TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) →Side point on disruptive RfA comments: Several good reasons not to. |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
::::::I'm still trying to figure out why so many people insist that we can't have a community-consensus-based desysop process. I've heard no objection more solid than "Gosh, we can't do that- it's never been done before!" [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
::::::I'm still trying to figure out why so many people insist that we can't have a community-consensus-based desysop process. I've heard no objection more solid than "Gosh, we can't do that- it's never been done before!" [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::*The suggestion has been made many, many times before. It was used years ago; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_2#de-adminship] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_8] for reference. It was deprecated. There's a number of discussions about the topic in general over the years. As I recall, one of the main points of opposition to the idea is that administrators do a job that virtually by definition ruffles people's feathers. Having to not only conduct your job but to do it with an eye towards preventing your being, in essence, voted our of offense handcuffs your ability to perform. Also, if there is an administrator that is acting out of line, ArbCom is well capable of dealing with that situation. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
::::::*The suggestion has been made many, many times before. It was used years ago; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_2#de-adminship] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_8] for reference. It was deprecated. There's a number of discussions about the topic in general over the years. As I recall, one of the main points of opposition to the idea is that administrators do a job that virtually by definition ruffles people's feathers. Having to not only conduct your job but to do it with an eye towards preventing your being, in essence, voted our of offense handcuffs your ability to perform. Also, if there is an administrator that is acting out of line, ArbCom is well capable of dealing with that situation. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
←<small>(unindenting)</small> But we ''have'' a community-consensus-based desysop process. The community gets together every year and approves a slate of Arbitrators. Those Arbitrators, armed with a mandate from both Jimbo and the community at large, evaulate evidence in a cool and deliberate fashion, and are empowered by tradition and community trust to render decisions about retention of adminship (among other things). |
|||
A Request for Deadminship might as well be called a Request for Lynch Mob. A time-limited free-for-all where all of the participants would either be digging up as much dirt and creative libel as they could find on the target, or attempting to smear the other participants as thoroughly as possible before the clock ran out. Oh, and the canvassing—oy. Every borderline troll and disgruntled editor would be invited and encouraged to participate as an involved party. Every old grudge between the Requester, the target, and between each of the participants would come bubbling to the surface. Picture the ugliest, roughest, mudslingingest user Request for Comment you've ever seen. ''That's'' what a ''smooth'' Request for Deadminship would look like. |
|||
This all leaves aside the question of whether the Bureaucrats or Stewards would want the responsibility of presiding over such a bloodbath. If you thought the knives came out when they rejected an RfA with 75.2% support, wait till you see the pitchforks and torches when they start calling Deadminships. And good luck to any would-be Bureaucrat that puts his name forward; all the quibbles about 'discretionary ranges' will shrink to nothing in comparison with the arguments about proper attitudes toward Deadminship. If you stick the Stewards with this responsibility instead, where does that leave us? I doubt they want the trouble, and Stewards are less accountable to the en-wiki community than our own Arbitrators are. |
|||
I've asked something like this before, but I want to know what advantage an RfD (in the style of an RfA or RfB) has over Arbitration. I hope and expect that a call for deadminship would compel the editors making a request to run though a similar procedure. That is, they would be required to make clear and coherent statements of the problem(s), and present in an orderly fashion diffs and logs to support their claim that the admin had violated the community's trust and standards. I can't see the advantage of a shortcut to deadminship, when we already have a reasonable, coolheaded, deliberative process in place. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[User:luvcraft]] and [[User:53180]]== |
==[[User:luvcraft]] and [[User:53180]]== |
Revision as of 17:05, 20 August 2007
For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see /Archives. RFA discussions before June 2003 took place on a mailing list. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. |
Just a reminder about closing RfAs
If you're going to close an RfA for a valid reason (such as a candidate withdrawing, which doesn't require a bureaucrat's involvement at all, or a painfully obvious case of snowballs), please be sure to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions. There are several things that need to happen for failed noms and not all of them are happening to the RfAs I've been watching (which is all of them).
I'm not pointing fingers any anybody, and I certainly don't want to come across as pissed off by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're gonna help out, first of all thank you, but just make sure you're taking care of everything, not just slapping a template on the RfA. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're not talking to me, right? :-) I suggest editors just leave closing RfA's to you, a bureaucrat, or someone of equal experience with RfA's. --Boricuaeddie 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies - I know I closed one today after the user asked me to and untranscluded. I didn't use a template though - I couldnt remember it, and ended up copying from another RfA. In future, I think i'll just leave it for others. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Do Neutral !votes count? Looking at the 'crat noticeboard, It shows no sign of counting these !Vs. Why do we have Neutrals? J-stan TalkContribs 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- They do not count in the percentages, but, as some b'crats say, they take a look at the neutral votes when dealing with borderline cases. —Kurykh 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how'd you count a neutral in percentage-wise anyway. But yeah, it's mainly for borerline cases, I'd think. Wizardman 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to think that it's ideal, and neutrals are there for people who aren't sure but still want to provide information... but realistically, it's mostly just for counting in borderline cases. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Percentage isn't what determines promotion, so neutrals play a role in determining the community consensus. They don't carry as much weight as supports or opposes, obviously. Andre (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as i can see, Neutral !votes are really pieces of text that should be part of the comments section, but that want to gain more attention and express their inability to decide "which way they should lean" -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think they have a purpose even if they don't "count" per se. Sometimes I have concerns about a candidate which I want to express in definite terms, but I don't think they're strong enough to merit an Oppose. For instance, if a candidate was experienced and hardworking, but their answers to the questions had indicated excessive willingness to use IAR and "common sense" instead of following the policies and guidelines, I would vote Neutral; it wouldn't be a fair reason to Oppose, but I'd want them to take note of my concerns. Waltonalternate account 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- So how many 80.0001% or greater RFAs have you closed as no consensus? --W.marsh 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes use neutral to state an early opinion, and then move from neutral to oppose or support later, as more evidence/concerns/admiration emerges, or based on answers to questions. Sometimes I remain undecided, or evenly balanced, and will remain neutral. Carcharoth 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside how bureaucrats deal with neutral !votes, they can clearly influence other contributors, as support and oppose !votes do. --Dweller 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I recall an RFA where 4 or 5 people opposed per my neutral vote... so you have a point. Sometimes someone makes their argument but just thinks it's enough for a "neutral", others think it's enough for an "oppose". It causes nightmares for "not a vote" language people I'm sure. --W.marsh 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral comments can however change the course of an RfA at times... I seem to recall at least 1 RfA where I made a comment in the neutral section and there were at least 7 opposes because of the point I brought up. The power of neutrality shouldn't be knocked :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- "The power of neutrality shouldn't be knocked" sounds like the national motto of Switzerland New England Review Me! 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I use the "neutral" section mainly when I've changed my !vote (generally when someone I've supported then does something that's not quite bad enough to change to oppose, but that makes me no longer comfortable supporting. Moving it to Neutral with a note is IMO less messy than a strikethrough — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please sort out Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies? I was planning on doing it myself but I really don't have the time. There are 30 RfAs there. --Deskana (banana) 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Majorly (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it perhaps make sense to convert it over to a system similar to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, in that everything is dated and noted (rather than just a "here's everyone promoted in <month> of <year>")? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be a lot more useful. I think NoSeptember has a page of dates and stuff on one of his subpages. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I converted the rest of the transclusions to links, though EVula's suggestion may prompt everything to change soon anyway. Oh well.--Chaser - T 05:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I started reformatting the oldest section, September 2004.[1] I much prefer the informative version to the just the names version, but I'm at a loss for what other information to convey (with the failed RfAs, you can always say why the RfA was unsuccessful, but these are all successful). Would it be worthwhile to find which 'crat promoted each editor? Should I drop the year from the date (saying as it's redundant to the section header anyway)? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- This may help. Singularity 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- EVula, both those things you suggested are fine. Although you might have to look in the rfa history to see who did the promotion pre. Feb 2004. Majorly (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly off-topic, but close enough to the general theme about records of adminship candidacies. I was wondering, Majorly, if you had any plans on updating User:Majorly/RfA stats/Stats - the thought occurred to me that if people are looking for guidance on whether they might be "experienced" enough to stand, a handy link somewhere more prominent to this page of yours would be very useful. Potential candidates could then see how long it had been since someone with a similarly "low" edit count or "few" months of editing had been mopped, and it might be a useful guide for them (and for those commenting at RfA) for how their candidacy fitted into recent trends. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't, no. I'm too busy in other places to be updating it, but anyone is free to do it themselves, if they are interested (including the main stats page which is about 3 months out of date...) Majorly (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. BencherliteTalk 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't, no. I'm too busy in other places to be updating it, but anyone is free to do it themselves, if they are interested (including the main stats page which is about 3 months out of date...) Majorly (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- In the interest of "EVula Doesn't Want To Go Batshit Insane", I think I'll instead list whoever closed the RfA; much easier to figure out and, in about 99.9% of the cases, it's the same person as the promoting 'crat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- A much fuller example is Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies#August 2007. I'm gonna keep going, since nobody has cried out that the existing format is preferred. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly off-topic, but close enough to the general theme about records of adminship candidacies. I was wondering, Majorly, if you had any plans on updating User:Majorly/RfA stats/Stats - the thought occurred to me that if people are looking for guidance on whether they might be "experienced" enough to stand, a handy link somewhere more prominent to this page of yours would be very useful. Potential candidates could then see how long it had been since someone with a similarly "low" edit count or "few" months of editing had been mopped, and it might be a useful guide for them (and for those commenting at RfA) for how their candidacy fitted into recent trends. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- EVula, both those things you suggested are fine. Although you might have to look in the rfa history to see who did the promotion pre. Feb 2004. Majorly (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito
"you should not give in to evils, but proceed ever more boldly against them". Is it just me, or are the comments by User:Neil Larson suddenly apperaing on RFA's regarding nominated candidate borderline if not actual trolling? I replied to one and he's replied back but I'm not feeding anymore. The antithesis of Kurt Webber of course - everyones entitled to an opinion and I'm sure the 'crats will ignore it but it's hardly constructive. Pedro | Chat 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm certain he's only here to disrupt and confuse people. Personally, I think things like this should be indef blocked and let people get on with writing an encyclopedia, but unfortunately nobody asked me --Lucid 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note I have indented the oppose comments on all affected RFA's. Pedro | Chat 09:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting... a troll who phrases his comments in classical Latin. Evidently we're attracting a more highbrow class of disruption these days. :-) WaltonOne 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am thinking of adding to my talk page "Insults not in the form of rhyming poetry will be ignored and blanked." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very fine idea, Until. This sort of thing just doesn't cut it anymore. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've always had a softspot for vandals who employ Dactylic hexameter... Hiberniantears 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I must stress that RfA comments are not and cannot be disruptive in and of themselves. Such a block does not fall under our blocking policy. I do not wish to wheel war, but I urge you to lift this block. Andre (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Majorly, did you review Neil Larson's non-RFA-related contributions before indefinitely blocking? Mike R 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- A comment you made on your talk page indicates that you did. You state, "This is different to Kurt Weber though; he is an established user, who does lots of article work. This new user was adding stub tags and fixing links. Also very new, so no need to let him continue his disruption here." This is a weak argument for indefinitely blocking a user from whom the majority of contributions have been helpful and constructive. Mike R 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Voting in an RfA based on an unpopular viewpoint is one thing. But this reason doesn't even make sense. Maybe he shouldn't have been indefinitely blocked, but... -Amarkov moo! 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I also find the indefinite block to be an overreaction. A simple warning or a 24 hour block may very well have had the same effect. The rest of his edits seem reasonably constructive. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- No reason to block. His opinions will be given due weight by the crats. Friday (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course he should be blocked. Have you looked at the users edits outside RfAs? See here - he's basically clicking random article and fixing stub tags, shuffling sections around rather needlessly. He's made edits for 4 days. That is the 15th and 16 of July and August. Now, we already have enough users around disrupting the RfA process without this nonsense. I blocked him because a user who has been with us for four days really should not be making those kind of comments on RfAs. It struck me as blatant trolling. Normally, a troll will go straight to the RfA page and make a disruptive comment, but Neil has done very, very minor article work. The kind of work I could easily do if I were to start a new account right now. Someone with that level of experience, making those sort of comments on RfAs, just simply don't exist. He's a sockpuppet of someone, or just a clear troll but I don't understand why people want to unblock this unproductive editor. For more disruption and silliness? I really don't see the point, and I stand by my block. Majorly (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, there is a lot of oddity surrounding Neil's contributions. I think the block was a bit fast (the disruption was relatively minor), but I won't be the least bit surprised if it ends up being upheld by checkuser evidence. I think Majorly's suspicions about Neil's contributions are pretty spot-on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly off topic comment For the record I consulted with Majorly and we were in agremment of my indenting of the comments by Neil. Should anyone feel I was in error with this, and his opposes should stand in the numbering (as they do after all still stand on record), I will gladly revert my actions. Pedro | Chat 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems obvious to me this is someone who has been around before; I even have a goofy theory about who it is. But having another account isn't abusive unless you misuse it, right? If someone who was not currently blocked, but wanted to make a fresh start, just opened a new account and started editing, letting the old one die, that's not abuse if I read WP:SOCK right. In fact, if they both edited simultaneously, but in different areas and never interacted, it seems to me that might be frowned upon but still legal too.
- I say wait for Deskana's evaluation, but if it turns out not to be someone who was already blocked, or who has been editing that RfA under another name, then an indef block (or, really, any block) for being, at most a little pointy is, in my opinion, too harsh. --barneca (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This did indeed turn out to be an ... alternate account of another user. There's a longer discussion on ANI. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Side point on disruptive RfA comments
Leaving aside the question of whether it was right to block the user, I think Majorly and Pedro were quite right to indent his/her comments. I strongly disagree with Andrevan's comment above that RfA comments "cannot be disruptive in and of themselves". I agree that reasoned and rational RfA comments which fall outside community norms, such as those of Kmweber or A.Z, are not disruptive. However, posting utter nonsense and fragments of classical Latin to RfAs is disruptive. And I strongly disagree with the attitude of "his comments will be given due weight by the crats" expressed by Friday and others above. Bureaucrats should give equal weight to all comments given in good faith; they should not make decisions on what constitutes a valid or invalid rationale. On the rare occasions when a disruptive or bad-faith comment has been made on an RfA, it should be indented and disregarded; this should be a community decision, and should not (IMO) be done by a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats should not be decision-makers. They should simply implement the will of the community. WaltonOne 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hear hear. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well said, Walton, that's a fair and reasonable assessment that gives appropriate balance to the various competing interests at stake here. dr.ef.tymac 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you all for your support. As a non-admin I did check / consult with Majorly before taking that action and he was in agreement. I would never wish to indent or strike any comments by others at RFA but in this once instance I felt it was justifiable. Pedro | Chat 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a very, very good concept, that helps further separate the sense that 'crats are above community consensus. I still think there are times where the 'crats should use their discretion when weighing arguments, but the community exercising their right to identify and remove disruptive !votes is even better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What then is the role of the crats? Surely we have them instead of vote-counting bots for some reason? And.. they will give RFA comments the weight they feel they deserve, with or without any individual editor approving of it. Friday (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Also.. I suspect most of the disapproval of weird RFA "votes" is really just people being annoyed that someone dared oppose one of their buddies. Notice that support votes with completely stupid reasons rarely attract the kind of attention that stupid opposes tend to get. A.Z. is the only one I recall who's gotten raised eyebrows for support votes. Friday (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Per the oft-cited "no big deal," many feel that anyone who's reasonably experienced and has kept their nose clean should be presumed qualified until shown otherwise. Thus, supports don't need to be as persuasively justified as opposes. Raymond Arritt 18:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also, to be fair, one oppose vote is essentially equal to three support votes. So perhaps it's appropriate that it gets three times the criticism? -Chunky Rice 18:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. In other words, in an ideal world, it should be given out liberally. But of course, not everyone is suited to the role, nor wants it. On Wikipedia, and indeed the other Wikimedia projects, most users are positiove happy people, willing to give someone some extra boring tools if they ask for them. Others, of course, like to oppose for dodgy reasons. These users forget how trivial adminship is. It's just a website. There's no big deal about this. English Wikipedia is probably the toughest project to get adminship on. There's no particular reason why this should be, but it probably is. This is because there are too many negative people unwilling to support a user getting a really dull set of tools, that, even if abused, can always be reversed. Majorly (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself, but I'd be way more willing to hand the admin tools out very liberally if it were possible to remove them again as easily as they're granted. Friday (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is why we should have a Requests for desysopping process, where the community can discuss whether someone should be desysopped, and make a decision in the same way as RfA and RfB; a steward would then close the discussion, and desysop them if there was consensus to do so. But anyway, I don't think it's that much of an issue. Remember that our one rogue admin was desysopped after something like 19 minutes, and all the damage he did was reversed very quickly. IMO, the damage to the project from failing good candidates outweighs the damage from passing bad ones. WaltonOne 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself, but I'd be way more willing to hand the admin tools out very liberally if it were possible to remove them again as easily as they're granted. Friday (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you. ArbCom is sometimes too unwieldy and slow for such a task, and an RFC rarely creates a peaceful resolution. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to figure out why so many people insist that we can't have a community-consensus-based desysop process. I've heard no objection more solid than "Gosh, we can't do that- it's never been done before!" Friday (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- The suggestion has been made many, many times before. It was used years ago; see [3] and [4] for reference. It was deprecated. There's a number of discussions about the topic in general over the years. As I recall, one of the main points of opposition to the idea is that administrators do a job that virtually by definition ruffles people's feathers. Having to not only conduct your job but to do it with an eye towards preventing your being, in essence, voted our of offense handcuffs your ability to perform. Also, if there is an administrator that is acting out of line, ArbCom is well capable of dealing with that situation. --Durin 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to figure out why so many people insist that we can't have a community-consensus-based desysop process. I've heard no objection more solid than "Gosh, we can't do that- it's never been done before!" Friday (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
←(unindenting) But we have a community-consensus-based desysop process. The community gets together every year and approves a slate of Arbitrators. Those Arbitrators, armed with a mandate from both Jimbo and the community at large, evaulate evidence in a cool and deliberate fashion, and are empowered by tradition and community trust to render decisions about retention of adminship (among other things).
A Request for Deadminship might as well be called a Request for Lynch Mob. A time-limited free-for-all where all of the participants would either be digging up as much dirt and creative libel as they could find on the target, or attempting to smear the other participants as thoroughly as possible before the clock ran out. Oh, and the canvassing—oy. Every borderline troll and disgruntled editor would be invited and encouraged to participate as an involved party. Every old grudge between the Requester, the target, and between each of the participants would come bubbling to the surface. Picture the ugliest, roughest, mudslingingest user Request for Comment you've ever seen. That's what a smooth Request for Deadminship would look like.
This all leaves aside the question of whether the Bureaucrats or Stewards would want the responsibility of presiding over such a bloodbath. If you thought the knives came out when they rejected an RfA with 75.2% support, wait till you see the pitchforks and torches when they start calling Deadminships. And good luck to any would-be Bureaucrat that puts his name forward; all the quibbles about 'discretionary ranges' will shrink to nothing in comparison with the arguments about proper attitudes toward Deadminship. If you stick the Stewards with this responsibility instead, where does that leave us? I doubt they want the trouble, and Stewards are less accountable to the en-wiki community than our own Arbitrators are.
I've asked something like this before, but I want to know what advantage an RfD (in the style of an RfA or RfB) has over Arbitration. I hope and expect that a call for deadminship would compel the editors making a request to run though a similar procedure. That is, they would be required to make clear and coherent statements of the problem(s), and present in an orderly fashion diffs and logs to support their claim that the admin had violated the community's trust and standards. I can't see the advantage of a shortcut to deadminship, when we already have a reasonable, coolheaded, deliberative process in place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone besides me and J-stan notice that their RfA's were surprisingly similar (almost identical answers and very similar nominations). 53180's and luvcraft's. T Rex | talk 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured User:53180 did a copy/paste of luvcraft's, though I could be wrong - Alison ☺ 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to have a vastly different contribution focus. It would be pretty unlikely that they will be socks... 53180 probably just saw luvcraft's RfA and thought to have a go, copying luvcraft's statement in the process... --DarkFalls talk 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is the possibility that 53180 started out as an SPA (I never know whether to use "a" or "an"), and then turned into a sockpuppet. J-stan TalkContribs 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- 53180 is flirting with an indef block; I've already had to block him for disruption when he made another RfA (four failed RfAs in one day), and he then proceeded to leave uncivil comments on a relatively unrelated editor's talk page. SPA or sock, I honestly don't care; we've got better things to do with our time than to humor bull-headed and rude editors who can't take a clue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is the possibility that 53180 started out as an SPA (I never know whether to use "a" or "an"), and then turned into a sockpuppet. J-stan TalkContribs 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to have a vastly different contribution focus. It would be pretty unlikely that they will be socks... 53180 probably just saw luvcraft's RfA and thought to have a go, copying luvcraft's statement in the process... --DarkFalls talk 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed the similarity as well, but came to a similar conclusion as Alison. EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive Bot
Any one here think this talk page could use an archive bot(i.e. MiszaBot?) --Chris G 09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Discussions here vary in length and the amount of time spent on them greatly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever the time spent be, my bot archives based on the last timestamp in a thread, so moves only discussions that noone has commented in for a while. I think you can safely set the treshold to, say 14 days (no thread qualifies for that currently). Миша13 13:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've been doing it personally for the last few months. Sometimes the page balloons to over 200Kb in one or two days, and sometimes things should stay up for a while longer than mandated by the bot when they are significant and/or the page is shorter. Since it's not a problem for me, and hopefully my brainpower is an improvement over the bot, I have no problem with continuing to archive here manually. Dekimasuよ! 14:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- We already tried an archive bot, and we decided not to have it on this page afterall. --Durin 13:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My sysop review
I'd like to invite the community to comment on my review page. This is like an editor review, only with the specific purpose of reviewing my admin actions. Please review my recent admin actions, and comment on that page on how I'm doing (don't be afraid to criticise). Both admins and non-admins are encouraged to comment. WaltonOne 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- These sorts of things should have there own process - not anything formal, or compulsary, but an admin version of editor review. I like the idea, and I will comment now :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do like the idea of this as well, there shold be a way to have a voluntary process like this. Wizardman 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You guys do know that Editor review can also be used by admins, right? --Boricuaeddie 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is more focused on general editing than admin duties. If a user just wants reviews of their admin stuff, or something similair, another informal optional process would be ideal. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but editor review's rarely accessed, and it's meant for editor actions, not admin actions. Just my view anyway. Wizardman 22:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Somebody should start working on Wikipedia:Admin review :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can ask in your editor review for admin related advice only. No need for another review page. Admins are still editors. Majorly (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really like the idea of an admin review system, but there's no point in setting up yet another system when we can just adapt an existing one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need for a formal system. Simply compute the average number of aggrieved messages you receive on your talk page, per week, as a result of your administrative actions. The ideal range is between 2.37 and π. If you generate fewer complaints than that, you're not active enough or you're avoiding difficult areas. If you generate more complaints, you are officially an Abusive Admin®. Every qualitative problem has a simple, appealing, and totally useless quantitative solution! MastCell Talk 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, right so! Like, 75% support in RfAs to pass. --Durin 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need for a formal system. Simply compute the average number of aggrieved messages you receive on your talk page, per week, as a result of your administrative actions. The ideal range is between 2.37 and π. If you generate fewer complaints than that, you're not active enough or you're avoiding difficult areas. If you generate more complaints, you are officially an Abusive Admin®. Every qualitative problem has a simple, appealing, and totally useless quantitative solution! MastCell Talk 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really like the idea of an admin review system, but there's no point in setting up yet another system when we can just adapt an existing one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can ask in your editor review for admin related advice only. No need for another review page. Admins are still editors. Majorly (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Somebody should start working on Wikipedia:Admin review :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but editor review's rarely accessed, and it's meant for editor actions, not admin actions. Just my view anyway. Wizardman 22:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is more focused on general editing than admin duties. If a user just wants reviews of their admin stuff, or something similair, another informal optional process would be ideal. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You guys do know that Editor review can also be used by admins, right? --Boricuaeddie 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do like the idea of this as well, there shold be a way to have a voluntary process like this. Wizardman 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to the punch, I have been planning on doing this too. ViridaeTalk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
- I've decided to do one too, and it's located at User:Maxim/Review. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC).