4 months after they had initially qualified for Adminiship would be unnecessary.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Too complicated. Rollback is not a major power, so there shouldn't be any lengthy procedure involved in getting it. --Carnildo 00:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I would personally support a proposal along these lines. The crux of the problem with adminship in general at present is that a great deal of "lip service" is paid to adminship not being a big deal, but the actuality is that it is treated as if it is a very great deal indeed. If we really are saying adminship should be no big deal, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith we should at least give people the opportunity to prove they are trusted users, and to gain tools to assist their work on Wikipedia as they increase that trust through demonstration of good work.

I do not feel that new users should immediately be considered "not trustworthy", rather that they should be given the chance to demonstrate trustworthiness - and, if found necessary, have those privileges revoked as swiftly as they were granted. In addition, the incremental system would provide a much more manageable approach for dealing with problem admins, since it would be possible to "turn off" specific privileges depending on the incident that has occurred.

It would, I believe, reduce the present view of adminship as a status symbol down to its rightful place as a set of tools. Obviously, such a proposal would require developer assistance; however, as a professional software developer, I would be certainly willing to do the technical work (with the blessing of the MediaWiki development team, obviously) and I do not expect it would require a great deal of ingenuity to implement. --

• This is definately a solution searching for a problem.
  T | @ | C
  00:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • On the whole, I tend to agree with Ryan. Given my description of how the process works further up the page, it seems to me that it's doing fine. Sadly, Gordon's rejection illustrates very well why it's working: a lot of people just don't trust him, so his RfA failed. Now he's kicking up a fuss (the wrong response, IMHO) rather than reflecting on why that might be so (the right one, ditto). To change the process in response to this situation would be foolish, I believe. As for edit counting, my view is that people are entitled to vote the way they vote for whatever reason they see fit. Personally, when I vote here I never edit count but I do not have the right to impose my reasoning on others, just as nobody can force me to start edit counting in future. Filiocht | Consensus is not achieved through voting 07:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that RFA gets it about right. I think it errs on the side of approving nominations and we don't really see a lot of issues involving admins. There are some to be sure but the fact is that very few get de-admined. The de-admin process comes up from time to time but never really gets much play because at least up to this point there hasn't been a huge need for a more defined process. So I think it's working fine. If regular users got a rollback button I'd be fine with that. It'd sure make RC patrol easier and it's something users can already do, providing a faster way to rollback would be a good thing.

For the sake of the comments, I paste below the vote for Szyslak which Gordon, not Szyslak, added to section 1 above, claiming that it must represent Szyslak's opinion. Gordon, it was bad enough when you merely tried to order people to vote in your poll; actually voting FOR them really crosses the line. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

:Apparently User:Szyslak opposes. He gave this logic when reverting: "this is not a common reason for RfAs to fail. GordonWatts' poll doesn't ban me from reverting this change" [9], but he can't take the time to discuss it on the talk page first like we did here, lol.--GordonWatts 19:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

His revert seems appropriate to me. You need to have consensus to make a change first for something like this, and there's clearly no consensus. Tuf-Kat 19:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary.

WP:BOLD. On the other hand, if someone reverts you, then seek consensus for the change. [[Sam Korn]]

20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your opinions, but can I say something? First,
  be bold and thought I was speaking for concensus. No one really knows what concensus is here: They say one thing in policy (no mention of "diversity"), but do another (voted me down, giving that as one of the reasons: I was not diverse enough, but instead too concentrated on one area of Wikipedia
  ).