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. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I'm new to the process of voting for adminship. I actually just noticed that any user can vote. I thought it was only users who were already admins who could vote on a nomination. After going through the process myself (for a few days) I would like to help decide who becomes an admin, but the process/idea seems to be flawed in my mind.
In my time on Wikipedia, I have seen some very heated debate on talk pages, VfD and the mailing list. Some of the debate really didn't come off as very responsible or friendly and I came to notice that some of the people engaging in these debates were admins. It may have started out with adminship being "no big deal", but that's not how I am viewing it.
Admins are supposed to be considered the trusted faces of Wikipedia and yet I have seen banning wars between admins numerous times. Admins ban their enemies and unban their friends. As a common user, I have to say that this does not reflect well on the community as a whole. Even if adminship should be no big deal, new users see admin and think "power" or "leadership". From some of the arguments I have seen, it seems like some users should have their adminship revoked and yet this does not happen.
I am not trying to change the process. If that's how the community wants it, that's fine, but that wouldn't be how I want it. I have seen some users answer nominations by saying that the user does not meet their standards (and they have user sub-pages that state their standards). I am trying to form my own standards now and I would like to hear what other users who frequent this area have to say on the matter of admins not living up to the higher standards it appears they should be held to.
I am trying to play more of a role in the community rather than just working on my WikiProject. I have joined the Association of Members' Advocates and now watch other community based pages, but I would like to contibute my input here as well, so any explanations would be helpful.
Skyler 02:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen much of this going on at all. But if you have then the way to deal with it is to start a rfc on the admin in question, not to make it more difficult to become an admin.
The reason it doesn't happen is that most ordinary wikipedians are not prepared to speak up against admin bad behaviour. What needs to happen is for more ordinary people to become active in reviewing admin actions and be prepaired to do something about misdeeds.We have an AC which has the power to deadmin. More people should use it. Again though, making it harder for people to become admins in the first place will not solve this problem. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 07:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or they could be just trying to make Wikipedia a better place by making sure that admins really are experienced users with the proper experience to know the full range of tools Wikipedia puts at users' disposal and to understand the full set of Wikipedia policies, and the proper judgment to handle disputes. Think about it this way: how long was it before the first real, real dispute you got into at Wikipedia and found out whether you were really prepared to handle it? How many edits was it before you really, really stopped discovering new tricks in editing? When I was a new to Wikipedia, I really appreciated the fact that the admins truly were extremely knowledgeable and nearly all very fair people, good at handling disputes. I'm less sure that's as true nowadays. — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 23:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I nominated a user (my first) and things seem less than perfect. Some advice, assitance please? User:Dbachmann is the one I am refering to. Sam [ Spade] 16:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When people , especially sysops, stray from these, problems occur.
These are only suggestion and proposals.I am not asking that they actually be implemented. I 'm just stating or repeating the o-b-v-i-o-us ...
To present and future administrators please,
1) FUN & GROWTH.
Please focus on making wikipedia a fun great place to grow and contribute.
Please don't be abrasive, sarcastic, impolite. If people get pissed off, they won't say why, they just totally loose interest and leave.
2) 3 Cheers for the Policeman!
I agree with Gadykozma.Fighting vandalism and protecting copyrights are a must. Cheers to the unsung heroes! Policemen get misinterpreted. But...
Don 't overdo copyright violation checking don't expect innocent contributers to be happy about being misconstrured. Sincere policemen admins are needed. Authoritive , Wrath Of Khan types NOT.
With some wannabees, you can almost feel abuse fo adminstrative powers or disasters about to happen.
3) Keep the engine running!
Other administrator stuff to keep the wikipedia engine running.--
Jondel 04:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I offer this list as a possible source of inspriation for nominations (posted by User:UninvitedCompany).
Please be aware that these represent old and active users. You should take the same care in nominating and voting for these as for any other potential administrator. Some of these have been nominated in the past but the nominations failed.
This is not an A-List for nomination. Feel free to nominate (or not) whoever you want for adminship. (Posted by User:Cecropia)
mysql> select * from tenure where months_active > 11 and
total_edits > 4000 and admin = 'N' and yyyymm_last = 200410; +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+-------+ | user_text | yyyymm_first | yyyymm_last | months_active | total_edits | admin | +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+-------+ | Andre Engels # | 200103 | 200410 | 38 | 16425 | N | | RK | 200110 | 200410 | 35 | 7584 | N | | Derek Ross * | 200111 | 200410 | 35 | 7514 | N | | Ortolan88 * | 200111 | 200410 | 16 | 6669 | N | | Jeronimo * | 200201 | 200410 | 32 | 7175 | N | | Gsl # | 200203 | 200410 | 12 | 4771 | N | | Maury Markowitz*| 200205 | 200410 | 30 | 5342 | N | | Daniel C. Boyer | 200206 | 200410 | 29 | 4507 | N | | KF * | 200208 | 200410 | 27 | 6863 | N | | Ericd | 200209 | 200410 | 23 | 5447 | N | | Frecklefoot # | 200209 | 200410 | 26 | 8102 | N | | Kchishol1970 | 200210 | 200410 | 25 | 4308 | N | | Liftarn # | 200211 | 200410 | 22 | 4016 | N | | IZAK | 200212 | 200410 | 15 | 9724 | N | | TakuyaMurata # | 200212 | 200410 | 18 | 14097 | N | | Wapcaplet * | 200212 | 200410 | 23 | 5981 | N | | Arpingstone | 200301 | 200410 | 22 | 6846 | N | | Karada * | 200301 | 200410 | 22 | 6797 | N | | Ruhrjung | 200304 | 200410 | 17 | 4396 | N | | BRG * | 200305 | 200410 | 18 | 5130 | N | | Lee M | 200305 | 200410 | 18 | 7144 | N | | Mulad | 200305 | 200410 | 13 | 4069 | N | | Mydogategodshat | 200305 | 200410 | 18 | 4621 | N | | Hyacinth * | 200307 | 200410 | 16 | 10185 | N | | Zoicon5 * | 200307 | 200410 | 16 | 8457 | N | | VeryVerily | 200308 | 200410 | 15 | 7383 | N | | Wernher | 200308 | 200410 | 15 | 6628 | N | | Adam Carr | 200309 | 200410 | 14 | 10562 | N | | Timc * | 200309 | 200410 | 14 | 4026 | N | | Wetman # | 200309 | 200410 | 14 | 8624 | N | | Robbot % | 200310 | 200410 | 13 | 13158 | N | | LGagnon * | 200311 | 200410 | 12 | 5261 | N | | Sam Spade | 200311 | 200410 | 12 | 11413 | N | +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+-------+3433 rows in set (0.00 sec) mysql> quit
I have added a * for users recently nominated, a # for users who have declined nomination, and a % for bots.
This is very amusing. Can somebody please take my name out of this table? Suggestion (specially for UC or whatever the name): Instead of nomination frenzy, what about joining Danny's Contest? muriel@pt 09:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is there this sudden flurry of activity on RfA? It seems a little silly. Contrary to popular believe, adminship is a big deal. There shouldn't be so many names put forward at once. No more than 4, I should think. People need time to evaluate each candidate. This flooding of the page just makes things too hard to manage. Is there a shortage of admins that I don't know about??? func (talk) 20:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reason for the flurry of activity, such as it is, is that I completed Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival some days ago and upon reading through it, saw several users who I felt were long overdue for adminship. Had I realized previously that Hyacinth, or Karada, or any of the others were not admins I would have nominated them long ago. The nominations are hardly a flood. I cannot speak for the others, but each of mine was done with individual care and consideration. uc 20:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is this an official policy of any kind? I think it's a bad idea and would to like to nominate someone anyway, but I'd like to know if I'd be violating policy by nominating someone during this moratorium. Andre ( talk) 20:00, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is no set policy, except in violation of the ability of editors to give due consideration to each nomination (many take this very seriously) when there are so many at once. This is the most nomination we've had at once, and they're continuing to pile on. As PedanticallySpeaking mentioned on my talk page, there is no harm to any individual nominee in waiting a week or so. I am posting a poll below on this matter. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As reference to the above two subjects, please indicate a preference as to whether we should limit the number nominations running at the same time, in order to give voting Wikipedians an opportunity to give as much consideration to each nomination as they feel appropriate. We run from almost zero candacies to now more than a dosen. This is not an attempt to limit adminships, just to stretch them out so each gets the attention it deserves, and isn't simply a popularity contest. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to make sure that I understand Andrevan's position with regard to No Limit to Standing Nominations. So, if there were, say, 100 current nominations, you would see this as no problem, correct? func (talk) 20:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I took out the changed wording "hard and fast" in the "unlimited" option. If we're going to have a moratorium ever, we need some kind of standard. I think there are too many now, and I wanted to head off the "snowball" effect of "let's see if we can put up a record number of nominations." Valid nominations will be just as valid in a week or two and we'll have more time to give them proper considerations. If you don't feel there should be a numeric standard, please say what standard you would use. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This whole thing strikes me as a example of a poll in search of a problem rather than a problem needing a poll to decide on a fix. Filiocht 16:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
As there is no consensus at all that moritoriums are appropriate or a good idea, and, in fact, very nearly consensus against moritoriums, I am removing the moritorium notice. Snowspinner 18:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've moved this from the project page as no consensus was reached. However, this should have been a straw poll (at most) from the beginning. We have no standards whatsoever for de-adminship (except maybe at RfC or RfAr) and there is no real way to determine when a consensus has been reached. I suppose we should have a structure for determine under exactly what circumstances adminship should be removed, but that's for another discussion.
I'll also note that, even if the vote on de-adminship were unanimous, we would still have to cite some policy to one of the Stewards (probably Angela) in order to have the de-admining accomplished. Bureaucrats are not empowered to de-admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
{{ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive1}}
{{ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive2}}
My bureaucratship nomination recently ended with a vote of 12/3/4, but not an hour after the nomination ended the tally was 15/3/4. First of all, I thought that this is exactly 80% support (neutral votes are abstentions, right? otherwise, they're not any different than oppose votes) - but disregarding that, with such a close vote that became not close really quickly after the time limit, what is to be gained by denying the request citing a lack of consensus? If consensus existed, why should it be held to a hard and fast time limit? Andre ( talk) 02:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
We currently have four nominations, one overdue, who have neither accepted nor rejected their nominations. The RfA page states:
and the instructions for promotion say:
I believe seven days is sufficient time for a nominee to be aware of, and express an opinion on, his or her own nomination. I extended Jeronimo's nomination for a day to give the user time to respond. Beyond this please be aware nominees will not be promoted. This is a matter of the simple rules, but also a simple courtesy to the community for someone who will be entrusted with some extra responsibilities and the trust of the community.
Please, if you nominate someone, make sure they are aware they must accept or reject their nominations on the RfA page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I'm new to the process of voting for adminship. I actually just noticed that any user can vote. I thought it was only users who were already admins who could vote on a nomination. After going through the process myself (for a few days) I would like to help decide who becomes an admin, but the process/idea seems to be flawed in my mind.
In my time on Wikipedia, I have seen some very heated debate on talk pages, VfD and the mailing list. Some of the debate really didn't come off as very responsible or friendly and I came to notice that some of the people engaging in these debates were admins. It may have started out with adminship being "no big deal", but that's not how I am viewing it.
Admins are supposed to be considered the trusted faces of Wikipedia and yet I have seen banning wars between admins numerous times. Admins ban their enemies and unban their friends. As a common user, I have to say that this does not reflect well on the community as a whole. Even if adminship should be no big deal, new users see admin and think "power" or "leadership". From some of the arguments I have seen, it seems like some users should have their adminship revoked and yet this does not happen.
I am not trying to change the process. If that's how the community wants it, that's fine, but that wouldn't be how I want it. I have seen some users answer nominations by saying that the user does not meet their standards (and they have user sub-pages that state their standards). I am trying to form my own standards now and I would like to hear what other users who frequent this area have to say on the matter of admins not living up to the higher standards it appears they should be held to.
I am trying to play more of a role in the community rather than just working on my WikiProject. I have joined the Association of Members' Advocates and now watch other community based pages, but I would like to contibute my input here as well, so any explanations would be helpful.
Skyler 02:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen much of this going on at all. But if you have then the way to deal with it is to start a rfc on the admin in question, not to make it more difficult to become an admin.
The reason it doesn't happen is that most ordinary wikipedians are not prepared to speak up against admin bad behaviour. What needs to happen is for more ordinary people to become active in reviewing admin actions and be prepaired to do something about misdeeds.We have an AC which has the power to deadmin. More people should use it. Again though, making it harder for people to become admins in the first place will not solve this problem. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 07:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or they could be just trying to make Wikipedia a better place by making sure that admins really are experienced users with the proper experience to know the full range of tools Wikipedia puts at users' disposal and to understand the full set of Wikipedia policies, and the proper judgment to handle disputes. Think about it this way: how long was it before the first real, real dispute you got into at Wikipedia and found out whether you were really prepared to handle it? How many edits was it before you really, really stopped discovering new tricks in editing? When I was a new to Wikipedia, I really appreciated the fact that the admins truly were extremely knowledgeable and nearly all very fair people, good at handling disputes. I'm less sure that's as true nowadays. — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 23:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I nominated a user (my first) and things seem less than perfect. Some advice, assitance please? User:Dbachmann is the one I am refering to. Sam [ Spade] 16:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When people , especially sysops, stray from these, problems occur.
These are only suggestion and proposals.I am not asking that they actually be implemented. I 'm just stating or repeating the o-b-v-i-o-us ...
To present and future administrators please,
1) FUN & GROWTH.
Please focus on making wikipedia a fun great place to grow and contribute.
Please don't be abrasive, sarcastic, impolite. If people get pissed off, they won't say why, they just totally loose interest and leave.
2) 3 Cheers for the Policeman!
I agree with Gadykozma.Fighting vandalism and protecting copyrights are a must. Cheers to the unsung heroes! Policemen get misinterpreted. But...
Don 't overdo copyright violation checking don't expect innocent contributers to be happy about being misconstrured. Sincere policemen admins are needed. Authoritive , Wrath Of Khan types NOT.
With some wannabees, you can almost feel abuse fo adminstrative powers or disasters about to happen.
3) Keep the engine running!
Other administrator stuff to keep the wikipedia engine running.--
Jondel 04:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I offer this list as a possible source of inspriation for nominations (posted by User:UninvitedCompany).
Please be aware that these represent old and active users. You should take the same care in nominating and voting for these as for any other potential administrator. Some of these have been nominated in the past but the nominations failed.
This is not an A-List for nomination. Feel free to nominate (or not) whoever you want for adminship. (Posted by User:Cecropia)
mysql> select * from tenure where months_active > 11 and
total_edits > 4000 and admin = 'N' and yyyymm_last = 200410; +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+-------+ | user_text | yyyymm_first | yyyymm_last | months_active | total_edits | admin | +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+-------+ | Andre Engels # | 200103 | 200410 | 38 | 16425 | N | | RK | 200110 | 200410 | 35 | 7584 | N | | Derek Ross * | 200111 | 200410 | 35 | 7514 | N | | Ortolan88 * | 200111 | 200410 | 16 | 6669 | N | | Jeronimo * | 200201 | 200410 | 32 | 7175 | N | | Gsl # | 200203 | 200410 | 12 | 4771 | N | | Maury Markowitz*| 200205 | 200410 | 30 | 5342 | N | | Daniel C. Boyer | 200206 | 200410 | 29 | 4507 | N | | KF * | 200208 | 200410 | 27 | 6863 | N | | Ericd | 200209 | 200410 | 23 | 5447 | N | | Frecklefoot # | 200209 | 200410 | 26 | 8102 | N | | Kchishol1970 | 200210 | 200410 | 25 | 4308 | N | | Liftarn # | 200211 | 200410 | 22 | 4016 | N | | IZAK | 200212 | 200410 | 15 | 9724 | N | | TakuyaMurata # | 200212 | 200410 | 18 | 14097 | N | | Wapcaplet * | 200212 | 200410 | 23 | 5981 | N | | Arpingstone | 200301 | 200410 | 22 | 6846 | N | | Karada * | 200301 | 200410 | 22 | 6797 | N | | Ruhrjung | 200304 | 200410 | 17 | 4396 | N | | BRG * | 200305 | 200410 | 18 | 5130 | N | | Lee M | 200305 | 200410 | 18 | 7144 | N | | Mulad | 200305 | 200410 | 13 | 4069 | N | | Mydogategodshat | 200305 | 200410 | 18 | 4621 | N | | Hyacinth * | 200307 | 200410 | 16 | 10185 | N | | Zoicon5 * | 200307 | 200410 | 16 | 8457 | N | | VeryVerily | 200308 | 200410 | 15 | 7383 | N | | Wernher | 200308 | 200410 | 15 | 6628 | N | | Adam Carr | 200309 | 200410 | 14 | 10562 | N | | Timc * | 200309 | 200410 | 14 | 4026 | N | | Wetman # | 200309 | 200410 | 14 | 8624 | N | | Robbot % | 200310 | 200410 | 13 | 13158 | N | | LGagnon * | 200311 | 200410 | 12 | 5261 | N | | Sam Spade | 200311 | 200410 | 12 | 11413 | N | +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+-------+3433 rows in set (0.00 sec) mysql> quit
I have added a * for users recently nominated, a # for users who have declined nomination, and a % for bots.
This is very amusing. Can somebody please take my name out of this table? Suggestion (specially for UC or whatever the name): Instead of nomination frenzy, what about joining Danny's Contest? muriel@pt 09:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is there this sudden flurry of activity on RfA? It seems a little silly. Contrary to popular believe, adminship is a big deal. There shouldn't be so many names put forward at once. No more than 4, I should think. People need time to evaluate each candidate. This flooding of the page just makes things too hard to manage. Is there a shortage of admins that I don't know about??? func (talk) 20:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reason for the flurry of activity, such as it is, is that I completed Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival some days ago and upon reading through it, saw several users who I felt were long overdue for adminship. Had I realized previously that Hyacinth, or Karada, or any of the others were not admins I would have nominated them long ago. The nominations are hardly a flood. I cannot speak for the others, but each of mine was done with individual care and consideration. uc 20:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is this an official policy of any kind? I think it's a bad idea and would to like to nominate someone anyway, but I'd like to know if I'd be violating policy by nominating someone during this moratorium. Andre ( talk) 20:00, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is no set policy, except in violation of the ability of editors to give due consideration to each nomination (many take this very seriously) when there are so many at once. This is the most nomination we've had at once, and they're continuing to pile on. As PedanticallySpeaking mentioned on my talk page, there is no harm to any individual nominee in waiting a week or so. I am posting a poll below on this matter. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As reference to the above two subjects, please indicate a preference as to whether we should limit the number nominations running at the same time, in order to give voting Wikipedians an opportunity to give as much consideration to each nomination as they feel appropriate. We run from almost zero candacies to now more than a dosen. This is not an attempt to limit adminships, just to stretch them out so each gets the attention it deserves, and isn't simply a popularity contest. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to make sure that I understand Andrevan's position with regard to No Limit to Standing Nominations. So, if there were, say, 100 current nominations, you would see this as no problem, correct? func (talk) 20:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I took out the changed wording "hard and fast" in the "unlimited" option. If we're going to have a moratorium ever, we need some kind of standard. I think there are too many now, and I wanted to head off the "snowball" effect of "let's see if we can put up a record number of nominations." Valid nominations will be just as valid in a week or two and we'll have more time to give them proper considerations. If you don't feel there should be a numeric standard, please say what standard you would use. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This whole thing strikes me as a example of a poll in search of a problem rather than a problem needing a poll to decide on a fix. Filiocht 16:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
As there is no consensus at all that moritoriums are appropriate or a good idea, and, in fact, very nearly consensus against moritoriums, I am removing the moritorium notice. Snowspinner 18:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've moved this from the project page as no consensus was reached. However, this should have been a straw poll (at most) from the beginning. We have no standards whatsoever for de-adminship (except maybe at RfC or RfAr) and there is no real way to determine when a consensus has been reached. I suppose we should have a structure for determine under exactly what circumstances adminship should be removed, but that's for another discussion.
I'll also note that, even if the vote on de-adminship were unanimous, we would still have to cite some policy to one of the Stewards (probably Angela) in order to have the de-admining accomplished. Bureaucrats are not empowered to de-admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
{{ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive1}}
{{ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive2}}
My bureaucratship nomination recently ended with a vote of 12/3/4, but not an hour after the nomination ended the tally was 15/3/4. First of all, I thought that this is exactly 80% support (neutral votes are abstentions, right? otherwise, they're not any different than oppose votes) - but disregarding that, with such a close vote that became not close really quickly after the time limit, what is to be gained by denying the request citing a lack of consensus? If consensus existed, why should it be held to a hard and fast time limit? Andre ( talk) 02:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
We currently have four nominations, one overdue, who have neither accepted nor rejected their nominations. The RfA page states:
and the instructions for promotion say:
I believe seven days is sufficient time for a nominee to be aware of, and express an opinion on, his or her own nomination. I extended Jeronimo's nomination for a day to give the user time to respond. Beyond this please be aware nominees will not be promoted. This is a matter of the simple rules, but also a simple courtesy to the community for someone who will be entrusted with some extra responsibilities and the trust of the community.
Please, if you nominate someone, make sure they are aware they must accept or reject their nominations on the RfA page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)