Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 18 May 2009

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

It is 21:53:53 on January 19, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Scarian's resignation

Moved from AN/I

I have a question, though. On meta, the stewards seem to be willing to give his bit back if he requests it. Should that happen, the RFC needs to happen. Also, should he not request it back from a steward this week, should he come back, say in a month, and ask for it back from a 'crat, is this considered to be under a cloud, or does he just get it back? If the latter, again, the RFC should go on. لennavecia 3:30 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Clarification, the Stewards are META will only give it back within 24 hours, after 24 hours he would have to come here.---I'm Spartacus! 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Before the ANI drama whores get here - this is a very, very simple question;

• Did Scarian resign under a cloud? Yes/No

Assuming yes then RFA. Assuming no then 'crat discretion. I assume yes. No more drama for goodness sake. It really is not that complex people. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think the steward(s) should have done anything. Third party requests are not the norm and have clearly complicated things on our end. Either he resigns gracefully on his own (including going to Meta) or we go through the RFC. The steward took the decision to desysop, though it was not an emergency, and Scarian changed his mind. He is quite within his rights to request it back from that steward at any time. Stewards are not decision-makers. Majorly talk 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he picked up his marbles and went home before contacting the Steward's does not alleviate the fact that he 1) was under the threat of an RfC 2) a cloud existed concerning his actions and 3) he requested the desysop rather than face the criticism. This is no different than somebody going through an RfC and at the end of the RfC making the same request. The fact that he didn't take the extra steps when he left should not negate the fact that he did so under a cloud.---I'm Spartacus! 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Balloonman is right. He asked for a desysop. So let's stick to the matter at hand. لennavecia 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He asked for a desysop. No need to shoot the messenger. Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to shoot the desysopee... if he wants to leave under a cloud, and this is how he has done so, there is no reason to force an RfC on him so that proper protocol can be followed.---I'm Spartacus! 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to impart BM and my perception of your seemingly overly defensive/passive aggresive tone may be wrong. If you disagree with my comment please say so here or on my talk. This may be one of those Real English / American English things but I was actually agreeing with you? Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We're agreeing... it wasn't meant to be 'defensive' and if you took it that way my apologies. I'm saying that not only should we not shoot the messenger, but we shouldn't shoot the person who walked away. If we force an RfC on Scarian simply to follow proper protocol, then we would be doing him a disservice. When you said "no need to shoot the messenger," the messenger would be jennevecia. The desysopee would be Scarian, there is no need to force him to do something that his actions indicate he wants to avoid. I read majorly's post as saying, since he requested it, it isn't under a cloud---IMO since he walked away to avoid the RfC it is under a cloud.---I'm Spartacus! 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Scarian resigned under a cloud, per se, but if nothing else it was a "controversial" desysopping. –Juliancolton |  21:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A cloud does not mean that the person resigned because they did something wrong or incorrect, but only that there was a reason.---I'm Spartacus! 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always viewed "under a cloud" to mean that the admin in question would have likely had their bit involuntarily removed, which I don't think was quite the case with Scarian. –Juliancolton |  21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of "under a cloud" has always been that if there was a real opportunity that the admin in question may lose the bit forcefully before the desysopping occurred then they would be expected to submit a new RfA. Here, there was a suggestion that an RfC may be filed - There was currently no suggestion that the Arbitration Committee may desysop Scarian so he should therefore be more than entitled to be resysopped at any time (although any RfC may then be filed into his conduct should a user feel strongly enough about it). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that when you leave like this, you are avoiding the process. We don't know if he would have lost his bit or not through the RfC process. Would it have gone to ArbCOM? I don't know the answer to either of those questions. I don't know if I would have supported or opposed removing of the bit, but retiring and stepping down in front of an RfC/ArbCOM should not be a means to avoid sanctions. By stepping down to avoid the public critique, he accepts the desired outcome of those people who are initiating the RfC/ArbCOM sanctions. Otherwise, we are telling people to continue on with the RfC/ArbCom case in absentia. That is an even worse option. "Hey Scarian, I know you quit, but we are going to judge you anyway because we didn't get to do so before your quit." Retiring and asking for a desysop should not be a means to game the system.---I'm Spartacus! 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should he ask for his bit back, he can have it and people can start the RfC. At this stage, there was no talk of ArbCom removing it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Although it's a novel concept, an RfC of his actions now would theoretically work just as well in half a year's time, or whenever he requests his bit back, as it would within the next 24 hours—if the stewards restored the bit, and as it would within the next few days, if he hadn't requested desysopping at all and the matter had went to RfC as normal. (Indeed, the buffer period would probably result in a RfC with considerably less drama. :)) AGK 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Then there is no reason to stop the RfC from proceeding without him or are we establishing a precident that admin can simply walk away from Misplaced Pages when they mess up to avoid the bit being removed? Basically, think of it this way, an RfC is a supena to appear before court. If you choose not to appear before court, then a verdict will be rendered against you. He has chosen to accept the verdict by running away. Or we are establishing a new way to handle conflict!---I'm Spartacus! 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he's decided to walk away now. If he returns, then the community can put its views across just as well in the future and an RfC can be run. If he chooses to come back - the community will be more than capable of asking him not to do it again. ArbCom wouldn't touch this unless he had an RfC and then decided to continue problematic behaviour. Even if an RfC was run now before he was desysopped, he wouldn't have been desysopped by ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation but using the subpoena analogy, none was filed. We're at the stage of "cease and desist or else" threats, and it was ceased and desisted. Without taking a stand on the merits, this is moving very fast into the area of the court of public opinion prejudging and preruling before the papers have ever been submitted to court. --MLauba (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. Jenna was involved and posted to meta based on a talk post made in an huff. Meno removed the bit anyway despite Spacebirdy saying not to. I posted to Jenna and Meno stating this was a bad call and commended Birdy. Despite the poor way this was done, I consider this under a cloud. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutting in out of sequence. Your wording is misleading. Meno didn't ignore Spacebirdy's comments. He was desysopping while Spacebirdy was making their post and Meno edit conflicted to post that he'd done it. He also gave permission for anyone to overturn. لennavecia 05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, just to clarify, your comment seems somewhat contradictory. If I am reading it correctly, you are saying that you agree with Majorly when he said that he didn't think the Steward should have removed the bit, but that you disagree with him when he said all Scarian has to do is ask for the bit back? Majorly made two points, one that you appear to agree with and the other wherein you appear to disagree.---I'm Spartacus! 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy writing on my part. I agree the posting by Jenna and removal by Meno were wrong. I disagree on asking for it back as I think it is "under a cloud". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Jenna's request because I see it as one wherein a person left in a tiff and rather than making the request themself, they explicitly asked somebody else to do so, while providing a link that would confirm their request. It would be comperable to somebody who is blocked asking that a message be transcluded to ANI.---I'm Spartacus! 01:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the intense stuff always happens when I'm at work. But I agree - I don't believe ArbCom would see this case. Useight (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenna was involved heavily and therefore should not have posted the request. It's that simple. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? What made the request different because I posted it? Why do some people believe that all actions must be from the uninvolved? Why do situations have to be explained to uninvolved people so they can make the exact same action a half hour later. Someone explain it to me, because I'm not the only one who wants to know, as evidenced by my email inbox and comments on IRC. لennavecia 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone please answer my question

I didn't ask about an ArbCase or what the opinions of the manner of his desysop were. Simple question: If Scarian comes back next week or next month and posts a request here for his bit back, what's going to happen? Ryan says he'll get it back. I don't think Rlevse answered. I would like an Arb to tell me so that I know whether or not to spend my free-time this weekend drafting an RFC. لennavecia 05:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guidance says that a ruling by ArbCom, or having Jimbo do it (again), is the proper way to go about it. In terms of what's stopping him from un-retiring -- the guidance says: "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrators status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat." I cannot see how these were not uncontroversial circumstances, so that is likely covered (though certainty would be useful for moving on). Also in terms of an RFC, again that guidance suggests in this case going straight to ArbCom may have been appropriate, ie this was a serious incident (particularly as it was not isolated). Nja 08:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia has two excellent points: it's much easier to remember the relevant stuff that's happened when it's just happened, and that suggests that we should discuss it now, and in the past, the community has in fact tended to jump on stuff like this. But the risk of course is that by jumping on it now, we're taking something that doesn't need to blow up or cause any damage and guaranteeing that it does both. I support the general trend of the past few years towards letting things lie until they actually need to be tackled. I'll remember what happened and where to find the diffs if Scarian comes back and makes a request, and even if I didn't, someone else would. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did answer the question sort of. I said it was under a cloud. Hence I personally would not give it back as a crat. As an arb, I would not give it back for that reason either and also because the issue has not gone through WP:DR. Therefore, if it was presented to arbcom, my vote would be suggest the RFC be filed so that the community could deal with it first. Ryan's opinion was just that. No offense meant to him as I have the greatest respect for Ryan as an admin and editor, but since he's not a crat he could not actually give him the admin bit back. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse. I meant to say 'crat, talk of ArbCases put arb in my head. I'm taking this as good times for me to spend my little freetime this week doing other things, so hopefully other 'crats share your view. I agree with those that believe "under a cloud" covers incidents when there is a threat of RFC or similar that could result in a desysop. So, anyway, I'm off to run my errands. Thanks again. لennavecia 14:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was just my opinion - after all, I have no authority to start dictating terms! :-) However Rlevse, I think you would find yourself in the minority with respect to ArbCom (yes, just my opinion as well!) - we'll test it should Scarian want his bit back at some point in the future as I'll file an RfArb asking for a motion to resysop. It might actually be very good to clarify the matter once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, it wouldn't be the first time I was in the arbcom minority! You could also see if a crat would resyssop, esp as arbcom has had no role in this matter, yet ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given his tantrum, and given that he's been desysopped before for a similar tantrum, I don't think that any reasonable person could possibly consider him an admin in good standing. For those that appear to want him having the bit back, just ask yourself one simple question: is the project made better by us having admins who behave like children? I think the answer is clear. Friday (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He isn't going to request his sysop bit back. If he does, and the request is granted, we will open an RfC (and, if that holds that his conduct was unbecoming of an administrator, he will either, (a) resign further to the RfC; or (b) we will invite the ArbCom to consider the RfC and initiate desysopping proceedings). If he does request it back, and the request is declined, then he will be required to seek his mop back through the usual avenue.

(My comment doesn't offer a resolution, but neither will this discussion. Let's play things by ear and react when, or if, the time comes.)

AGK 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response prompts two questions:

1. How do you know that he isn't going to request his sysop bit back?
2. In which alternate universe might an outburst like his yesterday be considered becoming for an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think people's faith in RFC for matters like this is seriously misplaced. We've no shortage of knuckleheads who will show up and vote "Don't desysop- he's my chat room buddy!" with no consideration of the relevant issues. We can hope that Arbcom is smart enough to recognize that, buddy or not, admins who behave this way harm the project. Friday (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Friday: I don't attempt to deny the gross failings the RfC system has. I do recognise its status as a prerequisite for having the Committee look at most non-emergency cases of administrators who are unfit for office.

Malleus: I don't really; I was simply saying that we can assume he won't—as he resigned—and follow course of action X ; and if he does, we can follow course Y.

The question of whether his conduct yesterday is becoming of a sysop remains largely ignored by the 'crats—as we haven't a firm answer as to whether he can request his bit back.

AGK 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether or not his behaviour yesterday was becoming of an administrator has nothing to do with the bureaucrats. Do you think it was becoming? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen admins do this many times, if they can't take the responsibility, they do not deserve to be an admin. Scarian has been known to be a bit temperamental but that doesn't justify why some people think that he should no longer be an admin because only Jimbo and the Arbcom decides who remains or who looks for anther job..heh..if his outburst were those related to those silly opposes on a certain rfa then i will side with him but if not, then all i will say is that its a good idea he gave his bit away temporarily as it will give him enough time to calm down and not do something drastic that he might regret later on. An RfC against an upstanding admin will be like pointing fingers at your own kind, NOT the right way to go, discuss it with other admins and the arbcom before even thinking about starting an RfC...--Warpath (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't stick together like the children on the project, or the children admins, for that matter, nominating and promoting each other. If admins don't know how to behave, they should step down. The fact that the community has the power to promote but not the power to demote is one of the biggest project-side problems we have. Perhaps the biggest. لennavecia 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but when you try to bring up a de-adminship policy, you get shot down by the same admins and tagged as Judas or Brutas ...--Warpath (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• "If admins don't know how to behave, they should step down". They should indeed. But would they is another matter :) Majorly talk 23:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• In a perfect world, all admins would have the best interests of the project at heart, so they would gracefully resign upon request. But we all know differently. –Juliancolton |  23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Best interests of the project is irrelevant to whether the person would make a poor admin or not. I can think of many people who are not admins, and who never will be, yet patently have the best interests of the project at heart. On the other side, I can think of many admins, with the best interests of the project at heart, who are an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. Majorly talk 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"*In a perfect world,", JC93, LOL.. too much fairy tales, but i agree with Major Lee. An admin or editor for that matter will leave the project if he/she believes that what he/she might do may harm the project in anyway, well unless he lives in his parents basement and goes by the name of Grawp..hehe. One good example would be Essjay, who realized what he had done and left (or so i believe) so that he doesn't embarrass the project and the community anymore. Others should learn from this...--Warpath (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain RfA

May I close this one, please. I have yet to flip a sysop bit and this seems rather straightforward :) -- Avi (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You could probably just do it now... :) –Juliancolton |  23:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Off the schneid! -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page, the newbie crat says he used this: User:Rlevse/Tools#Rule_of_thumb_for_closing_RfA.2C_RfB_early as a guide, which was given to me by Nichalp when I became a crat. I'm so proud of Avi, sniffle sniffle, ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

hahah XD J.delanoy_adds 00:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our little Avi is growing up...luckily I brought my camcorder. Kids just grow so fast. bibliomaniac15 04:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Awwwww, did his baby bells drop, aww one minute they are running around in their diapeys or going through their living room in their tricycles, and the next day they are crats on one of the top 10 ranked website, kids..they really grow up sooo fast :) ..--Warpath (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, it's enough to say an admin, not a crat. No one IRL thinks being a crat is a good thing. Xclamation point 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hey, I'm a bureaucrat!" –Juliancolton |  20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Sad thing is, I'm likely older than y'all (or at least feel that way )-- Avi (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-maturity and real-life-maturity are not the same, despite claims of the opposite. After all, some 30+ year-old people here behave like pubescent teens and some of those teens are the most mature and patient editors around. So no Avi, you are not older than us all. Real-life does not count SoWhy 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe reality should be instituted. ;-) -- Mentifisto 16:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Life here is counted as wiki years so 1 year = 10 years in real life, so I was nearly 21 when i left..haha..--Warpath (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? So should I be expecting a social security check soon? Dragons flight (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DF, you're one of the few people I'd trust to calculate the expected value of your Wiki-Security pension :) -- Avi (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote counting

I'm hoping to provoke some thought rather than raise Cain about this, but I tend to think Everyking's RFA was closed on a pure vote count, rather than an evaluation of the strength of the arguments. (This is ironic -- or perhaps fitting -- as direct vote counting would be closer to Everyking's philosophical preference; weighting of arguments is the community's preference.)

• First, to be clear. A large number of opposers cited very valid concerns.
• But a significant number had opposes based off their misunderstanding of the exchange over Q5. The context of Everyking's previous comments and his clarifications all make it clear that he was expressing an opinion about how he would prefer Misplaced Pages operated, and not his understanding of what was accepted practice, or what he would do.
• One case is dealing with fact and the other opinion -- that's a non-trivial distinction. The question What is the accepted/codified/etc way to evaluate consensus on Misplaced Pages? has correct and incorrect answers. The question How would you prefer things work? does not have correct and incorrect answers.
• I believe that many of the Q5 opposers clearly misinterpreted this exchange, believing a question with "right" and "wrong" answers has been asked, rather than a question about an opinion. (A handful of Q5 opposers may be proponents of Wiki-thoughtcrime, although that's a different discussion). So with only a few exceptions the Q5 opposes were extremely weak or even logically meaningless.

I'm not trying to get the RFA overturned (although I would have liked a rational, as I think this was very borderline). Rather I'd hope here to spur some thinking about the general issue of whether word salad or confusion from opposers can form the basis for an oppose to which bureaucrats give weight (or vice versa, it'd be equally problematic if you had a huge volume of support based off something logically meaningless). --JayHenry (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I too thought that a rationale would have been nice in this case. The safe call here was clearly no consensus, particularly because I think history has shown that any other call at that level of numerical support would become very controversial very quickly. Since I supported EK, I might have preferred that a bureaucrat weigh the merit of the opposition when determining the outcome... But generally speaking this isn't something they do, and since we have a tendency to pick bureaucrats who are extremely consistent at not making controversial decisions we can't really expect it. I'm not sure I'd have the same sympathy for the rouge approach if my personal opinion on the candidate went the other way, and I expect many others are in the same boat. In the end, the request simply closed outside the discretionary range and that seems to take weighing the arguments out of the picture. Nathan 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also interested in whether consideration is given to the damage done by a deliberate attempt to disrupt the RfA. Ottava Rima's repeated postings were sufficiently disruptive for him to be banned from the RfA at AN/I. His comments evidently influenced !votes in both directions. How does behaviour of this type influence the evaluation and closing of RfA's? Is it simply assumed that all !votes would have been the same had there been no disruption? EdChem (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (not much), I would have closed as no consensus also (if I were a crat, and had not voted, of course). There was ample discussion from the opposition about the various reasons that Q5 was a problem; and even if there had not been, opposition arguments tend to be shorter and not cover all the bases. When you get turned down for a job or school application, they don't go into the 30 reasons they think you suck; that would be cruel, and pointless, and it would waste their time with pointless conflict. A single, reasonable-sounding reason has always been considered good enough at RFA; a philosophical discourse on its meaning is not required. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about philosophical discourse though. Perhaps I was too long-winded in introducing the topic. If an oppose or support is actually logically meaningless how can it be "reasonable-sounding"? Is "Oppose. Has incorrect opinions" a valid oppose if it is repeated amply? What about "Oppose. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the closer, but I would have closed it the same way, even though I do very much weigh the strength of the arguments involved when I close RfAs. I can't speak for all of the other currently active bureaucrats, but I know many of us weigh the strength of arguments. Weighing works on both sides though, not just against one or another. In this case I was happy to see that many people were able to let go of long past issues and only look at his current suitability and focus on recent actions. And while it is unfortunate that his opinion on consensus was very different from what people wanted to see, that doesn't make those votes misunderstandings. People used his comments and made reasoned arguments about why they felt that made him not an ideal admin candidate. Therefore there was no really large number of spurious votes and even if I disagree with peoples' reasoning, I don't take that into account when I close. I simply weigh if the argument is sound and supported by reasoning. It's like what the supreme court would refer to as the ideal reasonable person idea. If an informed reasonable person could make the argument, it's not spurious. Though I'll throw in a disclaimer here, I didn't do an extensive sock analysis here which I would have if I were closing and thought it would make a difference. - Taxman 03:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Offering a reason and making a reasoned argument are not the same thing. One would conclude that an informed reasonable person would not make a logically meaningless argument such as "incorrect opinion" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", and therefore a spurious argument such as this would indeed be discounted? --JayHenry (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm evidently non-neutral here, but I will say that I think some form of rationale in the close would have been helpful. There was a distinct lack of consensus, but I think a remark is always useful in such close and angst-ridden RfA's as this one. —Anonymous Dissident 03:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not participate, but I did go back to the RFA to check if there was a rationale posted. I was kind of disappointed not to see one, but I equally did not expect there to be one. It might have been nice to have one there, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary in this case. Useight (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though many ask for a rationale, I personally would not have left a rationale for this RFA. It was fairly contentious and there were good and valid points on all sides. Consensus did not exist and it doesn't take a trained eye to see that. Andre (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was it closed as "no consensus", rather than "unsuccessful"? I'm not challenging the end result, though I must agree that a brief rationale would have been useful. –Juliancolton |  06:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See the definitions here. "Unsuccessful" is for RFAs with sub-50% support. You may also be interested in the discussion here. Useight (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I only asked that question for the sake of argument. :) –Juliancolton |  06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was what you were most likely doing. Useight (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd still be interested in thoughts on my question from earlier in the thread, about RfA's where there is substantial disruption from a single user. EdChem (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In closing this RfA I did not see the results warranted a closing statement. It was not a borderline case. There was not a consensus, and the arguments made in opposition were nearly all rational and valid. "No consensus" was not the "safe call," it was the only call.

You may not agree with or like the rationale opposing Everyking's opinion on Q5, but that opposition was valid nonetheless. That opinion bothered a number of people. When public opinion leans hard in one rational direction, it must rarely be ignored.

As for Ottava Rima's behavior, I feel it was over the top and disruptive, but in the end it is impossible to determine how many !opposes were solely because of Ottava Rima and how many !supports were in reaction to Ottava Rima. How Ottava Rima is dealt with in the future is not a decision for the Bureaucrats, however; it is a decision for the entire community.

I am happy to answer any questions. And I happy to add a closing statement to the RfA if there is a demand for it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the process makes it hard to see evidence of weighing the reasoning behind votes, I suppose, because there is so often no visible sign of it having been done. Some 'crats have always said that they weigh rationales, but since the closing outcome so rarely is at odds with the numerical indication my sense has always been that this is not actually common. Giving participants and observers a clearer picture of when judgment comes into play might be another use, in the general case, for more regular closing statements. As for "safe" -- well, this call was clearly the safe call, but I wasn't clear above and I'm sorry if I gave any offense; unsuccessful here is safe in the sense that it conforms to what most would expect from a traditional interpretation of the requests' closing state. I didn't mean to imply that it was closed as unsuccessful because that was seen as the safe call.

This traditional interpretation is what, I think, Jay is questioning. Most of the oppose votes weren't trolling or blatantly invalid in some other way; they were the opinions of reasonable people with reasonably held beliefs, although I and others think they were misunderstanding the answer that prompted so much opposition. As Kingturtle points out, normal practice is to count these votes as valid. Is that the right approach, though? If a crowd of people clearly misinterpret an answer, can a bureaucrat take note of that misunderstanding and disregard votes that follow from it? Nathan 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason RfA lasts for 7 days is so that we can talk about these things during the RfA. Sometimes I'll explicitly say what it is I'm waiting to see from the supporters ... I did in this case. Even when people don't give an invitation, you can guess what it is that needs rebutting. (Even though some just deposit their vote and don't look again, there is a critical mass who do pay attention.) I didn't see much engagement of the opposition in this one, and as a result, no one was swayed. I think the crats take the position that it's the job of the community to pick admins, which implies it's not their the crats' job to fill in the gaps, to do things left undone in the RfA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I pointed it out is the irony, Dan. Do you honestly not realize that what you just articulated is almost identical to the thoughtcrime for which Everyking was opposed? --JayHenry (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The congratulations-on-becoming-an-admin message

Hi guys,

I'm not sure whether it's a manual message or a template, but the information you leave on someone's talk page when they're promoted to Sysop should probably contain a link to / information about #wikipedia-en-admins (#wikipedia-en-admins ), as I only just discovered it more or less by accident after about 6 months as a Sysop. At least, that's my suggestion. It Is Me Here 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We have several flavors of congrats msgs. I'll add it to mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't mandatory information, and I don't think the IRC clique should become too intertwined with on-wiki stuff. It's normal for admins to find IRC by way of word of mouth when they have some contacts and experience. Andre (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am and will always be in favour of the deliberate separation of Misplaced Pages from IRC. I really do not consider information about wikipedia-en-admins to be entirely necessary information. Still, I'm willing to consider what others may have to say. —Anonymous Dissident 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• #wikipedia-en-admins was created primarily as a working tool for contacting other administrators for assistance, and for that reason, I do continue to support IRC as a mechanism for quick communication between sysops. As I outline in my advice for new administrators, the first few weeks of sysopship often present issues one has never encountered before, and so new administrators would be well served with directions to join the channel—which, in almost all cases, is a useful and productive forum. Perhaps the concerns over the channel becoming a substitute for on-Wiki decision-making would be best tempered with the insertion into the bureaucrats' promotion messages of a reminder for the newly promoted sysops that the channel is a tool for garnering assistance and not for making decisions.
  I'm not a bureaucrat, but I have been using IRC for several years and am aware both of the positive and of the negative aspects of it; take my two pence as you will.
  AGK 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I have opened a RfA on myself, despite being a standing admin. Basically, I am requesting reconfirmation of the Communities trust in my ability to use the mop/buttons/flags. As far as I am aware I am not under scrutiny regarding my admin status anywhere else. My point in raising this matter now is that in a weeks time (unless I have really screwed up in my evaluation of my standing, in which case I should be desysopped sooner rather than later) one of you fine folk will need to close this. You may want to have a discussion amongst yourselves over what criteria and what weight should apply regarding supports/opposes that refer to admin actions over that of general (un)trustworthiness, or whether patterns of disquiet should be given more weight than a single instance of really bad judgement/action. I have also asked that support comments should note any area of "improvement required" should it be deemed appropriate. What weight might be placed on such a comment, even though the editor is generally supporting, where there are opposes also noting the same is another matter for consideration. In short, I think I may have handed you something of a hot potato.
The other reason why I am noting this, is that it is my hope that I will not be the last as well as the first admin in goodish standing to put myself up for reconfirmation. You may need to consider that you will be applying your judgement to more of these applications in future. Have, er, fun! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be like a regular RfA? If you have our trust, you keep the bit, and if not, off to meta? Synergy 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the firm belief that RFA was created for the express purpose of creating administrators. As a process it is not made to evaluate editors who are already administrators. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that this wouldn't be binding if he fails? Synergy 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RfB is on the same page, why not RecFA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because for every idea, there are 30 people who don't like it. I think this is where it should be honestly, but anywhere is fine, so long as its binding. Synergy 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing has been done to address methods of admin reconfirmation (or even recall in general), whatever process used could be considered binding, I suppose. bibliomaniac15 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bibliomaniac. This was ill-advised. I have opposed as a result, and I urge any other bureaucrats who read this to agree with Biblio and me and just close it as disruptive. (Well, he didn't say that, but he agrees it was a misuse of the RfA process). Andre (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're all so sure it's disruptive then close it, rather than urging others to close it. I realise you commented, but to me, that seems like a bit of a cop out. Something's stopping you from just doing yourself, and I think it's doubt whether it would be the right move to close it or not. I don't really have much of a problem with it. Sure, it's not ideal, but little is. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's the correct move, but I also opposed the RfA so I don't want to overstep my bounds. Plus me acting alone could provoke a backlash, whereas 3+ bureaucrats in agreement should be pretty safe. Andre (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

hmm then a Misplaced Pages:Request for admin evaluation is long overdue, not all decisions need to be made by the arbcom, some should be left to the community to decide ...--Warpath (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Admin Review. Xclamation point 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, but thats for the admins and levels above to add their names themselves to the review, what about non-admin putting forward a name of an admin they would like to be reviewed or evaluated ? ..--Warpath (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the purpose of Category:Administrators open to recall. —Anonymous Dissident 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much the purpose of CAT:AOR, but there is a note-worthy difference: AOR is extremely passive, while something like this takes a much more active approach. Kind of a "If anyone ever notices anything wrong, go ahead and bring it up" versus "Is anything wrong?" Useight (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with AOR is that the admins are the ones that can add themselves but if non-admin members of the community thinks that one certain admin can no longer fulfill his/her rights as an admin, where should he/she bring this up..WP:AN?..where it might get laughed at and thrown out. Some admins do add themselves to the AOR cat, but seriously, they don't ever want to be recalled so I think we must prioritize AOR to all admins as that will be fair and maybe get a new policy or add to a current one that all admins will be evaluated/reviewed by its peers and/or the community once every 6 months, that will be a step in the right direction...--Warpath (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A major problem with evaluating admins every six months is that this equates to dozens of admins being evaluated weekly; this would be extraordinarily time consuming, and, in my opinion, not necessary. Useight (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about annually or on a 14-month basis? Not ideal, but it would result in a slightly lighter workload. Plus, most reconfirmation RfA's would be low-traffic, near-100% support open-and-shut cases. AGK 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets see... 1,657 admins... divided by 52 weeks in a year... If the annual reconfirmation were to go through, that's on average 31.87 reconfirmation RFAs a week. Isn't that a little much? Xclamation point 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)I substituted this, to keep a record for the future. NW (Talk) 01:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if only the ~900 active admins were to be reevaluated annually, that'd still be 17 weekly. And I agree that a vast majority of the cases would be nearly 100% support, which is actually a reason not to have mandatory reconfirmations. Useight (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory reconfirmations would make adminship a Big Deal in my opinion, though I'd fully support an optional process. –Juliancolton |  00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the community is hellbent on not having a de-sysop policy, something must be done to make sure that everything is fair. 1657 admins you say?..how many of those are even around?..over 70% of those haven't edited in a year or more I believe, so JulianColton, you are saying that adminship is a permanent right? because without reconfirmations and/or a de-sysop policy, the number of admins will surely rise, but the percentage of active admins will drastically fall..--Warpath (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I believe the flag should be removed on accounts that haven't edited in several years. –Juliancolton |  02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but I don't see that happening in a foreseeable future and maybe only Jimbo has the power to see that happening, its no use having a big board of directors where only a few are working and the rest are having a nice longggg rest ;) ..Maybe in a perfect world, we can have all active admins, a very active community and no trolls..oh wait..yeah that can never happen.....--Warpath (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

70% not edited in a year? That sounds... skewed. —Anonymous Dissident 06:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll ever get Jimbo pushing that . the wub "?!" 12:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Resysop

Hello. As per and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias#Aitias.27s_suspension_confirmed I am asking for the return of my sysop flag. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship