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.
This is an archive of discussion around June 2003 - March 2004. Any new comments should be posted on the actual talk page. Quote from here if necessary.
you can't third a motion
Look I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but you can't third a motion. Nor can you fourth or fifth it. :) It goes discussion → motion → second → those in favour → those against. -- Party pooper 08:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Who says we can't? The comittee police? I move that the expressions "thirded" fourthed" etc be made legit on wikipedia. Will someone second the motion? Party lover 09:11, 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to skip a step and third it, it seems appropriate enough. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll take a fifth. -- Party animal 19:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A fifth sounds good, make mine a scotch. -- Party party!
I don't know if we have any scotch around here, I'm pretty sure we can find some Irish, though. But five of them? I dunno about that. -- Party animal 19:25 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I will now perform a legal motion which I will second , third, fourth, fifth, and be for :) *starts dancing around* ilyanep 15:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Two sections
Shouldn't there be two sections for nominations? We have two types of nominations; self nominations and nominations made by others (both are followed by "seconds"). The reason I think it is a good idea to separate the two is that nominations made by others need to be accepted by the nominee before anything happens. No big deal though. --mav 00:35, 23 Jun 2003
That makes sense; having spent a lot of time on talkers and MUDs and the like, I know quite a few people who, having been nominated for adminnery, wished to not become one. Phil Bordelon 00:40 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Is seconding a nomination for admins only, or can anyone do it? -- Jim Regan 00:44 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That's actually a question worth answering and putting on the 'real' page of this. Phil Bordelon 00:45 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It has now been answered on the main page; anyone may agree or disagree with a nomination or request. Thanks, Eloquence. Phil Bordelon 00:57 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
OK, it's me who has a problem with deleting things. I think it is part of Wikipedia so this things should not be removed. But if that is the current policy, I will at least save my part on my User-page... schade... Fantasy 13:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Just to clarify - as is suggested below, we didn't have this page until June 14, 2003. Before that, virtually all sysop requests were made via the WikiEN-L Mailing list (or the Wikipedia-L list before the WikiEN-L list was established). --Camembert 23:06, 15 Aug 2003
I was looking for the Adminship of User:172, to understand the discussion better. Is it somewhere, I can not find it in the history... Fantasy 20:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
He got it before this system was established. His nomination or self-nomination (I don't know which) occurred on the Mailing list or some obscure place on Wikipedia. He received some but not much opposition (only Mav if I'm correct). --Menchi 20:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry about how the adminship nomination went. I guess that you wouldn't want to deal with all the pointless bickering and politicking. Oh well, it's the community's loss. Good job on the Continuation War, btw. 172 01:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC) -- 172 01:59, 29 Aug 2003
de-adminship
Since when do requests for de-adminship have to be approved by community consensus? It is the editor's choice whether they want to become an admin -- we don't force them into it -- and it is the editor's choice if they want to resign. As far as I'm concerned, resignations can be handled by private communication with a developer, followed by a public announcement. If, after the announcement, the community convinces the editor to change their mind, sysop status should be restored without the need for further community involvement (i.e. no need to ask here again). -- Tim Starling 02:36, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
You're right on the first point. I edited the page appropriately.
On balance, I'd say that normally the community should be involved on restoration, but that's just a preference. Martin 10:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Good enough for me. -- Tim Starling 03:39, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
originally added under the desysopping section:
Requests and nominations for de-adminship:
If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question.
This would be "off-topic" as User:MyRedDice has pointed out elsewhere. This is a page for straightforward request(s) to be a Sysop and does not conform to any Wikipedia policy. This is not the place to discuss Problem User Sysops. NightCrawler 22:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is off-topic. Martin 23:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There is a link, it's always been there, right above the "Requests for adminship" subheading. He's also listed on Wikipedia:Administrators and there's a message on his talk page telling him he's an admin. -- Tim Starling 07:04, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Time between nomination and adminship
Concern... no lag time?
I'm a bit concerned how fast Pakaran was turned into sysop -- it was only 48 hours between nomination and adminship. Now granted, he had been discussed before, there was a large amount of support and he's a good contributor. However, the process seemed quite fast, considering something like Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion has a 5 day "lag time" and adminship used to be a much more drawn out process. Has something changed? Fuzheado 18:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seven day delay proposed
I don't know that we've ever had a policy of a certain amount of time on the page before granting adminship, but I think a required delay of say 7 days might be a good idea, just to give time in case someone has something relevent to say about a nominee that others voting here might not be aware of. -- Infrogmation 18:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think this is a good point. A certain delay would make sure everyone who wants to weigh in is heard from. Seven days would seem about right to me. -- Viajero 23:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
OK. I usually leave it for a bit longer, but since I was doing 6 at once I got a bit careless. -- Tim Starling 01:49, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
Most of the people I nominated waited for like over 2 weeks. --Menchi 02:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Tim, could you be careless just one more time and move me :-)? (I'm just kidding...) ugen64 20:43, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
Six months?
it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for six months with a good number of edits.
6 months is a bit long isn't it? I was a sysop after 45 days... Evercat 23:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Maybe it's more important to specify number of edits. 2000? 3000? --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp 00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Then off with your head! You need to get addicted like the rest of us. --Jiang | Talk 00:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'd prefer a time-based limit than an edit number based one. It's very easy to make a couple of thousand minor edits whereas a time limit can't be faked in such a way. Angela. 01:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How about a time limit and an edit limit? andoror? --Jiang | Talk 01:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Cyan proposes case-by-case evaluation
Why have a policy about that at all? We're all capable of deciding if an individual editor has our trust, and expressing our confidence (or lack thereof). -- Cyan 02:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Guideline, not policy says Angela
I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela. 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ah, good point. That should have been obvious. -- Cyan 03:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think the present system is OK. If people nominate themselves they do know they run the risk of not being supported. The boldface 6 months notice is ok, as it is clear from the context that it is just orientative, and also from the context one should infer that a bunch of minor edits is not relevant... Personally I found the introduction of the page quite enlightening. My 2c. Pfortuny 08:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I like the current system. It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same. Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Some users who don't edit very much will probably need to be around for six months before they can be made sysops, some users who edit a great deal will probably only need to be around for a few weeks (I edited for about four months before being sysopped, and I've recommended several users to sysopdom who've edited for a shorter time than that). Similarly, people who mainly make major, high quality edits will need to make relatively fewer edits than those who mainly correct spelling mistakes and argue about POV on talk pages. What matters is that a user is trusted to not abuse their sysop powers - the amount of time and number of edits required for someone to gain that trust will vary greatly from user to user. There's no need (or point) in putting a number on it. I therefore edited the page to get rid of the "six month" requirement (though I see that in the time it's taken me to write this, Wik has put it back in again...). --Camembert 02:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Note for new sysops who find they are not sysops
Our software stores user information not only in the database but also in memcached. If a developer makes someone a sysop in the database but doesn't clear the memcached key, the user can be spontaneously de-sysopped. This occurs because if a change is made to the user data, the script loads it from memcached and then saves it to the database. If anyone finds that they are not a sysop when they have been told they are, they should report it immediately. Fixed in this case [DavidLevinson]. -- Tim Starling 00:25, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
After too fast, we have too slow
Quite a few users have been here too long. They need to be made sysops. Most have unanimous support and have been here for at least a week, (i think) GreenMountain 23:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A week is not long enough. --mav 23:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have seen users become sysops after being listed for less than 2 days. GreenMountain 19:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Tim explains
Please check the discussion above. I was chastised for doing it after 2 days, now I do it after a week. Also, I don't have time to do it every day, so some people may have to wait more than a week. -- Tim Starling 01:57, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Should I apply?
I have been here for more than a month. I have a couple thousand contributions. I don't know if I should apply for adminship. Can someone tell me if I should? GreenMountain 01:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Asking "should I ask" is unnecessary. People won't hate you for asking too early, they'll just be really nice about it and tell you to come back later. Lots of people have been made sysops on the second attempt. I say go for it. -- Tim Starling 01:57, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Although you have to consider Alex... -- Tim Starling 02:00, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
There's no harm in asking. Give it a go and see what happens. --Camembert 02:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Criteria
Being a sysop is more about being a trusted member of the community rather than about how many edits you've made, and you can't expect to have gained this in less than a week. People need to see how you handle various situations, etc. --Angela, quoted (and seconded) by Uncle Ed 22:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
One of those situations clearly being "how do you act when you don't get your own way". Which this would appear to be. -- Finlay McWalter 23:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, thats a very good idea. GreenMountain 23:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I got sysop status after only a bit more than a month and maybe 300/400 edits, but most of the edits were useful instead of "added a period" or "spelling correction".
I'm not Attacking anyone who does that, but 300 minor edits is a whole different thing than 300 full-paragraph (or at least fact) additions...
It seems the new rule at this so-called open source project is that anyone with a sysop key can ban any user, or attempt to block any IP at any time. So much for the e-mail, discussion and what not. All it requires is a rope and a few willing allies. In this case, the vigilante action seems to have been to protect other sysops from criticism. --172.192.87.172 00:26, 25 Jan 2004
I will be happy to discuss these matters further with you, but not on the wiki itself. You can email me at cyanonym at hotmail dot com. -- Cyan 02:26, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Tim wants to distribute the task of making admins
I have half a mind to do away with this task, it gets tiresome after a while. Does anyone have any ideas on how the power to create sysops can be distributed to the user level? Say, with a quorum and a vote? -- Tim Starling 02:41, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Automation suggested
Automate the process. Give them a request form where they enter the reason they want to become a sysop. Have seperate voting form which lists how long they have been here, their number of edits, and what reason they give. After exactly 2 weeks, if someone has less than a general consensus (let's say 80%) of the vote, they become a sysop. --Raul654 02:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Let all admins do it and maintain a log
Why not just let any Admin promote and demote any user? Of course Admin candidates would have to go through the process of being listed here first and there would have to be a Promote/demote log in order to make sure Admins can't get away with making improper promotions/demotions. That way we don't have to depend on a developer to do this. --mav 02:54, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Like IRC? Note that when I put forward my sysop blocking feature, a number of people were concerned that sysops would be able to block each other. It was only when I assured these people that this was not the case that they were happy with the implementation.
Speaking of IRC, Fuzheado and JeLuF said on #wikipedia that they'd prefer a quorum, say 3 required "signatures" to perform an operation. -- Tim Starling 06:17, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Although I imagine mav's idea would be much be simpler and quicker to implement, I have to agree with the quorum idea. The one sysop (de)selects another idea is open to the possibility of mistakes (one sysop sysops a troll/vandal), a new form of "edit war", and abuse (nepotism). Foresight not being 20/20 I am not sure how serious these problems would be in practice but a quorom would certainly ameloriate them. Also having re-usable quorom code might well find uses elsewhere - although being efficient and automated like this might be considered unwiki :-) Pete/Pcb21(talk) 09:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Of course that is an even better idea! :) My concern was to easily implement something in the interim. I happen to trust that Admins ('sysop' is a user account switch not a person!) will use the ability with deliberate caution and only promote/demote accounts that have been confirmed via some process. In fact that may work so well that we don't need to implement technological ways to enforce that. Wikis are about trusting that most people will most often do good rather than evil. --mav 11:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'd say the idea is great, but maybe the quorum could be bumped up to 4 required signatures. I would not necessarily trust 2 signatures, 3 unspecified sysops is on the limit, but I would be more comfortable with 4 (and the explicit assumption that the act be performed in accordance with prior discussion here, only after the discussion clearly had settled down and reached a reasonably consensus conclusion). We have enough sysops nowadays that finding 4 public minded ones should not be insurmountable. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:09, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ohh!
Ohh! Tim was talking about the task of actually granting the permissions. (Slaps forehead) --Raul654 02:58, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Attacked by everybody
I don't know if this page has always been this way, but it seems to have turned into a page where people attack each other. I just made a request for adminship. I thought it would be nice to serve wikipedia on a higher level. I had no idea that I would be attacked by everybody and I wouldn't have applied for this privilage if I had that idea. I assumed that wikipedians wouldn't be low enough to turn a "request to better serve wikipedia" into an "accuse greenmountain" forum. GreenMountain 19:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
With the exception of the current debate, this page has been fairly cordial. Most people who are nominated are accepted, I think, and when they aren't, it's usually a pretty clear consensus not to. Aside from the de-admining Cunc debate, there's been very little vitriol that I've seen before the current discussion regarding you. You and your brother may be different people, but you must be able to understand why the concerns being presented are a major issue that can't be simply ignored. Perhaps you could provide proof that you are a different individual (e.g. by getting your brother to make edits from one computer while you do the same at another in a different location, like a public library -- a developer could confirm that both accounts were being used from a different computer, and that might mollify some people, though it wouldn't be foolproof). Tuf-Kat 21:36, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
Vitriol: "fierce hate and anger expressed through severe criticism". I can't find any comments that could be conceived as vitriolic? I'd suggest waiting 5 months and then nominating yourself again. Provided, of course, that noone else nominates you in the mean time. --snoyes 21:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, currently, the majority of those who expressed opinions on the matter, supported the request, so I don't see why I would need to wait. I was just commenting on the excessive conflict that has come out of this simple request. Anyway, it isn't fair that since I have a brother who uses the same computer that I should be banned. GreenMountain 22:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about banning you. Morwen 22:27, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
I am annoyed with this admin, based on my experience with them. Also, there are others (admins and no) who I feel have been less than academic in their response to citations and issues variously contentious to their POV. I do not, however, want anyone De-admin'ed, banned, or otherwise excessively mistreated in response to that, and furthermore, I find the likelihood of any such excesses to be... excessively unlikely ;). What I would like to know is how to legitimately complain about relatively minor issues such as I have had (if you don't know what I am referring to, I suppose you could ask me). The mediation/arbitration process seems rather excessive (besides, its not even really functioning yet) and speaking to Jimbo seems to be a last case scenario, far beyond the measure of intensity this circumstance requires. There is mention, however, of a "clarification" or "request"? Whats that all about? Your thoughts, if you please? (p.s. if this is the wrong place for this, let me know, but it seemed appropriate to me for a few reasons, not the least of which the short lived de'admin requests which I've seen here.) Jack 01:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why do you want to complain if it's a minor issue? Have a little tolerance. Just because someone is annoying doesn't mean you have to search for an ear to whinge into. -- Tim Starling 01:37, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, nothing. How can on effectively "discipline" someone who donates their time and effort? In the very worst case, you have to ask them to go away, but that's really a big step, and (for all the talk) its something we do very rarely. The way the software is now, there are only two "grains" of user power (user and sysop), so we can optionally move someone from the former to the latter (a big step too, as we have too few people in the latter case, and too much unpleasant work for the sysops to do). Frankly, I think "conflicts between users" and "problem users" are pointless - they just end up as endless bickering matches, into which no sensible wikipedian ever sticks his head. Arbitration and mediation are just politically-correct ways of saying "decisions about banning" and "knock two stupid heads together". And my understanding of Jimbo's philosphy (and of quite a lot of wikipedians) is that conflict and chaos have worked to whittle a pretty impressive encyclopedia, and will (presumably) do so in the future. I'm absolutely not suggesting or encouraging you to leave (really!) but this is the fundamental difference between wikipedia and h2g2&everything2 - they're much more "process oriented", and we're just a big cloud of people yelling at one another. I suppose the fact (it is a fact, I think) that wikipedia is so much larger and more popular than either of the other two bears out Jimbo's philosphy (as I've horribly misprepresented it above). The unpleasant result of this is that attrition is comparatively high, particularly in the more controversial subject areas. This is, in essence, a tough place. -- Finlay McWalter 01:48, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree 100%. And don't worry, I'm not planning on going anywhere. I was just hoping there would/could be some ear eager for the whining ;) People who know me IRL often comment on my steady stream of complaints. Indeed, one of the reasons (IMO) I get hasselled so little IRL is that I get so upset over petty things (lack of tea, for example), that nobody wants to see how I'd handle something seriously upsetting ;) Anyways, I agree w both of you, and my complaints are fairly minor, and I don't want any real discipline to occur (as far as the admins go) in result of them. I was hoping there was some sort of "official scolding" that could occur, but from the sounds of it thats not really available. Alas... Jack 18:28, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
Don't the admins have a Lieutenant, or some sort of boss, between them and Jimbo? Somebody who scolds, but doesn't fire? Just wondering... if not, there should be! Jack 18:30, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
Abuse of the de-sysop area
Lir, if you don't stop listing legitimate sysops for imagined (or trivial-at-best) slights, I'm going to protect this page, and do what Theresa tried earlier and move all your comments to the user-conflicts page. --→Raul654 22:59, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing trivial about banning me. These three individuals are working together to prevent my participation on the wikipedia; they are doing this by abusing their powers. Lirath Q. Pynnor 23:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Lir on this point—he at the very least has a right to lodge a complaint against Hephaestos. I'm not saying I agree with that complaint, but it's not prima facie a ridiculous one: Hephaestos has blocked Lir twice in the past two days despite there being no consensus that he be banned, or decision by either Jimbo or the newly-constituted arbitration committee. The blocking was undone by other sysops (Tim Starling once, and Angela once) relatively quickly, which indicates that at least some other sysops agree with Lir that it was unjustified. --Delirium 01:43, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
I also agree that this is a situation that needs to be aired. It needs to be discussed, decided, and rectified, one way or the other. - Hephaestos 01:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Question and Suggestion
My question: Any reason not to unprotect this page now?
Suggestion: Perhaps the "Requests and nominations for de-adminship" should be moved off on to another page, as that seems to be causing problems. Having this page protected from editing largely defeats the legitimate primary function.
Alternatively or additionally, perhaps we could have a seperate page along the lines of "Allegations of Sysop abuse"? -- Infrogmation 01:48, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sysops aren't people, Admins are. IMO, "Allegations of Sysop/Adim abuse" would be just as bad as what "Conflicts between users" has become. I'm not sure what to do. --mav 01:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
I've unprotected the page, and cannot see why it was protected in the first place - Lir's complaint seems a perfectly valid one to me. Hephaestos does not have the authority to block signed in users except in cases of simple vandalism, which, as far as I can tell, this is not. Was the blocking reported anywhere at all (I don't see any discussion on Lir's talk page, and didn't see it mentioned on the mailing list). Incidentally, I do support the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship or similar to make this sort of stuff separate. --Camembert
It was protected due to an edit war (see the history). As I stated above, I think Lir's complaint against me is quite worthy of discussion. I think Lir's complaint against 168 is not, however, and that is what started the edit war. - Hephaestos 02:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is admin abuse so bas as to merit its own page? --mav 02:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Such a page would be a fun place for the trolls to hang out, anyway. - Hephaestos 02:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Agree with both Mav and Heph. Lir's and Wik's loud complaints aside, I really don't see much evidence of sysops abusing their powers. This page seems the perfect venue for airing such problems. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
IMO the question may not be if admin abuse is so bad, but rather if discussion/allegations of such are so bad as to diminish the functionality of the "Requests for adminship" page. I think that's already happening. -- Infrogmation 02:25, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So the answer is to create a separate page where such baseless complaints can multiply? --mav
Multiply and be ignored, yes. Like the ban requests. It seems the norm around here. - Hephaestos 02:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(via edit conflict) - OK, I admit there was a reason to protect the page (and I admit, I didn't realise it was the 168 stuff - which does seem more trivial - which got it started), but I hope it's OK that I've unprotected it now. I'd ask the people who were removing Lir's complaints not to do so - you might disagree with Lir (I do myself in many ways), but the complaints aren't entirely ridiculous, and there's no reason to not allow them to be aired. Removing them might give the impression that we admins are so arrogant that we cannot possibly conceive of one of our number ever doing anyting wrong (yes, I know that's not how we feel, but perceptions matter if we're to be respected). Let the argument run its course, then remove them. In any case, having an edit war over it is pretty counter-productive.
I think a separate page for admin abuse would be a good thing not because admin abuse is particularly common or anything like that, but because if we're going to have edit wars over it such as this one, they shouldn't interfere with legitimate discussions about the creation of admins. Also, I think that this page ought to be such a nice place where people can say lovely things about each other and give one another a leg-up. I know it sounds wet, but all this vitriol is rather unpleasant and better sectioned off, IMO. --Camembert 02:31, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The complaints were aired, Camembert. Possibly they should have been allowed to remain for a little longer before being removed to make room for more substantive matters, possibly not. Your general thrust is something I entirely agree with. However, these particular circumstances are a little different: Lir was not bringing a particular specific complaint about a particular specific administrator, Lir was casting wholesale complaints about every admin he had managed to cross swords with. The intention was clear: if you disagree with Lir about an article, Lir will attempt to get your sysop rights removed. If there was a genuine complaint, as opposed to a concerted campaign that amounted to complaining about everyone, it would be a different matter. In this case, however, it is a simple matter of Lir throwing mud in every direction, hoping that enough of it will stick, and that he will thus be a little freer to rampage through the Wikipedia, overriding any and all other community members with his customary gleeful edit wars. You can stop it now or you can stop it later. It's a whole lot easier, and less disruptive, to stop it now. Tannin 02:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
PS: your second para about not liking vitrol on this page, Camembert. Yes, I agree entirely. I am inclined to think that restricting this page to genuine complaints (which are few and far between) is the better way to do it, but I am open to persuasion on that. Tannin 02:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, Lir's complaint about Hephaestos banning him was a genuine one (and at the very least, it was a specific one against a specific admin) - admins shouldn't ban signed in users unless it's a case of simple vandalism. Of course, I wouldn't want to paint Lir whiter than snow - he has his foibles, let's say - and I'm sure Heph acted with good intentions, but this wasn't a clear-cut case of simple vandalism. There might be a case for banning Lir (I really don't know), but one admin making a snap decision to do so isn't on.
I suppose part of the problem in removing complaints is that we don't have any procedure in place for desysopping people or any guidelines on what might constitute an action so bad that it would result in desysopping. This makes it difficult to say when an argument can really be said to have run its course and be deleted from the page with confidence. Anyway, I'm not going to say more about this - it's not a very fun subject :) Apologies for rambling on so. --Camembert 03:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
wow, I must say its rather horrifying to see you all discussing your own lack of over sight in such a cavalier manner. This does not bode well. "Genuine complaints" appears to be defined as those complaints which some unknown number of admins agrees with. The rabble such as myself clearly have no place here, our complaints are speedilly removed to our user pages, and the problem left to fester. Jack 02:51, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Quite right. We should not leave problems to fester. Instead, we should be much more proactive in dealing with our problem users, instead of letting them troll on forever. Tannin 02:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. I suggest you impliment a plan of harassment and intimidation of all who question your authority. The name for all who defy you is "Troll"! Seek out areas where these poor fools are attempting to utilize dubious resources and statistics (like the CIA world factbook) or in otherways divert from the "official wikipedia POV" of brutal nihilism. If they won't immediately cower before your superiority, bring in a squad of likeminded admins. Rearrange CbU in shocking and bizarre ways, carefully cutting and pasting passages so as to maximize their shame and insult. If that doesn't work, you can always unilaterally ban them. Just don't let Jimbo know about any of this! I hear he grows soft and weak in his later years, even mumbling about "welcoming new editors" and "inclusionism".... Jack 03:17, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Trying to summarize the discussion:
The requests for adminship bit of the page is agreed to be a useful and successful utility page.
The requests for de-adminship bit had been less so.
Matter arising: Should the page be spilt. Two opinions:
I know you're busy, but RfA is getting crowded. It looks to me like at least Meelar, CatherineMunro, Roadrunner, and Seglea have made it in, if not a few more. (Depending on how long they need to be here before advancing.) Could you promote a few of these excellent people? I appreciate it, Jwrosenzweig 16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My god, Roadrunner has been here since December 23! And I thought the 2 weeks (IIRC) I was here was a long time. →Raul654 20:47, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
That's because he didn't accept it until just the other day Sarge Baldy 20:51, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
Policy on Anons and this page
I have boldly modified the policy here, so that anons cannot be made administrators (duh) and anons cannot nominate others (new). Of course, we believe in preknowledge of the law, so Wik's current nomination can stand, for what it's worth. But from here on out, I propose anons not be part of the process of voting/nominating here. Fuzheado 05:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. ;) A long time coming, I think, since it stops not only anon trolls from nominating (and thus reduces clutter) and stops sock puppets... Dysprosia 05:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support in part, Oppose in part. If you can nominate yourself, why can't an anon nominate you? As for anons not being made administrators, duh. -- Anthony DiPierro 05:36, 9 Feb 2004
Anons obviously cannot be administrators as there is no password involved. I think anons should be able to nominate anyone. silsor 05:39, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC) 05:49, 9 Feb 2004
Just noticed the voting clause. Anons should definitely be allowed to vote, there are some excellent regular contributors who have just never bothered to log in. silsor
I think anons should be allowed to nominate. If you want we can have a number of edits minimum though. Dori | Talk 05:46, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
What about nominations that are obvious trolls (case in point...) Pakaran. 05:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The problem with anons voting/nominating is that you cannot verify that it is even an individual (proxy server, dynamic IPs, etc.) so it's pretty useless to have anons involved in any meaningful way. This means you cannot even qualify them using the "Sock Puppet Avoidance Threshold". Fuzheado 05:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You can vote them down. You say what about trolls, I say what about those who don't want to register? It doesn't take much for a troll to register. Dori | Talk 06:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'd vote in favor of restricting nominations to logged in users. -- Infrogmation 06:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Without commenting on a general principle of anonymous users nominating people, I've removed this particular nomination, as the user's history reveals a good deal of general troublemaking. Update: and he's just now been banned for vandalizing other articles. --Delirium 06:44, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the nomination should have been removed, as it was supported by some people. That it was supported may show some people that that the user is supported by more people than they may imagine, although the peer pressure is to damn him. Secretlondon 07:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
It clearly says "Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system." Which part of that are you saying we should ignore, the nominating part or just the voting part or all of it? Morwen 08:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't see that bit - I just saw a reversion war with the what feels like a cabal sometimes. Secretlondon 08:05, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that that part was added after the nomination: [1]. Fuzheado also mentioned this at the top of this section. Dori | Talk 13:29, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Before we get into a massive edit war here, let me remind contributors that any logged-in user can make a nomination. We don't actualy need to settle the "can an anon nominate" question right away as, for a nomination to be successful, there must be a clear consensus in favour if the user in question. That requirement, in turn, necessitates that a reasonable number of regular (i.e., logged-in) Wikipedins vote in favour of the nominee, and that suggests that at least one of those Wikipedians ought to be prepared to make a nomination. In other words, if the nomination is meaningful in the first place, sooner or later a logged-in user will make it. Tannin 07:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
PS: In other words, if a logged-in user cares to make a nomination (of Wik or of anyone else) then I would support retaining it. Tannin
But I now know I'll get lynched for it.... Secretlondon 07:59, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Who can vote?
Hi - Who exactly can vote on this page? Can anyone, or is it only existing Sysops? I've had opinions about some of the candidates before, but I was unsure of if I was eligible to support or oppose nominations? Can this information be posted on the article page? -- DropDeadGorgias 18:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Anyone can vote here, although anonymous users or users with near-zero contribution history (less than 10 edits, say) might well have votes removed as they would be presumed by many to be either sock puppets or trolls. I'll post this on your talk page too. Anyone have an idea for how to word this to be placed on the meta page itself? Jwrosenzweig 18:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I was definitely confused at first (mostly cause all of the votes were from SysOps, as far as I could tell). This information would be useful on the main page. - DropDeadGorgias 19:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Any information on less than ideal conduct in disagreements would be particularly welcome - it's the first thing I look for when trying to decide whether I think somoene should be an admin. Next is how they handle being wrong - how or if they accept it. Jamesday 05:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What's special about bureaucrats?
Ummm, another technical question. I notice on the Wikimedia page that the only distinction between an Administrator and a Bureaucrat is that a Bureaucrat can promote other Admins. Is there a pressing need for more of them? As far as I can tell, Adminship requests are not THAT frequent. Isn't this really more of a status issue than anything else? - DropDeadGorgias 20:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Until recently, a developer (and there are only about 7 of them, and not all of them pay attention here) has to do it by hand. Now they have an automated way to do it, but you have to have beauracrat status which no one has as yet (except Eloquence, apparently).People are nominated/nominate themselves all the time - usually about 3-5 a week. That's a lot of work to do by hand, especially foe just 7 people. →Raul654 20:56, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks- I was a little confused by the lack of information on the process. I guess the reason I'm asking is that I don't see why every admin won't just request bureaucrat status right now. It seems like a dangerous movement; a hasty Admin can only do so much damage, but a hasty Bureaucrat could really create problems- just looking at how long the de-sysop process takes. - DropDeadGorgias 21:04, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thats why I am so horrified to see how many people were promoted behiond closed doors. While many of them might be good, I'm certainly not comfortable seeing arbitrary promotion in scorn of due process. Sam Spade 21:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sam, what are you talking about? To my knowledge, no one is a buearacrat besides Eloquence (who is a developer and could do it by hand, if he wanted). So what is this talk about people being promoted behind closed doors? -- User:Raul654 03:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
what's the big deal about being a bureaucrat? Why shouldn't all admins have the ability to create new sysops? What are the particular arguments against letting all admins have the bureaucrat power? Kingturtle 23:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Bureaucrats should be very trusted people, because if they get in a dispute with someone, they must be trusted not to abuse their powers and sysop the other per... No, wait a moment... Never mind, that wouldn't work... Κσυπ Cyp 23:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The reason no-one has been made a bureacrat except Erik is probably because Brion and myself are opposed to the idea (although Brion not as strongly as me). Brion and I think allowing any sysop to make sysops would be a quite acceptable model. This model was implemented for a short period, but Erik reverted it to the bureaucrat system, explaining on my talk page that Silsor didn't think it was a good idea, and that a quorum of three sysops should be required.
Although it may be safer to require the approval of three sysops, it is much more difficult to implement. I don't see much potential for abuse in the one-sysop system, after all, sysops who abuse their powers can and should be desysopped. -- Tim Starling 03:53, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
Although it's amusing that my opinion seems to carry weight now, the issue some were hashing out in the IRC channel was that a rogue admin could wreak havoc with the "make admin" function. I suggested a system where no one person could "make admin" but would require at least one other person to turn the key, so to speak, by performing the same action at some point, in a manner analogous to the separate keys required to launch nuclear missiles. This system would complement the abilities of sysops to handle regular site maintenance (that's the whole point of having sysops) while making abuse difficult and eliminating the need for a new class of users. silsor 05:26, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
It's not solely silsor. Improper unilateral actions have been and remain a problem. A multiple key system is a more effective way of limiting that than any highly trusted user setup and should be used for anything which is troublesome to undo. Jamesday 05:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats). There seem to be a good number of people on that list who wern't voted in. This is ominous. Why are we voting on ed, when these others have been given the power so readilly? Why the inconsistancy? If the wiki is ment to be anything other than an oligarchy, there is going to need to be a certain amount of transparancy, accountability, and perhaps even a bit of consensus ;) Sam Spade 06:04, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note that Ed Poor (hi! it's me!) is the first bureacrat to have been promoted through the community process -- rather than having been appointed. I hope this starts a trend away from unilateralism and toward making decisions by consensus. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why has BL not been added to the admins? He won his vote. See below.
...He did not "win his vote" because there was no "vote". The polling is for "consensus", not to determine a "simple majority". Please don't confuse "polling" with "elections". And please don't change the rules for determining a process's outcome, just because you don't like the outcome which those rules have produced!!!'
BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wow. It's extremely flattering to be nominated admin. Thanks for the wikilove hugs all around. Yeah I do still want to become a sysop. But I've long since realised that I'm not one to win any popularity contents. I won't let that, or the baseless accusations made agaisnt me above (that wont be dignified with a response), bother me or effect my enjoyment of Wikipedia. BL 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Support votes:
Support (implicit). BTW, why wasn't I included in the vote tally until now? It was my nomination! 172
Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Wikipedia deserves to be a sysop. --No-One Jones 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, but count me as noncommittal for the time being. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments presented against his gaining adminship. Mark me as a support. It would be a boon to have him promoted. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Very active and Started a number of valuable articles. May05 17:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also [2]. Angela. 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
(removing my response to Angela in light of BL's newer comments)
Oppose. Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. Alexandros 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --Jiang 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement [3]. Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --Michael Snow 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for same same reasons as Michael Snow. -- Seth Ilys 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Hasn't met an article, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks shouldn't be kept. RickK 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. He takes WP for a joke. Hahaha. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
BL did win by a margin of 11 to 10. Perhaps Ed just failed to see that the tally above had not been updated when the time limit expired. This mistake should be corrected right away. 172 22:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I dont agree with your vote counting. I personally either count neutral votes as both support and oppose, or I dont count them at all. It's not fair to count a neutral vote as only support or only oppose. Optim 18:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I think you have to win by more than one to become an admin. Perl 22:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Now that we have more users granting sysops, a clear criteria of what constitutes a consensus must be spelled out. A simple majority of 1 vote is definately not a consensus though. --Jiang 01:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Are we sure? Has there ever been a case in the past when someone had won the vote on this meta page, but failed to attain admin status? This isn't a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know the answer. 172 02:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We should use the same criteria here as for Votes for Deletion. There have been many cases where things listed on VfD have had a large majority for deletion, but not a large enough "consensus". I'd be really puzzled if someone got adminship with a less than ringing consensus. RickK 00:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to be troublesome, but I'm ignorant of the processes involved here. Thus, I'm still wondering if we have a precedent case along these lines on votes for admin. If there is no precedent, this case points out the need to draft clearer guidelines. 172 01:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Consensus
Has any definition of the consensus required been set out? Do we want to set one out? How about something like "at least 2/3rds majority, with voting by logged in users with at least 100 edits/1 month of being here"? Does that sound too stringent, or not stringent enough? Other opinions, options? -- Infrogmation 01:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This could get ugly. How about keeping it quiet here and asking for Jimbo's intervention? Also, if the BL matter is unprecedented, perhaps we should ask Jimbo to determine whether or not he becomes an admin. 172 01:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Several times, I've heard "consensus" defined as 80% of those voting →Raul654 01:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
But on this page? I might be wrong, but I think that I've seen admins slide by with less than 80%. 172 01:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't want this to be taken as any kind of dig on BL, but 172, I think we can agree that anything below a 2/3 majority (66.66% of those voting) really can't be taken as a "consensus" by any meaning of the word. If it was majority, it would say "majority", I think. If someone got a 2/3 majority....well, there we would be stumped, and I think we do need to set a guideline for that kind of instance. I just think we all do need to agree that, whatever consensus is, we are agreed that it is not receiving 11 supports to 10 opposes. Jwrosenzweig 03:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it should be at least 80%. Admins need to be trusted, and there is a problem if 20% of those voting do not trust a person. Angela. 03:51, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
80% is way too high. Keep in mind the effect that this criterion would have on Wiki's diversity. Moreover, let's keep the question of admin status in perspective. Sysop powers can be reversed in seconds. The miniscule risk of a rogue admin (such as that user who went nuts and started a spree of vandalism) does not outweigh the risk of turning the community of admins into a homogenized mix of Wiki automatons. After all, any action by an admin can be undone right away!
On another note, perhaps this page already has an inherent tendency to over-represent opposition. Keep in mind that conflict makes more noise around here than cooperation; when there's agreement, users will simply continue to add content to articles and communicate fleetingly. Users who disagree on what makes a proper encyclopedia article, or specific coverage issues, also form biases against each other. Baring other factors, it's clear that potential opposition voters are far more likely to be vocal about a candidacy than potential "yes" voters.
Before such an extreme measure is adopted, Jimbo's guidance is necessary. Regarding BL, if we cannot find a precedent, Jimbo's ought to decide whether or not he is granted admin status. It would be unfair - to put it mildly - to hold BL up to a post facto criteria drawn up as a result to his own candidacy. A precedent is needed so as to avoid charges of discrimination and unfairness. 172 04:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
172, all I can say is that, with all due respect, we have been remarkably efficient in promoting huge numbers of admins, and we turn down a fairly small percentage of serious applicants. Furthermore, anyone who has spent time here could assure you that this site has always been clear that getting 51% of the vote is nowhere near enough to achieve consensus: this isn't an attempt to enforce post facto criteria on BL. It's just the way this page operates. You're free to ask Jimbo, of course, but I think a review of this page's history would establish the kind of support you need here, and that more than 3/4 of nominations here get that level of near-unanimous support. Jwrosenzweig 05:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm just asking for a precedent. Find one and I'll shut up. Irrespective of BL, I'll ask Jimbo and the mailing list about this draconian 80% threshold. Given that Jimbo's the most ardent defender of Wiki's diversity, I doubt that he'd support any limit greater than 2/3. 172 05:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Best I can find in the last month or so is that Metasquares (who [4] was supported by 7, opposed by 7 when the tally ended) was not promoted, and no one raised any fuss at all. Given that 50% wasn't close enough for someone to scream to keep the polls open, I think it's fair to say that 54% isn't enough to promote. I could look back further, though, if this one isn't good enough. And certainly, talk it over with Jimmy! I'd be interested in what he had to say. Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oh, crud I miscounted someone twice (I wish people wouldn't post twice) so Metasquares lost 6 to 7. I'll look again. Jwrosenzweig 05:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Here, finally! User:mydogategodshat was refused here [5] even though ahead 15 to 8, by my count, and there was no disagreement here. Case finally closed, I think. :-) I should note that I was one of mydog's supporters, and I agreed that consensus was not reached, though not missed by much. Jwrosenzweig 05:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Okay, well that's it for BL. (I bet the name didn't help mydog's campaign either.) But I still have misgivings about any minimum higher than 2/3. 172 06:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The place consensus works best in Wikipedia is in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. An article becomes an feature article as long as there are no objections. Objections are mashed out, changes are made, and then a true consensus has been had. This is easy with an article. Impossible to do with people. I can't work with you to make changes to an admin candidate's personality. alas. Still, we should set the bar high. 75%+ is a very reasonable place to set the bar. Kingturtle 05:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think that winning by one vote should count as winning the vote, and the user should become an admin. BL should be made an admin based on the vote. (I don't really have a personal feeling over the matter) Perl 15:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good. Then let's go back to all of the VfD votes and delete every page listed there that got more delete votes than keep votes. RickK 03:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
RickK, your comment is ridiculous. Anthony DiPierro 03:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think RickK just wanted to show it is ridiculous to count a 1 vote majority as a consensus. An admin should be someone nearly everyone agrees about to be able to edit neutrally and to have enough experience and skills. A significant number of opposing votes should be enough to block adminship. Get-back-world-respect 21:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
