(Reposted from Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Usurpations#Question_about_template. Let's discuss here. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Hey, I have a quick question about the usurp template. Why doesn't it have a reason field? I don't understand what makes it so different from CHU that a reason field is omitted. It's basically a regular rename where the new account already exists, so why no reason field? I noticed this when I was moving a request from USURP to CHU. X! who used to be Soxred93 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When I just renamed CyclonicWhirlwind, the software autocompleted the request with a rogue capital E at the end of the original username. I manually deleted the E and the rename worked fine, but I can't see a reason why this should have happened in terms of the submitted request. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Never saw that happen myself. I'll ask a dev and BAGer about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a malformed request. See this diff [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the correction isn't picked up by the software. Might be worth noting that. Good sleuthing, Nichalp! --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The software didn't pick it up because the actual rename links still had the rogue E in them --Chris 13:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but interesting that the diff showed by Nichalp didn't fix the problem. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain, in that diff AD only changed the user links template. The actual rename link still had the E in it --Chris 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as RFA closes are the crats domain, would any crats care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Majorly_revising_history_on_old_RFAs? MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see this has settled down while I was asleep. No one but the closing crat would know what he/she was thinking and the general idea of altering archived items does not sit well with me, unless it's something like an obvious typo. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree as a principle moving forward, but I'm loathe to risk stoking the dramafest at that thread. I'm not sure how much clearer we could be in the instruction for people not to edit the closed RfA - warts 'n' all. Bold it? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

If a passing crat felt like helping with this usurpation-related question from Geologicharka (talk · contribs), either at the Help Desk or on her talk page, that'd be lovely. Bencherlite^Talk 14:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Two have made contact. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Husond's RFB, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond 3 is still open, but for some reason it does not show in the table of active RFA/RFB requests at the top of this page. Could someone look into this? Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tangobot does not show RfBs. If we want RfBs at the top, it should be switched to User:SQL/RfX Report. Xclamation point 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I !vote for switching it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think that both RfAs and RfBs need to be shown. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn this was switched before, but it needs doing again. Majorly ^talk 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been been bold and changed it. Davewild (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think someone undoes it every time there are no more RFB's. SQL^{Query me!} 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's silly... Majorly ^talk 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have closed this under WP:SNOW, see closing stmt at top of the RFB. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A commendable, and herewith commended, decision. — Dan | talk 17:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a slightly pedantic niggle - I wouldn't describe bureaucrats closing RfAs early as an example of WP:SNOW. As I understand it, WP:SNOW is a specific example of WP:IAR. Bureaucrats do not need to ignore all rules to close RfAs/RfBs early, there is clearly provision in the rules to do this (see WP:RFA: "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open."). WJBscribe (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, always the lawyer ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We could use more input on the proposed admin bot policy at WT:BOT --Chris 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've thought of something that might streamline CHU requests and reduce some of our (crats & clerks) workload: See Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Change to CHU process =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Approval of FA Template Protection Bot

Following the recent RfC on adminbots and proposed addition to the bot policy to allow bots to be granted admin rights outside of RfA, I have raised the question on the Admin noticeboard as to whether the community would accept the approval of an adminbot through WP:RFBOT alone. Comments welcome there. WJBscribe (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot, an adminbot that has currently been running for a month. I believe that all concerns are taken care of. Please feel free to add comments. Xclamation point 03:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: Soo, does it get the +bot and +sysop now? It seems that there are no substantial objections, technically or logistically. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be thr purpose of the approval, wouldn't it? Xclamation point 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please reopen the discussion. I am awaiting responses to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Approval of FA Template Protection Bot before deciding whether there is consensus for such a bot to be sysopped without RfA. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if the request remained open for community comment. WJBscribe (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter. It would be nice if, at some stage over the next few days, a bureaucrat determined some consensus here.

At the moment, the support is at 76%-ish, although this rises above 85% if the target is de-autoconfirming, not blocking. — Werdna • talk 09:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Its an unconventional request, but I'll take a look at this as a neutral party. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with, thanks to Nichalp and Dan. — Werdna • talk 07:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just written up a quick tool that makes browsing the bot status log easier. Instead of having the logs spilt between the bot status and user rights logs it shows them in the one log, eg for HBC AIV helperbot the bot was flagged using makebot, but de flagged using userrights, however the tool shows both of them. Just thought I'd let you know about it since it should making browsing the logs easier --Chris 12:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• A useful tool, Chris! Anthøny ✉ 12:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Good tool, though, were there really no approvals in August? Caulde 12:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Neat. I've added it to my tool box. And pls double check August, there were flaggings: User:NoSeptember/crat_stats#Bot_flaggings_and_deflaggings_by_bureaucrat_by_month — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but all of those changes where done using userrights and my tool only gets the first 50 userright changes which atm are just rollback changes as can be seen here. --Chris 12:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Good start here, but can you improve it in this regard? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've popped a link to the new tool in MediaWiki:Makebot-logpagetext. Anthøny ✉ 12:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This makebot issue needs settled because it was deprecated. The two logs should be merged into one so they can all be pulled from one log. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

    We didn't come to much of a conclusion last time we discussed this [2]. My position remains that I prefer using makebot and plan to continue using it until there is a consensus that I should stop (or it stops working, obviously). As to the merging into one log, I still think losing the separate ability to review bot flags would be a mistake and a move in the wrong direction. I think we need to make it easier to find specific rights changes in the log: rollback, ipblock-exempt etc. rather that to have one jumbled log which leads to a lot less scrutiny of individual actions on a project of this size. In my opinion, it would be a good thing for anyone to be able to quickly see what bot flags were granted removed or what ipblock-exemptions were granted or removed in a given period... WJBscribe (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I agree making finding rights easier would be good. But having us do bot rights two different ways isn't good. The move or non-move to userrights needs to be settled once and for all. This limbo land we're in is the worst of all possible solutions. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it would be possible to persuade the developers & sysadmins to change the code of special:makebot so that it simply ends up in the user rights log, and perform a retroactive change to the logs so the "bot status log" entries end up there as well? It'd be a large change, but it would centralize the entries scattered over two different logs doing the same thing. It may help if there were also a method of filtering the logs by rights granted, having "show all changes to this username granting +sysop" or "all changes not including rollback, bot, or account creator in the last month." Kylu (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • The filter would be awesome, but if the log entry is going to end up in userrights, we may as well totally get rid of makebot and makesysop (which I believe no one uses anyway). Everything can be done in userrights, so we're better off to centralize everything, especially if there's an easy-to-use filter. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
        • It'd be nice, but there's always going to be people who want to continue using the old interfaces over the new. As long as the logs end up in the same place and there's some sort of reasonable log search functionality, it won't matter. Just mark the old ones "depreciated, please learn to use special:userrights instead. It's niftier!" and hope people change. Kylu (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Can you or MaxSem though merge the log to prevent the headaches of WP:OLDLOG? MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
            • It'd be more easily done by a script once a change is implemented. Kylu (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modifed the tool so it sort of acts like a filter, however it would be best to have the change done in the software core --Chris 11:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As it may or may not result in more work for the crats, I figured I'd drop a note that I've proposed something of interest at User:MBisanz/RfBan. Please comment at the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created a section on the talk page dealing specifically with the proposed role for Crats. I'd welcome wide community contribution to this, but obviously Crat consensus too. I suppose it'd be mildly amusing if the community overwhelmingly demanded it but the Crats as a body were opposed ;-) Let's cross that bridge... --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's now a little section just for us at User:MBisanz/RfBan#Crat_discussion_on_role_of_Crats and there's a section for ascertaining community consensus two sections below it, headed by a thoughtful post from Ryan P. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When I go to WP:RFA without logging in, I see a note saying "DONT EDIT THIS PAGE" in place of Julian Colton's RfA. When I log in, the page displays normally. Now I know that WP:RFA is semi-protected, but is it normal for semi-protected pages to display differently to logged-in versus unlogged-in users? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone vandalized it, and in between the time you opened the page and when you clicked "edit", someone reverted it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting edit summary. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Cydebot has achieved consensus in the discussion and been granted the admin bit. Thanks, Taxman. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Cydebot is currently the first admin bot candidate going through the new BFRA admin bot process. It's only been two days so far, but according to the new policy, when it reaches the end of the discussion period (like a week?), it's up to the bureaucrats to judge if community consensus has been achieved, just like with an RFA. I'll try to remind you guys when the week is up, but in the future, I guess BFRA is another page you'll have to keep tabs on, because we're going to see a bit of a flood of admin bots that have been operating for awhile going all going through this new process at once over the next couple of weeks during the amnesty period. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We're still waiting on the outcome of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Approval_of_FA_Template_Protection_Bot to see if there is indeed consensus for crats to flag admin bots without rfa --Chris 08:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like the FA bot issue settled first. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have approved FA Template Protection Bot per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot. Further adminbot approvals will be based on the the addition to the bot policy that resulted from the RfC: Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bots with administrative rights. As I understand the role of bureaucrats under that policy, we are tasked with providing final approval provided that we are satisfied that:

1. The bot code has been sufficiently vetted and tested

   A trial should have been run and sufficient BAG members should endorse the request to satisfy the closing bureaucrat of this

2. There is a community consensus for the task to be run (and run by the proposed operator)

   The discussion should have been advertised on the relevant noticeboards and have run for a reasonable length of time (I would suggest 1 week +)

This is of course new ground, so I have no doubt the approach will be refined as become more certain as requests become more routine. I strongly endorse the new process as a sensible compromise between avoiding bots being processed through RfA and the desire for a higher level of scrutiny than normal bot approvals. It also hopefully marks an opportunity to reduce the drama surrounding unapproved adminbots, by having a more workable approvals process that will actually be used... WJBscribe (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I support +bot and +sysop for FA bot. There is sufficient community support for this now, I feel, doing this via BAG and crat approval. However, I think these bots should run under their own account, not under the operator’s admin account. I also think all existing admin bots that are not approved need to go through the BAG/crat approval process and be separated from their owner’s accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, the whole point of revising BFRA to handle admin bots was so we could run bots under their own admin account. We certainly don't enjoy our Special:Log being completely cluttered by bot actions, let me tell you. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have accidentally closed SoWhy's RfA early. I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SoWhy#Note on closure; given the small amount of time left on it and the low number of recent comments, I hope that it will be uncontroversial to let the closure stand. Warofdreams talk 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is okay, let the close stand. He was doing rather well, so I agree not much would change. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would've taken 26 more opposes in 14 hours to bring it down to 75%; I agree that it is not a problem. Useight (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. --barneca (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What????? I was just about to change my support to 26 opposes!!!!!11!!eleven!!1!. Just kidding. Solid close WoD. Keeper ǀ 76 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello bureaucrats,

This ongoing RFA has had numerous opposes due to the user's old name (which was ^.^). However, circumstances have changed somewhat, and the user has changed their name. Townlake has suggested the RFA be closed early, and restarted by a bureaucrat, so that it can be looked at by voters without the old resolved issues in the way. What do you think? -- how do you turn this on 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(crossposted from my RFA comment) I would probably leave that up to the candidate, but I'm only counting a single oppose based on the username alone. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Past precedent in this sort of situation is HolyRomanEmperor3compromised account by Linuxbeak and ABCDsockpuppetry by Raul654. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry MB, I'm not seeing the relation. –xeno (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do. It's the fact a bureaucrat restarted the nomination due to a significant change of circumstances. -- how do you turn this on 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, I'm just giving the examples of the past times an RFA has been "reset" to provide some historical guidance to people judging this current situation. I do agree the past circumstances are very different from the current. A better example might be John Carter who had a rename during his RFA. MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but in this case it would really only change a single vote. Also, I had suggested to the candidate a couple days ago that they restart the RFA, and they seemed to want to weather the storm. –xeno (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the RfA being restarted for this reason. Feel free whoever. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 15:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Full disclosure - I came down on the Oppose side of this RfA for reasons unrelated to the username, but I do believe the process is best served by a procedural close of the existing RfA at this point. HDYTTO, thanks for posting this here. Townlake (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this require bureaucrat action? If the candidate wants to withdraw and start a new nomination they're free to do so. I don't think there's any need to force that decision on them however. People may wish to leave talkpage notes to those opposing on username grounds - were I the closing crat, I would discount "oppose as user's name is ^.^" if that were no longer the candidate's name. Should there be a fresh RfA, it would seem appropriate to draw this to the attention of all who commented previously so they can indicate whether their opinion remains the same. WJBscribe (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur... this is a scenario wherein a freshstart, would be an acceptable use of WP:IAR. I think this should be done by the nominee if he so wishes, that everybody who voted (support or oppose) should be notified, and that a reference to this discussion be placed prominently on the restart. (That way people don't OPPOSE due to restarting.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)(EDIT: I don't think restarting it will matter---I think Foxy's RFA was going to fail and even with a name change, it's not going to matter. I suggest letting it ride, and then trying again in 3 months or so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Yep. I performed the rename and see no further 'crat action required. By all means withdraw and restart under the new username. Disclosure of the previous name/RfA would be appropriate however. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the candidate has taken no proactive steps to restart the RfA and has previously expressed desire to ride this one out, and since the 'crats who've weighed in have considered the restart option and declined to initiate it themselves, I'd say this appears resolved barring any further light. Thanks all. Townlake (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with B-man above that a restart would not have any significant positive effect. –xeno (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If the user wishes to abort the RFA and start again, they should certainly feel free. But I agree with my colleagues; no bureaucrat action is required. --Deskana (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for posting here was more for bureaucrat opinions, not necessarily actions. Thanks for the input. -- how do you turn this on 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'd leave it up to the candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the RFA has been "restarted" and it is too late to protest it, I think that a crat needs to notify every single voter in the original RFA and inform them of that fact. Nsk92 (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should that be down to a 'crat? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically because anything that looks like (or even just may look like) canvassing in relation to an RFA is such a sensitive issue, it is better if a crat does it. Nsk92 (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we can be sensible about it. Anyway, User:GlassCobra is doing the spadework. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. If I notified someone who had already participated in the new one, I apologize. GlassCobra 10:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ilve made a WP:BOTREQ pertaining to informing people. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody (presumably one of the crats involved in the discussion above) please change the closing header at the top of the original RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy? Right now it says:"The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a restarted request for adminship as per discussion at the bureaucrat noticeboard, a new RfA will be opened soon". This closing statement introduces a novel category "restarted request for adminship" that did not exist before and should not be introduced now. Every single RfA prior to that one was closed either as a "successful request for adminship" or a "request for adminship that did not succeed". The closing statement here (the original RfA close, including the closing statement, was done by the candidate himself[3]), should say something like "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. The RfA was withdrawn by the candidate, and a new RfA was started." Nsk92 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the RfA discussion on alternative RfA methods i've volunteered to act as a test subject for this format. I've been advised to make sure that the beauraucrats are in on the loop and are also ok with this kind of format as a test; it should go up at some point tomorrow (or today, if the guy who offered to nominate me gets back quickly). Ironholds 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So that's 10 days total? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. People are disagreeing over the period of time the questioning should last; i've set it for about the middle of those times proposed. Should it end up as being too short/too long we can change it for later requests (assuming this works). Ironholds 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A proposal is afloat: Wikipedia:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal. See talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just 7 promotions according to the stats.

I've posted at WT:RFA. I've no idea how many replies I'll get but clearly I'll not close any candidates that I do nominate.

Is there more we can be doing as Crats to encourage RfAs? --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the big problems is people are wary of the RFA process because it has become, often, so brutal. I know three people right now I'd love to see become admins but they won't go through an RFA. I'm open to ideas of how to make RFA less brutal and less of a drama fest. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I suppose we could be a bit more active/quicker off the mark in removing less relevant drama to talk pages, as at SoWhy's RfA. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, I think something that would go a long way toward pulling in more people for adminship would be some sort of boundaries concerning the reasons for which !voters can validly support or oppose. Not that I'm in a position to criticize, since a bunch of the "supports" in my current RfA are for exactly this reason, but "Influential person X likes you, so I do too"--not really valid. Similarly, I've had one person oppose because she thinks I have a "contrived persona" and one opposing because she read my blog, which has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. The sole and only reasons for support and objections should lie in the candidate's ON-WIKI/wiki-related activity (adding the second half because yeah, I wouldn't want an admin whose sole off-Wiki life consisted of badmouthing Wikipedia!). I think a commitment from 'crats to focus the discussion where needed, and when necessary to use their judgement re: which !votes should be considered, would go a long way towards reassuring people. (No, I don't know how this might be done fairly; I'm just putting out the idea. I've seen some truly, truly cockamamie !vote rationales while watching recent RfA's--my own is incredibly tame in comparison.) Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for what Gladys wrote above. To increase confidence in the RfA process as a whole, my own suggestion is for bureaucrats to provide a bit more feedback when closing an RfA, with regards to how the !votes were weighed (at least some of them). I realise that this has considerable drama potential, if certain editors demand that "their vote should count", but it could also reduce drama, once contributors to the discussion learn that certain bigoted / knee-jerk / political !votes do not need to be challenged and can safely be ignored. On balance, I think that if the accepted / acceptable reasons for discounting (or allowing) a certain position are out in the open, it should benefit everyone involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the bureaucrats providing more feedback as well, and I think after the RfA improvement survey is read there will probably be a consensus in that area (at least I mentioned it often). The "drama" it causes is negligible, the bureaucrats are trusted to make these kinds of decisions and weigh all !votes in the best way they see fit. --Banime (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think it's that important to "justify" an RfA closing when there are only two or three opposers or when it is clearly failing, and when it falls into the traditional "discretion range", I think we do a fairly good job of explaining ourselves anyway. (though I did once have someone ask me to justify closing their 65% RfA, which I found somewhat amusing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, forcing the closing crat to give a "justification" for anything higher than 80% or lower than 65-70% is superfluous and a waste of time. I think it would be nice to see a rationale for RFAs between 70 and 80 per cent, but again, that is just my opinion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it a waste of time? Someone might have failed for extremely frivolous reasons (an example, an opposer may have opposed them for something they did not do, and the rest of the opposition also misinterpreted the situation and piled on). Also, serious issues may have been brought up, that not all the supporters may have seen. -- how do you turn this on 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say that if crat closes an RfA with >80% support as "success", they shouldn't have to provide a rationale, and the same with closing low percentage RfAs as "fail". Basically, if they close the RfA in accordance with what seems "obvious", then I don't think they should have to justify their decision. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think any reasonable request of a bureaucrat should be answered, even if the RFA closed at 0/10/0. -- how do you turn this on 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I'd consider it a gross waste of my time to explain a 0/10/0 RfA closure. Borderline? Sure, that's justified. But clear-cut and obvious cases, no. The example you gave (frivolous oppose + pile-on) is hardly a "regular" case, which is what I was talking about; it's a borderline case, which would warrant an explanation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WT:RFA thread

This might be an infringement of privacy, I'm not too clear, but could we consider programming a bot that would leave a "Have you considered becoming an admin?" message on the talk pages of all users meeting a certain criteria? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we need more admins, I can try harder. Pickings appear to be more slim then I'd like to believe they really are. But yeah, 7 promotions is ridiculously low, and based on the unsuccessful numbers, it wasn't because they were all failing, but because no one was running. Someone go break my record, I'm tired of holding it ;) Wizardman 12:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all such discussion about this should be moved to WT:RFA, so as to avoid splitting ideas up. Just for convenience. -- how do you turn this on 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please try to maintain the BN for what it is intended for. - Taxman ^Talk 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the purpose of this thread is to ask how Bureaucrats can assist with what I perceive as difficult times at RfA. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what they could do, to be honest. It's the community who decides who is promoted, and the bureaucrat merely follows their decision. It should be the community who needs to assist really. -- how do you turn this on 13:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the discussion at WT:RFA. The Crats may be able to help - see the discussion above between Rlevse and myself. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I missed the all important "as Crats" in your post. Sorry. I'm not sure that we can do much beyond perhaps doing a better job of encouraging more wikilove and less animosity in rfas. Some of the suggestions I can only see doing more harm than good. - Taxman ^Talk 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See 3 proposals at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Food_for_thought_proposals_by_Rlevse — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• What record would that be Wizardman if you dont mind me asking? 211.30.12.197 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Most nominations (of other editors) I believe. Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the RfA process is too complicated and puts the candidates under so much scrutiny that some people decide not to do it. Also, I believe that some people choose not to try for RfA because they don't want to become part of a perceived cabal. Kingturtle (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that many who would otherwise run for Admin are students, and we have just had the start of a new academic year; new places, new courses, new people and an RfA might probably be asking too much. I'd expect a slight dip at the time of year. Does anyone have recollections or comparative figures from previous years? --Rodhullandemu 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better for such a bot to use Special:Emailuser. This would exclude potential candidates who don't have an e-mail address, but that seems to be a de facto requirement anyway (a common "oppose" reason). — CharlotteWebb 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion that probably needs better visablity-- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of it, this candidate is going to be drowned in the questions. Second day and we already have over 20 questions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No one expects the Wikipedia Inquisition! <sneer /> Dlohcierekim 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was my one major reservation with this new proposed change in format. Questions aplenty anyone? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but the old way, we'd spring some horrid discovery on the discussion after voting had started. Things that might force a reassessment and change of position. Like a concerning AFD discussion. This way, it gets sorted out ahead of time. Dlohcierekim 04:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I updated Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez because the count was 83/20/4 and should have been 83/22/4 (two opposes were missed at the top due to formatting errors in the oppose section). Did this quite absent mindedly, so wanted to apologise for mucking around with the archive. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Actually, it's 83/22/3 as a neutral switched to support. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't make any difference to the outcome (80.5% -> 79%) but it's nice if these things are tidy - at least in my befuddled mind! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, whilst I truly do appreciate accuracy? There's a teeny little bit of me that says: Iffen ye cannae get ye shizz correct? Thou shizz remaineth unsaid. (Of course, if this wasn't mine own RFA, perhaps I'd be a bit more flexible.) Seriously? Thanks. I'm all about the facts. Gladys J Cortez 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh - if it means anything, had I not been on holiday, I'd have supported you. I was only looking at it because I wanted to see how you'd got on, and noticed a numerical fudge in the bottom section. Fear not, I doubt they're about to rip the bit from you! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Some of you may remember me, some of you may not, but I retired a few months ago, and handed back my administratorship. I was wondering if there was consensus for me to get it back. Thanks in advance, Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, you are once again an administrator. WJBscribe (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you did not lose it controversially, you can just ask for a bureaucrat to give it back - a consensus isn't needed. (Welcome back, by the way). -- how do you turn this on 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks, people. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that SQLBot, which provides the table with RfA vote info at the top of this page, seems to be down or malfunctioning. Its data is more than 24hours out of date. I have sent User:SQL an e-mail and hopefully this will be fixed soon. In the meanwhile, here is a table by tangobot that seems to be up-to-date. Please feel free to remove it once SQLBot is fixed (I think the main RFA difference between the two bots is that SQLBot includes RfB data but Tangobot does not). Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're including Ironhold's RfA parse failed, it's because of the unique configuration. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are correct, there does seem to be something off regarding the updates. Hmmm. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I request to rename my account ("Reino Helismaa") in the "IAS1987". Thanks.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggets posting at WP:CHU since this is just a general noticeboard Fritzpoll (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here (permanent link). Jehochman ^Talk 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could a crat please take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MPUploadBot, thanks --Chris 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagged. bibliomaniac15 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if the other Crats reviewed my response at User talk:Renamed user 19. Happy for someone to decide I was too harsh and apply the rename with or without an unblock. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(Not a Bcrat) I think you made the right decision here. Renames are a privilege, not a right. You made a very clear explanation, and I think that will suffice here. -- how do you turn this on 11:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, why did you rename this user to "Renamed user 19" when they requested to be renamed to "A Nobody" [4]? I would be minded to agree to this rename, as it merely restates the earlier request. Renaming a user to a name not of their choosing seems to create a pretty serious GFDL problem - I can't see where this user has agreed for their edits to be attributed to "Renamed user 19". I won't rename him when it seems two other bureaucrats have declined the request, but I strongly urge you to reconsider. WJBscribe (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the user had earlier requested a rename to "Rename user 19", and now requested a second rename to "A nobody". I can't find any such details in the logs though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I had requested that I be renamed as "A Nobody" on the 26th, but was renamed as "Renamed user 19" instead. This past month has been one of the most bizarre and confusing I've experienced yet. I have been on a rollercoaster of whether I should edit, to what extent I should hide myself, and so on. The harassers have been formally and legally warned to leave me and my family alone and after a lot of hoopla that will hopefully work. I apologize for any vagueness or confusion from me as it has been really difficult to think clearly and know what to do. I experienced some stuff I don't care to repeat and wanted to leave, but it became apparent that there was no sense in it as some editors just kept mentioning me by my old username. I don't plan to edit in any areas in which I ran into conflict in the past. I only wish to be able to add worthwhile mainspace content when I have something worthwhile to add. And I pledge not to do anything that would make anyone who renames me regret doing so. --Renamed user 19 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Our discretion is really under your control at the end. If you are satisfied with your rename, then we can just end this discussion here. bibliomaniac15 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied with my current name as "A Nobody." --A Nobody 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have WP:AGF and renamed you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate that. Thank you. --A Nobody 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as per the note on my userpage, RL is restricting my editing this month. I don't have the time or the head to go back and work out why I did it that way, but I'm content that my colleague has fixed it. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please fulfill Caspians request and move this lest the debate begin anew.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. It has nothing to do with the candidate, and is simply causing unnecessary drama. I've left him a note as well. -- how do you turn this on 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... it added no value---especially as the discussion had been archived in an attempt to squelch the belly aching.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian is now issuing vandalism warnings to HDYTTO for this act.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes well, I was well out of order for moving off-topic discussion to the talk page. Nevermind; I'm not going to cry over this. I'll leave it up to a Bcrat. Sigh. -- how do you turn this on 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Both HDYTTO and I approached Caspian in an effort to work through this, his response was to delete our comments calling them oppression.Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This all seems fairly ridiculous to me. The way these issues tend to boil over says little for the RfA process as it stands. I linked to the discussion on the talkpage from the RfA discussion - I agree it adds little to the consideration of the candidate's merits. It also goes without saying that vandal warnings should not be issued for good faithed edits, however much someone may disagree with a particular edit. WJBscribe (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WJB... I would have moved it myself if he had called out another admin/editor, but as I was personally involved, I wanted to leave it in the hands of somebody else... of course, now, he's chosen to carry on his tirade on my page. Oh well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in on Scribe's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the SUL checker not working properly? bibliomaniac15 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Only displays wikis starting with A-D for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I thought it was fishy when my en.wiki wasn't showing up. Anyone know who to contact to report this? bibliomaniac15 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever runs the tool would be a good idea. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think m:User:VasilievVV runs it, as the bug tracker link from [5] leads to [6] which has "VasilievVV" listed has the project lead, and that username here is a soft redirect to their meta userpage. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Other tools for checking crosswiki contributions are also affected, eg. luxo's. I gather this is replag problem with the toolserv which needs to be fixed. Hopefully will be fixed over the weekend but may take a few days thereafter for things to get up to speed. In the meantime, Special:GlobalUsers will show up whether a given username is already claimed by a global account. I suggest we don't allow renaming to (or usurpation of) names likely to be in use on other projects until the tools are fully functional again. WJBscribe (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Will wait. bibliomaniac15 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem at wikimedia's end that has stopped replication for some of the databases full details. I assume this is what is causing the problem --Chris 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The CheckUsage tool on Commons is also dead; I'm assuming it's just a massive server-wide issue. Bugger. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole s2 cluster is down, so all of the major wikis except this one are affected. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikis starting with the letter "e" are showing up now, but everything else is still unrevealed. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the main database servers zedler is still down, so tool that uses a database is most likely broken or half broken. River will update status.toolserver.org when zedler is back up --Chris 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This tool is a sensible alternative to the usual SUL account checker for the moment - it seems to be picking up a lot more wikis... WJBscribe (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See this.

If it's not true, I need to apologise (and rename him). If it is true, why is it not mentioned prominently in the instructions at WP:CHU? In other words, either way, he has a point. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This used to be a big concern, renaming of users with large edit could lag the servers and cause rather large dblocks. However the introduction of the job queue spreads the load so as to avoid any major damage. The user in question doesn't have a massive edit count so it shouldn't be a large drain and it most certainly wouldn't cause any "lets delete the sandbox" style after effects --Chris 09:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When John Carter was renamed in January 2008 with 75,000 edits, it apparently caused the database to lock up for ten minutes. When I was renamed in March 2006 with about 8,000 edits IIRC, nothing bad happened to the database. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem for the user in question. Graham87 09:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll a) stop saying that and b) rename the user. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, somewhere they tweaked the software to raise the re-name limit from 200,000 to 2,000,000 edits, so that would make John's 75K rename before equal 750K today, so until Sinebot starts asking for a rename, we should be in the clear. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That the limit was raised though doesn't alone say that the relative server load is the same. I do recall in the archives a discussion that the rename code was optimized a fair amount in order to handle SUL renames, but I'm not sure it was optimized by 10 times. It's still probably good advice to do renames with large numbers of edits at off peak times. To Dweller's original question of why this isn't more clearly in WP:CHU, I suppose it's because of the probably poor default assumption that everyone has read all of the gigabytes of WP:BN archives and not missed a thing. Though I'll continue to plug for more restrictions in what we allow for reasons to rename users. We simply tie up way too many useful resources in it that could be more closely aligned with improving articles. I'm always surprised more people aren't with me on that. - Taxman ^Talk 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

/**
 * The maximum number of edits a user can have and still be allowed renaming,
 * set it to 0 to disable the limit.
 */
define( 'RENAMEUSER_CONTRIBLIMIT', 2000000 );
define( 'RENAMEUSER_CONTRIBJOB', 10000 );

Explanation: If a user has few than 10,000 edits, the rename will be done effectively immediately. If they have fewer than 2,000,000 edits but more than 10,000 edits, it will use the job queue. This looks like a picture-perfect example of WP:PERF. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I requested a rename, it wouldn't crash the servers? Nuts... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I usurped the name Rtg so that I could use RTG as I have been using this name on some other wikis. I dont edit en much (usually simple.wiki) but do occasionally and just to maintain the same name I got the name in april, refs - [7] [8] [9] but now after a long wikibreak I can't log in this account. Apparently (according to admin) I havent registered the email with it hence no abilty to verify so it was suggested I ask a bureaucrat to rename RTG something obscure and I could re-register correctly. To verify is possible because this account and my account on simple.wiki had the same sig at the same time (accessable through one of my refs above) and I will reply to any query there[10] sorry to trouble. Thanks 89.204.245.49 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe was involved with this. I'm referring this to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes having a steward break the SUL on an account will set it back to the old email address, I'm not sure if that will work here. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This account doesnt seem to have had my email at any stage (according to Chris G) and I didnt implement SUL (or universal wiki login, not sure do I confuse these). If it was a compromised account I am sure some vandalism or something would show up, but nothing. Very unusual glitch I guess. I will make sure of email and perhaps SUL and password shuffling if it can be worked out. 89.204.249.248 (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no specific memory of this request. The request relating to this rename can be found here and the relevant renaming action appears to be which appears to have been this one, which was successful given User:RTG's contrib history and this discussion. The user who requested that renaming should therefore be able to log in to User:RTG with the password they used to use for User:AreTeeGee. There is no reason why they should be able to log into User:Rtg - a separate account that was not renamed. If the simple.wiki editor User:RTG cannot log into this project with that name, it can be renamed again. I recommend that you unify your global account by visiting Special:MergeAccount on simple.wiki - then if you still can't access User:RTG here, let us know and we can rename it out of the way. WJBscribe (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems to have worked, although I had to sign in again here after making SUL it said logging all projects. Thanks for help. ~ R.T.G 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the status of the fix on SUL? It's been several days and I for one am leary of renaming people, esp SUL requests without the full ability to use this tool. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Worked for me just now. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine only goes to the FA wikis. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Tell me a non FA wiki to do a test edit from on my SUL. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

fi,zh,nl, somewhere there is a list of all the WMF wikis by language code but I can't find it right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Righto, my low-tech test of the system shows that the edit I just made on nl is not currently showing on the SUL tool. Perhaps there was a better way to "prove" this, but it worked for my low-tech brain. I'll be leaving namechanges alone for the interim.

Perhaps a banner could be placed on the three flavours of page if we generally agree not to do renaming for now. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

s2 is back up, it should be back to full potential in up to 24 hours. Xclamation point 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope so. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

HOO YAH, I just got a full run on my 80+ accounts on my own SUL name. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me too. BACK TO RENAMES! bibliomaniac15 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be down again. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, could someone please append a big, visible box to the three flavours of name change page, informing people there may be a delay for technical reasons. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Working once more. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm minded that this is a confusing username, in contravention of WP:U, especially when it appears in a sig (and looks like a date). Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(non crat obviously) I think it might be as well, but I was asking for input on this elsewhere. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a username vio Fritzpoll (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably should have been a softblock, no? –xeno (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh - every single frickin' time! I keep forgetting the checkbox Fritzpoll (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

;> –xeno (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This long awaited feature has now been implemented. There is now a box "Block the old username from future use" when accounts are renamed. However, this is already creating problems as this option is enabled by default. Bureaucrats need to remember to uncheck that box if they want to allow recreation. For example, if the purpose of the rename is to vacate a name for a global SUL account - this needs to be unchecked.

The feature automatically recreates accounts after the rename is complete. If used by mistake, the solution is to rename the automatically created account out of the way (this time with the box unchecked...).

Note that the new account is created with a random password and this is not emailed to the person who was renamed. So using this feature prevents the person from re-registering their old name to use as an alternative account. It might therefore be a good idea to add a "do you want to be able to carry on using the old name after being renamed" section to the template people use to make requests. WJBscribe (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This should really be disabled by default: especially if people don't care about their old usernames... It would prevent potentially desirable usernames from being picked up by new users. –xeno (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was changed in revision 42746. Happy‑melon 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is essential that productive accounts (which all of those usurping and most of those renaming already are) should have the ability at the first point of contact in the rename procedure to take control of the old user name. I'm sure I don't need to point out why. We need to take steps to make sure the template not only carries, but promotes, that option. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can a CHU clerk take care of the code to ask the users if they want this option and to display on all CHU pages so we know what they want? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why the heck it was being enabled by default. Turn it off, please. bibliomaniac15 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. With all due respect to Xeno, this is a terrible default. The benefit of loosing "desirable usernames" is way down the scale of importance compared to the self evident issues of the original account "owner" relinquishing control of the name. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my comment was not to downplay that concern - that's another. Long time users that were quite active will want to secure their old username to prevent misuse, however there may also be long time users who weren't quite active at all who don't care and might want to release the potentially desirable username into the name pool. In both cases, locking the old username is A Bad Idea™. –xeno (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I disabled it in r42746. It will be a few days to a few weeks before it goes live, though. Xclamation point 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Useight (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Brion just removed the feature altogether, for multiple reasons:

• The lock of the account does not register in the logs.
• Instead of setting a null password, it sets a random password.
• There is absolutely no way to recover the account if it was done by accident.

Xclamation point 01:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Useight (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just commented in Berig's Rfa, and noticed that it actually is ripe for closing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The bots that help us with renames seem to be down. Can someone look into this? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot's been down for a while, I'll see if I can get SoxBot back up. Xclamation point 14:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing_username#InFeRnODeMoN_.E2.86.92_TeufelHunden787. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's done. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath's RfA appears to one of those that is going to go down to the wire... when it is closed, either as successful or failure, I'd be interested in seeing the rationale. Particularly, if it ends in 68-75% range.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been fluctuating between 70-72% in the past few days. Xclamation point 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like the crats are going to earn their paychecks for that one... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unless something changes, it might be one of the more borderline RfA's in a while... I generally have an idea as to whether or not an rfa is going to pass or fail by this point... usually, there is a clear trend developing by this point... but this one is just hovering at the fringe.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAs like these are why the numbers are less important than the words behind the numbers, but this is what we, um, pay the 'crats for. Useight (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This RFA may pass, it may fail, but the result of this RFA could have a significant impact on future RFAs. If the support is about 71-72%, and the closing 'crat decides to close it as successful, it could change the way we look at RFAs. AdjustShift (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

er... it could just as easily be written: if the closing 'crat decides to close it as failed, it could change the way we look at RFAs. This isn't the place to politic. We've got at conversations on at least 3 pages (that I know of) concerning the validity of the "not enough article building" debate. Let's not start a fourth one here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start another debate. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is going to be one of those example RFA closes ending up on some poor sap's RFB. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

????---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he means it'll end up being one of the questions in an RfB's, as in, "How would you close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath?" –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL... now I see it! Yes, I definitely can see this one being that kind of RfA... this is one where there isn't a right or wrong answer... but a difference in philosophy.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are reading too much into this. Every RfA doesn't have to be read the same way and this one isn't that controversial, it's just numerically close -- not actually very borderline. RfAs have passed with a lot less support and with a lot more, but RfA doesn't work on numeric precedent. Andre (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Try as I might, I cannot find a template that adds this infobox to an RfA. Since there is one that is upcoming, I think it should be included for fairness to all. Any ideas? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Er...link? bibliomaniac15 01:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's here. --Rodhullandemu 01:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble working out what you're asking but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assume that you're planning on nominating someone and want to know how to include the box that lists the past RfAs a user has had. If that's the case, you should find that the box is used as part of {{RfA}} if you create an RfA following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#To nominate someone else. Hope that helps. If you're asking about something else, could clarify which infobox you are referring to and what it is that is upcoming. WJBscribe (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Apols for the confusion, (another late night). Nominator has fixed it here. --Rodhullandemu 13:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Template was fixed to use new interwiki link. Xclamation point 03:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What the heck happened to the SUL checker link? bibliomaniac15 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the template {{Renameuser2}}? Xclamation point 02:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which shows SUL as a redlink, it seems the SUL: interwiki-shortcut has been disabled. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, bugger. Guess I'll have to find the URL somewhere. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The SUL shortcut was removed because sul is a valid ISO language code. It was replaced with sulutil:, and I have fixed that in the template. Xclamation point 03:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of 'crat notes on RfAs recently, and I want to express my support for the involvement being displayed. I am very much in favor of having a bit of refereeing along the way for all participants - new and experienced alike - whether I agree with the comments or not. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tks. I always make then when I think there'll be some questions, in the "close call" cases, etc. I know some of the other crats do too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the section above, I see a number of very interesting questions which I hope aren't lost in the shuffle. A 'crat indented a(n opppose) !vote in an RfA because he felt that it didn't provide any objective reason. He said it wouldn't be counted until such a reason was provided. This action was met with dismay and much bickering.

Would it be better or worse – for the candidates, for the voters, for the RfA process, and for Wikipedia – if the 'crats never told us how or why they discounted votes? Is it better or worse for a voter to know before the RfA closes that his vote will be discounted? (How do we balance potential drama and embarrassment against the opportunity to participate and be heard?)

If the 'crat in this case hadn't indented the !vote, the rest of Wikipedia would never have known that the !vote wasn't counted. Something similar may have happened hundreds or thousands of times before, totally silently — or this could be the very first time. How should 'crats communicate with the community about their standards for considering !votes?

Is this a 'sausages and laws' scenario? Can we only maintain respect for our 'crats as long as we don't ever find out how they reach their decisions?

Is this a call for 'crats to exercise less discretion and be more like moist robots? Do we want them to act on raw counts alone? Should this process tilt more towards a discussion or a vote? Are we reaching for a consensus, or is this a supermajority endorsement?

Is this just a problem for a vocal fringe, or is the hue and cry here just the tip of an iceberg?

Most of these aren't easy yes-or-no, up-and-down questions. It may be necessary for the community to a long, hard look at how it interacts with the RfA process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated my opinion several times above. But in short, I want to see 'crats using more discretion when closing RfAs. During the RfA is the time for discussion. While the discussion is ongoing, it is appropriate to challenge an oppose or ask for details, but I am opposed to striking good faith opposes/supports. If the reasoning is poor, then it will be challenged and clarification sought ofter. If an oppose garners "pile-on" opposes, then perhaps the reasoning was as weak as somebody else thought?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone leaves a particularly ridiculous oppose, a crat could simply place a comment on the RFA under the vote saying "Explain yourself or have your !vote stricken" (or something less blunt, sorry, I'm running on 3 hours of sleep. That should reduce some of the drama, since people would know that the oppose is being discounted, and at the same time, in the event of a misunderstanding, the opposer would not have his opinion (however ridiculous) removed before he could explain himself/herself. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I give crats the benefit of the doubt that they are discounting the ridiculous ones (especially when they are pointed out.) We already have admins/non-admins challenging opposes, I would not be opposed if a 'crat asked for clarification as well. How can they make informed decsisions if they don't understand the rationale? But as a general rule, i think ridiculous opposes are challenged pretty vigorously already.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I just tend to see opportunities where none exist, but I think it's time we got rid of vote counting altogether. A single well-reasoned oppose should be enough to fail a candidate. Crats should explain which reasons they did or did not find compelling, but this can easily be done during closing. Striking a vote during the RFA (unless done for a non-controversial reason) merely serves to stir up extra drama. Friday (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do tend to agree here. But what makes a well-reasoned oppose? Who decides? – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'crats, that is explicitly why we put them through the second layer of hell known as RfB.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. And hopefully in time the crats would describe the types of reasons they do or do not find compelling. Many people have opposed this sort of idea on the grounds that we didn't pick crats to use that much discretion, but I'm not sure that's too important. I think the needs of the project today are more important than what we thought we needed several years ago. Friday (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Would you trust this user or this user, both inactive in bureaucrat duties for many years, to close a potentially controversial request? I wouldn't. If we were to give bureaucrats full leeway, I'd only be able to agree to it if the current ones were reconfirmed, since it's a massively different job to the one they were voted in to do. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

They've already been acting as crats-in-name-only for a long time now, right? I'm not personally concerned that this would suddenly change. To me, this is a problem we could deal with if it actually happens rather than something requiring an up-front solution. Friday (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, I almost always agree with you, but this seems like a fairly pointless hypothetical to me. There are far too many unreasonable editors, but there remain many reasonable ones as well. It's all hypothetical because I've simply never seen a "single well-reasoned oppose" at closing time because whenever opposes are well-reasoned, many other reasonable people will join them and it swiftly becomes many well-reasoned opposes. The community is sufficiently reasonable that there's seldom reason for the 'crats to sweepingly disregard the community. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, usually if there's one good oppose, there's many. But right now, reasonable opposes routinely become irrelevant due to the large crowds of "so-and-so is a good person, therefore support" type voters. My basic point is that the further away from vote-counting we get, the better off we'll be. Crats should not be shy about using their own judgement. Friday (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, people only want us to be more pro-active in RfAs because we haven't botched one in a while. Just wait until we fail a 80% RfA and the tune will change. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get Rlevse to fail an RfA at 98% when he first became a crat just to put his signature on the place. He didn't think that was a good idea ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is up with the RFA template thingy. See this edit for my manual changes. Can someone who understands bots better and/or someone who has access to SQLbot take a look? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like SQLbot reverted your fix, too. Someone probably needs to ping User:SQL about this. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Update: I realized that technically I count as "someone", so I pinged SQL myself. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SQL hasn't edited in a week and I think was phasing out of Wiki, maybe someone else can take over the RFA bot. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I could probably put something together (or even better, get SQL's code and fix it). I'll see what I can do. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now. Xclamation point 03:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See [11]. --Amalthea^Talk 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the attention of Bureaucrats:

A relatively young and inexperienced editor is preparing to list herself on RfA. Her talk page history is full of warnings, and her contribution history is full of mistakes. However, she's very enthusiastic and seems to always act in good faith. Could I suggest that she not be subjected to a brutal RfA? - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks Richard, I can't speak for the crats or other admins, but I think it is safe to say that if he transcludes, we will WP:NOTNOW his RfA---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the heads up. I'll post some suggestions on her talk page. Useight (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should the RfA be deleted? Enigma ^message 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if she decides she won't transclude it. I've asked her if she still plans on going forward with it. Useight (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that WJBscribe (appropriately) withdrew Redmarkviolinist's RFA. However he did not indicate a reason on the closed RFA page. I had to go to RMV's talk page to confirm the reasoning. He has not (yet) responded to my request for further discussion about this (although he is currently busy with Arbitration Committee application so I'll assume good faith). Ryan Postlethwaite suggested that I should post here. In my opinion, when bureaucrats close RFAs early, they should indicate the reason for the early closure on the RFA page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Axl, I missed your question for some reason. Do just poke me in some way if I don't seem to be getting back to you - it's not my practice to deliberately ignore questions. As Ryan says, where closes aren't contentious it hasn't been standard practice to give full reasons on the RfA page. Bureaucrats quite routinely withdraw RfAs that have no realistic prospect of success. One of the reasons not to spell that out that reason is in consideration for the candidate, as past RfAs tend to be quite prominent archived documents about them. In this case, I thought the important thing was to give personal feedback to the candidate rather than explain the action to the community. If you think such early closes unaccompanied by reasons cause confusion, it may be appropriate for bureaucrat practice in this area to change. I was however under the impression the reasons for early withdrawal of RfAs were understood and it that it was best to not "make too big a deal" out of it, which is why I currently act as I do. Anyway, apologies for not getting back to you sooner. WJBscribe (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that most RfA's are fairly straight forward closures. Unless it clearly is contentious, I don't really see the need for bureaucrats to elaborate. What I have enjoyed seeing over the past few months is the bureaucrats giving detailed reasoning when they've closed the contentious RfA's - this didn't always happen in the past. In the case of Redmarkviolinist, the only reason why it was controversial was because of the striking of comments - numerically it was clearly going to fail hence why I suspect WJB closed it. Provided the bureaucrat (or admin for that matter in some cases) provides reasoning to the candidate on his/her talk page, there's no need to have it highlighted at the top of the RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I certainly don't want to make "a big deal" when a candidate's application is withdrawn early. However I do follow the progress of RFAs that I voted in. These early closures already make it awkward for me because the whole RFA is moved to a different page. Then when I track down the RFA page, I can't be sure of the reason for early closure (although I inferred the most likely reason). I ask that in these situations, the bureaucrat includes the reason, in this case "per WP:SNOW". ("Per WP:NOTNOW" is another common reason for early closure.) Is this fair? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AXL, it sounds to me that you are viewing the RfA's via the RfA page? If so, I would suggest start watching the individual pages. The way they appear on WP:RFA is just a template view of another page. If you actually watched the pages, then you would be able to see if people make any changes to them. You'll often get to see updated tally's without opening them (EG somebody writes the tally in the comments) and you'll be able to find the page easily via your watchlist.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't actually close RfAs early "per WP:SNOW" - snow closes of discussions are based on the policy that in appropriate cases, one can ignore all rules. That is usually the basis for closes by other users, but the RfA process makes explicit provision for early closes by bureaucrats. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA: "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open". WJBscribe (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WJB, do you know if any have been closed early as a pass? And I'm not talking about a few hours early, but rather a day or more early?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you've got me curious, Balloonman, I'll be racking my brain all day trying to think of one. Useight (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's only been one that I was aware of. It was within bcrat discretion just to give him the bit back when he asked and I closed the RfA and did so after confirmation that there wasn't any significant controversy I wasn't aware of. That meant closing the RfA early. I don't see similar circumstance happening again since what I probably should have done is ask him to hold on and I could look into the issue more carefully or have him post at WP:BN. - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember a similar scenario a few months ago. Wasn't their a case where a former admin was going thru the process, but was getting a number of opposes, but was advanced early? I want to say that it was WJB, who did it. But I may be mistaken.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks for your suggestion. WJB, point taken. Ironically I thought that the reason for early closure was indeed SNOW. Perhaps I should just assume that all early closures are due to this discretionary rule? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Nichalp's user page has a userbox, dated yesterday, noting that he is away from Wikipedia for awhile because he is ill. Something to keep in mind for this discussion and his response or lack thereof. Avruch ^T 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(Excellent point Avruch, I'm moving this to the top of the discussion, because I think it is something that people should readily see, BEFORE reading too much... where it was, it might get lost.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I request that other crats quickly review the actions of the bureaucrat Nichalp in the above mentioned RfA. Nichalp struck out the vote of an admin Richard Cavell. As a result Richard Cavell resigned his adminship[12]. I find Nichalp's actions in striking out the vote completely unacceptable. While I personally disagree with the logic given in that vote, the vote was not frivolous and gave a reasoned rationale. The closing crat can discount or disregard votes that they find particularly unpersuasive but actually striking out an RfA vote by a Wikipedian in good standing, and an admin no less, is quite another matter. It is offensive, completely unnecessary and sets a really bad precedent. No wonder Richard Cavell felt slighted and resigned his adminship. Nichalp needs to apologize to Richard Cavell and the other crats need to try to rectify the situation with Richard Cavell's adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Nichalp's actions at RfA; in fact, I pre-supported it and others (see above). If the 'crats can see - while an RfA is ongoing - that an opinion is going to be discounted, it makes sense to let the community know as early as possible. This is especially true lately; it seems a single oppose can really turn the tide against a candidate pretty quickly with pile-ons. Nic's comment was about the content, not the contributor, as it should be. Richard's choice of how to respond is his own, but I think Nic was plenty open about his reasoning and furthermore, open to the possibility of Richard providing more info on the matter.  Frank  |  talk  14:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a 'crat strike a !vote before (let alone two in the same RfA). Some editors might be intimidated by it for fear of public criticism. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Commenting below a vote to point out its faulty logic or inappropriate nature is quite all right and it is similarly all right to discount such votes when an RfA is closed. But actually striking down a vote of a Wikipedian in good standing, an admin, who has provided a reasoned rationale for his vote, is quite a different story. It is offensive and unnecessary. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If striking was "offensive and unnecessary" where exactly does that leave an oppose !vote about formatting and a blurry photo in the grand scheme of things? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably in the same realm as support vote #9 where having a creative userpage is cited as a reason for support: among votes to be discounted at closing. That does not mean that they need to be struck down. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what difference does it make that Richard Cavell is an admin? Why keep throwing that around like it means something. HiDrNick! 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with somebody saying, "Your reasoning makes no sense." In fact, if that is the case, then somebody will make such an argument. The 'crats are able to make that comment just as easily. To strike a !vote because you disagree with it? No. If others join in and pile on because of it, then perhaps there was more to it than the crat gave the !vote credit for. Take Aervanath's RfA. It passed. But many people were critical of it due to the lack of article writing. While I think this particular candidate made up for that deficeit in other areas, others did not. Now suppose that a crat saw Scott's initial !vote and decided "This isn't a valid reason, I'm going to strike it." Then that might discount everybody else who would have opposed for the same reason. It's why we discuss the issues, and why (in theory) this isn't a vote. I applaud Nichalp in stating that he weigh's !votes differently, but I oppose striking a good faith !vote of a person in such a manner.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem it would have been better to have indented or commented on Richard's views rather than striking it. Striking comments anywhere, even on a talk page can be offensive. I've generally felt that we as bureaucrats shouldn't actually strike comments unless they are confirmed sockpuppets or the like. On the other side Richard did seem to think his views should have authority which is not the case. I agree Richard's views in the RFA should have at the minimum been commented on as they had a very tenuous connection to whether someone was a suitable admin. I also agree that if a vote is going to be discounted, there is some benefit to the community to knowing that early as Frank mentioned. - Taxman ^Talk 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Commenting below a vote to disagree with it and to indicate that it is likely to be discounted at closing is perfectly fine. But indenting or striking a vote should only be done in the cases of clearly invalid votes, e.g. when no rationale is provided (just "oppose"), when the vote is obviously frivolous or misleading, when there is a personal attack/vandalism/trolling involved, etc. In all other cases, especially with users in good standing, the appropriate thing to do is to comment below a vote. Striking or removing a vote feels like a slap on the face and a slight for the user who cast that vote; it is to be avoided for that reason. This particular case shows exactly why. RfAs should be about promoting new admins, not losing the existing ones. Nsk92 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that as yet he has not lost the +sysop flag, as he made the request as an IP -m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Richardcavell.40wikipedia Pedro :  Chat  14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am VERY tempted to go back and UNDO Nichap's striking of !votes. Yes, he is a 'crat and has the right, no responsibility to weigh the strength of arguments when/if he closes a specific RfA. I would also have no problem with him commenting to the effect, "As is this vote may not carry much weight as it doesn't have a rationale." But to go through and strike people's !votes that you disagree with? I'm sorry, that is not acceptable---it sets a bad precedent. Are we going to start doing the same thing with supports? "Support vote stricken because it didn't provide a 'valid rationale.'"---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I feel strongly about this, that I went ahead and undid Nichap's actions. While I encourage him to use his discretion when closing an RfA (we affirmed each of you for your ability to do so) I completely disagree with the precident setting action that this makes. Striking !votes has only been done for duplicate !votes, IP's, and people who are known to be disruptive. We have NEVER stricken a vote because we disagree with it or don't think it holds water. People are free to comment to that effect and to show reason why the !vote should be discounted. But to strike an !vote during the RfA in such a public manner is insulting and bad precident. Thus, I undid the striking of the two votes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well since he did it in his capacity as a bureaucrat I think you've gone too far in reverting it before discussing that you were going to and getting agreement for that. You're partially covered on the Richardcavell case since a number of people disagreed with that one, but you've gone too far in reverting the other without getting consensus first. But since I don't believe in reverting without discussion I won't do that. I feel strongly isn't a good enough reason. I do happen to agree that striking them was too much, though commenting that they are not the type of rationale that is helpful for RfA is perfectly fine. - Taxman ^Talk 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Crats are like admins, they hold no more authority than anybody else. They have a few more buttons and are asked to do a few more tasks, but that is the extent of the difference. So the question becomes, if a non-admin were to perform the same action, would I undo it? The answer is yes. Thus, it doesn't matter if a crat or admin did it, it was not the proper thing to do. Plus, my rationale wasn't that I feel strongly about it, which I do, but rather that is is bad precident and insulting to established editors.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Balloonman, I agree with Taxman that you have overstepped yourself here. Whilst it is true that bureaucrats enjoy no greater authority than any other editor in general, that isn't the case where RfA is concerned. It is specifically the job of bureaucrats to assess comments made in the course of an RfA and do have the authority to discount comments. Edit warring with a bureaucrat on an RfA was a bad idea. Whilst I have not been in the practice of striking comments in ongoing RfAs in such circumstances, and would not have struck Richard's vote, I believe you needed to come here and find a consensus for Nichalp's action to be reversed. And personally, it sticks in my throat to see you lecturing Nichalp about the proper thing to do with RfA. I still have firmly in mind your conduct during this RfA and I am afraid it colours my perception of you. WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes as WJBscribe mentioned we don't have any authority in anything except RfA and bureaucrat tasks. When we close an RfA it is official, etc. There is no problem discussing it (which was ongoing) and it could be reversed easily enough after discussion. All you had to do was note your opinion that you thought it should be. And I just noticed the edit summary you used and I'd like to note that it was particularly poor in light of Wikipedia not being a battle ground and failing to assume good faith. Any time you're tempted to leave an edit summary or wording like that it's a good sign you should take a deep breath and not make the edit. WP:BOLD's intent is to go ahead and make an improvement to the encyclopedia not to edit war instead of discussing. - Taxman ^Talk 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my actions. In this case, Nichalp exceeded his authority. We've had repeated discussion stating that people can oppose for virtually any reason (or no reason whatsoever.) This has been established via repeated discussions (the most obvious being those surrounding KMWEBER's edits.) In this case, he made a mistake, and reverting his decision was IMO the correct action. If we are going to start letting people strike !votes (even 'crats), then that becomes something that needs to be discussed. That would change the very nature of RfA's in a negative manner because it would open people up to being bitten for making a weak or poorly worded oppose. It would make it harder for people to participate in an honest open discussion, because they would always be wondering if their point passed the threshold of acceptability. In this case, Nichalp messed up. It is not the end of the world. I still respect Nichalp, and still trust his judgment and I still want him to close RfA's. I'll still support the decisions he maes in closing an RfA, even if I disagree with the direction it is closed. But that does not change the fact, that he made a mistake that needed to be fixed, and I went ahead and fixed it. I have zero regrets in making that change. Nor do I have a problem stating that I was standing up to a 'crat.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Also, I need to point out, making a single edit is not engaging in an "edit war" or making a "battlefield."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I expressed early support for bureaucrats stepping into RfA discussions earlier (see previous thread, which was non-specific but definitely supportive), and I continue to do so. Having a bureaucrat express some reasoning behind his or her thinking while the discussion is going on lends a high degree of transparency to the process. Rather than look upon this as an "us vs. them" situation (whether it involves editors vs. admins, editors vs. crats, admins vs. crats, or whatever other permutations you can come up with when you throw in developers, stewards, arbcom, etc.), it is better looked at as the community we are. You commented about how "everyone" knows how the 'crats respond regarding certain comments, but the fact is that "everyone" does not know, and having the comments right next to the item being commented on, in real time, is a plus for the community and for the process. (If "everyone knew", why was it so common for months to have discussions about power hunger or cooldown blocks?) I, for one, applaud a small step toward a more open process. Not to be argumentative, I think it could well be said that Nichalp was "standing up to" the community. How many times have we seen pile-on opposes that just didn't do the process justice? This looked to me like a WP:BOLD, good faith attempt to slow that down a bit.  Frank  |  talk  20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They can still step into the discussion without striking or indenting the comment which can really be seen as a slap in the face. –xeno (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they could step in, but I think that usually implies said 'crat will recuse him/herself from closing that particular RfA, whereas this action was more specifically "look, this is how I'm viewing it from the point of view of my bureaucrat duties." I think it is similarly considered bad form for an admin to close an AfD s/he has participated in, but if an admin wants to monitor the discussion as it is ongoing, I don't think that's frowned upon.  Frank  |  talk  21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by your response. Not that you disagree with me or others, in fact that's probably a good thing since no one is right all the time. But if you can't see how your edit summary and your edit were poor decisions, that's not good. Note that edit wars are started and continued by exactly the behavior you exhibited: reverting before discussing. The only reason an edit war didn't ensue is others chose not to do the same and you didn't repeat the process. And yes, one edit and one edit summary can indeed be unnecessarily against the ideas in Not a battleground and our other civility policies. You weren't standing up to anyone. He did what he did in the best interest of the project and hopefully you did as well. Your summary however needlessly creates tension and an us against them mentality. - Taxman ^Talk 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Nichalp messed up. With the exception of Frank, I don't think I've seen anybody defend his actions. Even WJB called Nichalp's actions Draconian. When an a crat (or anybody) messes up, then somebody needs to stand up and say, "This is wrong." It was wrong and I stood up. I stand by my decision and do not regret it. Nichalp exceeded his authority in striking good faith opposes. When an RfA is over and discussion has ended, then the 'crats are free to use their judgment to discard/discount RfA !votes and weigh the strength of the arguments. During a discussion you don't tell a respected member of the community that their !vote has so little value that you aren't even going to let discussion occur. In this case, I don't care that Nichalp is a 'crat, he made a mistake that needed to be reversed. The fact that nobody (except Frank) has defended the action and that we now have one fewer admins, affirms the error that was made. Perhaps if somebody had stood up sooner, might Richard not have resigned? I think it is a mistake when people don't think they can stand up to Admins when we make mistakes because we're admins. I think too many people (especially admins) have an inflated sense of our self-worth and our authority. Personally, I think non-admins shouldn't be afraid to stand up to admins who mess up. I would be hypocritical if I then put 'crats on a pedestal when they blow it. I do not care if a person is a crat, a checkuser, an admin, a member of arbcom, or Jimbo Wales himself, if they mess up, then it our responsibility as members of this community (and the human race) to stand up and boldly say, "I don't care if you are Jimbo Wales, your actions are clearly wrong, and I'm going to do what is right." I don't care if the person doing the standing is an Admin or an IP. You may not like the fact that I find the striking of !votes so egregious that I felt compelled to stand up and say, "You may be a 'crat, but in this case you are wrong." But I feel that his actions overstepped his bounds and needed to be addressed and the sooner the better. For me not to stand up to this injustice, would not be true to myself and it would be morally inappropriate not act. (Again, I do not judge Nichalp's legacy on this one incident, we all make mistakes, I still trust him and respect his actions, I just completely disagree with his actions here.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Just for clarification: I do realize that there are certain actions that each of the cited examples can make that are not contestable---or would require discussion at least---such as closing an RfA or those actions that are specifically assigned to those entities and where we (as a community) have acceeded authority. In this case, I do not see the striking of a valid vote as falling under the assigned duties of a crat.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman - I don't think it's fair or correct to say that I'm the only one who has defended the action; see Richardcavell's talk page and read through a few more comments on this page in which folks agree the oppose might have been off base. You may also note that I was one of the first to suggest that Richard should not resign adminship. Please also understand that my support - which preceded this thread - was mostly non-specific, in that I support 'crats being a little more involved in the process as it is occurring. I have no intention of being a gadfly; if the consensus is against that sort of action, then so be it, and indeed I can now see reasons why it might be better for 'crats to step back. In that case, though, I would still advocate more revelation of the thinking behind closes. And, as others have suggested, it will be useful to hear from Nichalp at the appropriate time.  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree on that. I too have been calling for 'crats to use more discretion in passing/failing candidates. I've seen XfD's closed where the "Keeps" outnumber the deletes by 2 to 1, but the deletes are all policy based and the keeps aren't. The xfd gets deleted with the closing admin explaining the rationale. I would support the crats and making that type of tough call. 80% should not be a guaranteed pass and 60% should not be an auto fail---(but both would require an explanation as to why the crat took the action they did.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I agree in general with what you have said however I think Nichalp was trying to extend some kindness to this young candidate by striking the votes, lest they become disheartened. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 16:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That crossed my mind too but I was left wondering why Nichalp didn't just close it. There's plenty of precedent. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(ecx5) Who cares about principles? This wasn't a very good oppose. His reasoning has nothing to do with how good and admin he'll be, he just nommed a pic for featured status once and it wasn't up to standard. That's hardly a reason to withhold adminship. Also, undoing the strike is pointless as the closing cat is going to ignore it anyway, is he not?--Patton123 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think Roger had the best idea, closing it would have been acceptable. I think the RfA is beyond the scope of an admin/non-admin closing it, but a 'crat could. Nichalp's actions were unilateral without discussion. We've NEVER struck !votes before unless it was an IP, duplicate, or vandal/disruption. To start doing so now, would require discussion---even from a 'crat. Without discussion, it send the message that the !vote was disruptive/vandalistic. This is not the case. Plus, if we start striking !votes, when do we start targetting supports? There is too much precident that this action could set to do so without prior discussion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, this is quite an event to wake up to. I strongly disagree with striking a good faith oppose. If no rationale is given, I still wouldn't support striking it, but America69 even came back and clarified his/her position. Bureaucrats can go ahead and weigh supports and opposes when closing RFAs, but striking comments is going too far. Useight (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious if Nichalp is doing this as a sort of bureaucrat BRD - taking an aggressive action to see what the reaction of the community will be, so that he (and others) may know how much intervention by crats at RfAs will be tolerated. It is true that many, in various fora, have called for 'crats to take a more active role. I'm not sure this was done in the best possible manner, and perhaps discussion first for this sort of thing is called for, but I think we can all see that consensus for anything, even clearly beneficial changes, is difficult these days - especially at RfA. Avruch ^T 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And, no offence intended to the candidate, but if this sort of test needed to be performed then it helps that it was taken on an RfA with a seemingly clear outcome. Avruch ^T 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I want the crats to start weighing the !votes more, and providing reasoning for their closes. But I do not support this unilateral action without prior discussion. !votes cast in good faith, should not be stricken. They can be discounted/countered, but not stricken.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) NOTE: I'll even point to KMWEBER's opposes and the numerous discussions surrounding his !votes as establishing precident that lame and unpopular !votes are not stricken, eventhough everybody knows they are discounted!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This practice is not new - Nichalp in particular has been striking comments he feels add nothing to the discussion with some time and it is a practice that has generally been approved of. I am not generally a fan of this approach, and personally think clarification should be requested first where something is unclear. Personally I find Richard Cavell's reasons for opposing to be valid - he is saying that someone who needs someone to clean up after him as an editor may be a liability as an administrator. Given the additional issues that can be caused by using administrative tools and the fact that such actions are often not reviewed effectively, this seems a reasonable concern. I would have considered that to be valid sentiment, to be weighed in the context of the discussion based on whether this was a feeling shared by other opposers and how it was responded to by others. Whilst not the strongest oppose rationale ever, it makes sense to me and I would not have struck the comment. I am particularly mindful that striking can be embarrassing for the person whose comments are being discounted and that it would be more diplomatic to discuss it with them before taking this step. Whilst Nichalp was acting within his remit, I think it is unfortunate that his later ill health [13] meant he was not around to discuss the matter with Richard. I believe that had he been, the issue might have been resolved more positively. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I know about Nichalp, I know the striking was done with a positive outcome in mind. His decision probably stemmed out of "some kindness to this young candidate by striking the votes, lest they become disheartened". (in User:Ameliorate!'s words-- come on we all know how disheartening RfAs can be) I totally agree with WJBscribe, let Nichalp return and he shall sort this out. Also words once stricken van be un-stricken too! Probably Nichalp would have un-stricken the commment himself...once he felt the opposer replied back with a stronger rationale. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the context for Richard Cavell's comment is RMV's judgment. I see he has nominated a dozen or so featured picture candidates, including a scanned-in copyvio – [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] – and, as far as I can tell, not one has attracted any support !votes at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Nichalp's striking of the comments. He should, however, be encouraged (as should all crats) to take a stance against poor vote reasoning on RFAs, that add little to the discussion but hurtful and misinformed comments (not saying this is the case with Richard's vote). This can be done by a) Making such a comment in the discussion section, or underneath the questionable vote in question, or b) Ignoring such reasoning when making a close, since it has little to do with adminship, and is often nitpicking, looking for a way to oppose somebody. In this particular case, it was obvious the candidate would fail. If I were a bureaucrat, I would have probably just closed the thing. In close cases, such as the one Balloonman mentioned above, is a perfect time to use the "judgement" bureaucrats were apparently voted in for, since they have it. I tend to agree bcrats have the right to decide what makes a valid vote (e.g. SPAs, blocked vandals, sockpuppets etc), but striking a vote from an established user (an admin at that) seems a little much for my liking. Don't take it into account when closing, but striking, as others have said, is pretty offensive and to some downright rude. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, the !vote doesn't even have to be that close. If somebody presents a solid reason to oppose a candidate, then it shouldn't matter if there are already 100 supports. Similarly, if 100 people oppose saying, "I don't like the candidates handle", then I would have no problem with a crat passing the RfA. We've asked 'crats to weigh the evidence, we've indicated our trust in their ability to parse it---to weigh the good and the bad arguments. I personally would like to see them make more tough calls. I would support them in doing so. (Regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree. For example, Aervanath's RfA could have gone either way. Before it was closed, I knew that I would support whichever decision the closing crat made. That I agreed with it, is a plus, but it was one that would garner criticism regardless of how it was closed. I've seen WJBScribe make controversial closes before---and have gone out of my way to support his decision.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to point out that were I closing that particular RFA, there's absolutely no way I'd pay attention to the vote that Nichalp struck. I would totally discount it. I hold a fair few more positions than administrator, and most of what was said in the oppose also applies to me. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't have the faintest idea how the featured pictures process works. I don't think that makes me a bad admin. In Nichalp's position, would I have struck the vote? No, I don't think I would. I probably would just have left a comment to the voter in question, telling them that I had no intention of paying any attention to what they said in their vote, until it's even remotely relevant to adminship. I'll let you lot decide whether that's better or not.

I also think it was very petty of Richard Cavell to resign his adminship. An admin's vote being struck from an RFA is no bearing on said admin's suitability to be an admin. I'm sure Richard was a good admin, though I don't recall ever interacting with him. I'm truly sorry if he was offended by Nichalp's actions, as I'm sure Nichalp meant no offense. I'm not sorry for what Nichalp actually did though. Note the distinction.

So, maybe I'd advise Nichalp not to strike votes like that, but as it's just a piece of friendly advice from one bureaucrat to another, he's well within his rights to ignore me and tell me where to go, what cliff to jump off, or somesuch. The absolute difference between striking a vote (what Nichalp did) and telling a user that you have no intention to pay any attention to the vote (what I'd do) to the RFA is minimal- either way the vote does not get counted. But perhaps we'd have avoided this mess, as discussions like this usually accomplish very little. But note that although I've been a bureaucrat for well over a year now, Nichalp has been at it far longer than me, given he was the bureaucrat that promoted me to administrator those few years ago.

My, that was long. --Deskana (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with some of the protestations made here to Nichalp's approach. Bureaucrat discretion must be exercised carefully and slowly: striking votes (except when obscene, placed by sockpupptes, etc.) is altogether too heavy-handed. Also I find the language of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' highly objectionable: there is of course no such thing as an objective vote.

On the other hand, Deskana's remarks about pettiness and overreaction are well taken. A general impression that someone is not ready for adminship would certainly be made more convincing by giving evidence from diffs and so forth, and the specific support Mr Cavell provided for his opposition was in fact unusually weak.

Still, none of this means that it is possible to overcome one's general impressions and 'subjective' biases when voting, and none of it justifies heavy-handed intervention in a process that we've always wanted to work like a discussion. The best way to deal with a poorly-reasoned vote is to engage the voter in conversation, to invite him to defend or revise his position, rather than to declare his opinion irrelevant. This can of course be done by a regular user or administrator just as well as it can by a bureaucrat.

The bureaucrat can only begin his task of assigning relative weights to votes when deciding what to do with a close call -- notice that this is a highly 'subjective' process! -- after all of the comments have been gathered. Only in rare cases of disruption or extreme incivility should a bureaucrat consider interfering in the ongoing process of discussion and voting. This approach by no means guarantees an 'objectively' correct decision (that would not be possible), but it does guarantee a fair and open discourse and it certainly minimizes hard feelings. — Dan | talk 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we've had comments by four bureaucrats, and none have had an identical response to the appropriateness of Nichalp's actions, points up another problem. A more aggressive pattern of intervention by 'crats in the RfA process will have a very significant impact on the course of many requests, but if the nature and threshold for intervention varies as significantly as the opinions we've already seen do then the ultimate impact of such a change will be very unevenly felt. To be more succinct: The 'crats are different, and an expanded role will make those differences more obvious. It would be a serious problem to have the "crat draw" mean the difference between some candidates failing and others succeeding. So either this type of intervention should be discouraged, or it should be clear to all bureaucrats what is expected of them and when. Avruch ^T 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think Richard might have over reacted in resigning, I can understand it. Striking !votes has generally be reserved for duplicate !votes, IP's, and vandals/trouble makers. By unilaterally striking the !vote, in such a public manner, it can send the message that you are categorized as the later category. That your opinion/stance doesn't even deserve to be discussed, but can be unilaterally thrown away. When this is done in a public manner, it has a different impact than than one made on a user's talk page or via email. Yes, the ultimate impact on the RfA may be the same, but being called out changes the parameters. Doing this to a respected member of the community is wrong, and needed to be fixed. (For BOTH people who were striked out, not just the one who protested.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think we are looking too far into the striking of two votes on the RFA of a young candidate, when the outcome of the RFA was already decided. The two stricken votes would have been a glimmer of hope to the candidate (even if false, a glimmer nonetheless) rather than having their third RFA closed early. Although, I would still like to hear if this was Nichalp's reason for doing this. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having spent effort giving "moral supports" (which have often been crticised as a concept I might add) and indeed largely creating WP:NOTNOW to replace WP:SNOW as a more "gentle" reason to close an RFA early, I'd be deeply worried if 'crats started striking comments to give a candidate a "glimmer of hope" or whatever. Yes, RFA sucks, and I've long been of the opinion that we need to be more gentle to candidates. However if 'crats are actively going to start striking comments (as opposed to discounting them) to "save a candidates feelings" we've moved from a process of objective assessment based on discussion to a rather disturbing backdrop. I'm not at all sure Nichalp did strike the comments based largely on the idea of not discouraging candidates - if he did (and that is far from certain) I commend his sense of human decency but still feel it is a dangerous concept and one best avoided.Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Giving clear WP:NOTNOW candidates "moral support" or "glimmer of hope" by striking out weakly reasoned but good faith opposes may sound like a good idea at first, but is a misguided idea when looked at in more detail. It does not really save the nomination but prolongs the pain in the situation where an earlier WP:NOTNOW closure would in fact be better and more compassionate to the candidate. As this case demonstrates, when a good faith oppose is striken, whatever the good intentions might have been for doing that, the user whose vote was striken gets offended and upset. In this case not only did we not gain a new admin, but seem to have lost an experienced one (Richardcavell confirmed that he still intends to resign[24]). Also, as Pedro and Balloonman point out, this sets rather a bad precedent. If other people get the idea that it is OK to start striking out good faith votes (whether opposes or supports) based on weakness of the arguments presented, we are in for much more drama and nastiness in the RfA process. Now I really would hate to see something like that transpire. In my observations, badly argued votes, particularly badly argued opposes, are self-limiting: they do not generate more follow-up votes of the same kind but they do generate discussion of some sort. Sometimes the person who cast the original vote is convinved by the arguments of others to change their mind; sometimes that person provides additional arguments to shore up their position. Either way, this is better and generates less drama than actually striking out a good faith vote. Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost entirely certain that Nichalp didn't strike the vote to make the candidate feel better, but because the vote made little sense. --Deskana (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but a combination of both it being the RFA of a young editor, whose (third) RFA was imminent to fail and that the votes were tenuous. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 21:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why he felt it was up to him to decide if the vote made sense. That's not his (or any b-crat's job). Their job is to judge consensus at RFA, not to decide if someone's opinion is worthy of inclusion at RFA. Balloonman was absolutely right to restore the vote because Nichalp has no business removing it. RxS (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Arguments based on faulty or patently absurd logic, defined using common sense definitions, are and should be discounted (whether explicitly or not is another question). RfA is a hybrid vote/discussion, not a pure poll. —kurykh 05:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Striking !votes, in an “authoritative” action by a bureaucrat is to have the authorities interfere in community consensus building. What next? Let the community raise points for bureaucrats to decide? Why not just let the bureaucrats rule by fiat, if the community accepts that they hold greater wisdom? No. Bureaucrats judge the consensus of RfA, and they should step back from interfering in it. If a double vote needs striking, or an illogical vote needs criticism, any editor can do it, and if any editor can then any editor should, and there should be no expectation that a senior member of a hierarchy will be supervising the rest of us. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are three issues here:
  1. Nichalp striking out Richard Cavell's !vote: Too hasty, but within his rights as 'crat. While his objection as initially stated did not obviously relate to the candidate's suitability for adminship, further comments revealed the connection: Cavell was concerned that the candidate's actions showed a lack of judgement. Clearly an appropriate cause for opposing, and Nichalp could have assumed a little more good faith by asking for more explanation. However, I say this with 20/20 hindsight, with knowledge of Cavell's later comments. I cannot say that in Nichalp's position I would not have made the same assumption.
  2. Balloonman reverting Nichalp: Also in a gray area. Balloonman clearly felt that this action was a mistake, and would not be supported by consensus. As a general rule, if something is done that not in accord with consensus, you reverse it, no matter who did it. As an editor, I would have reverted an admin who I thought had made a mistake. As an admin, I will take no special offense if an editor seeks to correct a mistake I have made. If Nichalp had then reverted Balloonman, further action (without discussion) on Balloonman's part would have been clearly improper, but this was not what happened.
  3. Richard Cavell resigning: a red herring. That's clearly up to Cavell. I don't think it's necessary, but it's not up to me.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with opining and frankly I'm not too happy with this conversation taking place generally while Nichalp is away ill. Can we hold fire until he is able to speak for himself please?

Discussion of Richard's actions in resigning his bit seem more appropriate elsewhere - personally, I'd advise anyone concerned over it to address comments directly to Richard. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Where in the world was the discussion about this? Striking good faith !votes is a horribly bad idea and only discourages honesty. It's simple human behavior - if someone knows that their "real" reason for opposing a candidate (say, "no demonstrated need for the tools") doesn't meet the Officially Approved Criteria (tm), then he or she will give a different Officially Approved Criterion (tm), say, "lack of edit summaries", which is (obviously) a far superior reason to oppose someone. --B (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's response

So this is what everyone's been waiting for all week! I'm sorry it ballooned out (pun not intended) of propotion when I was away. I was not keeping to well the previous Saturday, and my condition worsened by late Sunday, so I had to pull the plug on my Wikipedia editing. I kinda recovered by Wednesday, and decided to take the week off. I'm sorry about all the mayhem I have caused in my absense, I assure you I did not go hiding, was was genuinely unwell. I must note that much of the criticism that has been levelled against me was done without much of an idea what was going in through my mind the last week, and the most vociferous opponents were people who I have never got a chance to collaborate or work with. I'm afraid that I cannot respond to all the above queries since basic assumptions were made and certain users simply stoked the fire by adding all sorts of doomsday scenarios. So, instead, I'll give you an insight to what was going through my head last week. You judge it objectively, and then I would be fielding any questions you have. So here goes:

There have been repeated calls by the community for bureaucrats to get more involved with the process, particularly the RFA, and BOT process. Since I have generally spend more time on Wikipedia these days, I decided to heed to these calls and get more involved. You can see my trail in WP:BOT. I have been a crat for three years now, and I do have a fairly good idea as to what the community requires in an admin. From my experience in the field, I have seen proposals come and go, and the editors who comment on the RFA talk page are never regulars, so the attention span is limited and proposals get repeated. Coming to the RFA, I distinctly believe that the RFA is not a vote. This is reinforced time and again on the RFA talk pages. Originally, an RFA "was no big deal", these days, people make it a big deal. The problem what I see is the type of opposes. From experience, the community and bureaucrats do not give too much weightage to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply put, opposing because an editor is gay, under 18, or simply putting it as "I simply do not like you" does not imply that the candidate is unsuited for adminship. In addition, opposing because of a single bad FPC nomination has no bearing on an RFA. (If it has please tell me). So I weighed in these comments. The first one, by America69 said: I don't see the needs. Ironholds asked him to expand, and he did, to an extent that I did not find helpful. So I indented the oppose so that the bot does not index it as standard "oppose" in the numerical sense. On hindsight, my choice of words was poor, it aided the confusion. What I had in mind is that America69 clarify his statement, so that his !vote was counted. The next !vote I indented was by Richard Cavell. I looked at his profile, I was aware that he was an admin, then I weighed in Julian's comment and his response to Julian. As with the first oppose, my idea was similar: I indent the oppose and engage the editor in clarifying the issue. I then had a look at the FPC. The FPC was in June, the RFA is in November. As a bureaucrat, I would downplay older issues in favour of newer reports, especially if they are insignificant (no civility issues or horrendous bad faith). Certainly everyone is entitled to make a mistake here and there: I look at my own experience. I had a featured topic nomination thrown out as recently as two months ago. I was not very familiar with the rules. While thinking about the issue; I recall that fellow 'crat Raul had submitted Image:Narmada.jpg which was thrown out as quickly as it entered. So, the next series of events that went through my head were if an incorrect but old FAC nomination really makes a bad admin. Would it be fair to judge Rauls' or my adminship for a single instance of misjudging of the criteria? That's what I thought to myself. Now if this was allowed to be construed a valid oppose, (in effect sucking down three support !votes in the tally), I should not be an admin. However, if I made the same mistake over a repeated period of time, after being told I am wrong, then yes, my abilities as an admin is called into question. So then, I asked Richard to clarify his oppose to factor in his response and provide more instances. I gave more significance to his response to Julian comments than his original oppose. Then I looked at the AFD nom. The delete by him was made in good faith, based on his understanding of a previous successful AFD nom. As his delete was the first on the AFD, the equation was different. Had the "delete" come after several well-reasoned "keeps" the equation would change, as that would directly question his ability. I was neutral on this issue. Juxtaposing the two points raised by Richard, I found that these were one-off instances and more such instances were required. The RFA determines the suitability of an admin, and raising trivial "supports"/"keeps"/"opposes" as direct oppose to settle political scores by anyone is uncalled for. To bring things at a different level, would it be fair to oppose my arbcom candidacy (for the record, no, I'm not running!) just because I disagreed with their point of view in an extremely debatable topic? This is the point where the bureaucrat steps in to remind everyone that this is not a vote, and not a place to air political musings and vendetta. Take my RFB for instance: During my RFB, I deleted some images of a Hindu temple as they were a clear copyviolation. The next thing I knew, the uploader opposed my RFB nom on the lines of being "anti-Hindu" and what not. Take a deep breath, and tell me if such an oppose has anything to do with an RFB, and if it should be even counted as a numerically valid oppose? I think the question here is that too much of importance is give to statistical values. I did not indent Richard's oppose in haste. I thought over it three times, and the effect it would have on the RFA. It was not impromptu, and the oppose played out several times, each time I researched more trying to garner a more rational approach. It took me 15 hours of thought before I "reigned in the oppose".

Now to people who have not seen my work, I have indented several RFAs opposes in the past (please go back to 2005, I think you might find some examples there). So, it's nothing new to me, new perhaps to people who have not been around since then. Further, none of Richard's (or rather lack of it) capabilities as an admin stuck me. I was curious yes, but in no ways did I imply that his adminship was called into question. I think he resigned at the spur of the moment. It is unfortunate, I wish I was around to calm him down. I'd always be willing to restore the +sysop bit should he wish to change his mind. Ameliorate is quite close when he/she mentions that I did keep in mind the age of the candidate. Yes I did keep that in mind, I think we can render our opposes more objectively to younger members of an RFA and I did not want my responses to be condescending in any manner. For example, I cannot say "Hey mister, the guy's a 15 year old, do be more considerate to him" I did not want RedMarkViolinist to feel that as a teen, he is viewed as "irresponsible" by the community. At his age, he needs constructive criticism, so that he learns, not pity from bureaucrats and not comments such as "your picture taking abilities are terrible". (Richard I'm being blunt: but please do not take it personally) I think it also applies to all of us don't you think?

Another point I wish to add: The indent was not supposed to be permanent. I wished to engage in dialogue with the person so that the person opposing thinks about his oppose instead of just taking out one or two edits out of the persons's editing history and blowing it up. Striking and (:)indenting are two vastly different things, with different implications. Unfortunately bad health scuttled my plans which would have nipped the issue in the bud. There are many more things that I can add here, but will leave it here as the topic is any ways long enough to digest. Hope this clarifies things. I will speak to Richard and ask him to reconsider. I'd be happy to field any questions (but will take my time in responding to give a more fruitful response). Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, I would be lying if I didn't say that I thought your actions were a mistake---and I've explained them above, so I won't rehash them here. That being said, we all make mistakes. It doesn't lower my esteem for you in any way or your value to the project as 'crat. Don't beat yourself up over them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think now that Nichalp's responded, it becomes clearer what was going on. In order to avoid future misunderstandings, I would request that anyone, 'crat or not, who indents a vote state clearly the reason for indenting it, especially if you only mean the indentation to be temporary. My suggestion: posting a "This vote indented until it is made clearer why this affects the candidates ability to succeed as an administrator." I think this would avoid future drama on this topic.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't plan my sickness, else it would have not got to this stage. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, wrong lesson. As this episode amply demonstrated, in order to avoid future debacles of this kind good faith votes should be neither indented, nor struck out, by anyone other than the user who cast the original vote. The only exceptions I can think of are clearly bad faith votes (vandalism, personal attacks, harassment, false statements, etc) or oppose votes given with no justification at all. People can and do comment below the vote if they diagree with it or question it. The original voter may or may not change their mind, and may or may not provide additional rationale or modify their comments. The closing crat will weigh/discount the votes as needed and may comment if appropriate in the closing statement. That's the way it should be. If people start indenting each other's votes becuase they are unsatisfied with the explanations given, this is definitely the road straight to RfA hell, to increadible acrimony, animosity, people taking offense, retaliations, lost tempers, and the amount of drama that will make the past drama surrounding cool down block opposes pale by comparison. No, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that that the RFA process is a numerical exercise, and we include opposes such as "You look too ugly" as a numerically valid oppose? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, give me a break. I did say:"The closing crat will weigh/discount the votes as needed and may comment if appropriate in the closing statement." That is not a numerical exercise. Regarding an oppose based on how someone looks, that is pretty clearly a bad faith oppose, in the realm of a personal attack, and it would certainly deserve to be striken as such. Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've still not got you. You're saying that we should discount only !votes after the RFA closes and not during? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... during the RfA, anybody can challenge a persons oppose rationale. They can ask for clarification of a reason. They can even state that they think the closing crat would discard said !vote... that happens all the time. During the RfA is the time for discussion and debate. When the discussion is over, then the crats are encourage to weigh the arguments. Did a person make a valid oppose/support? Or is the reason lacking?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nsk. During the course of the RfA, good faith !votes & comments should not be interfered with. Reply, comment or criticise, but don’t “rule” before the close. More specifically, the {{cratnote}} tag should not be used in any manner that may affect the flow of a debate. Its use is too much like an Appeal to authority. By all means, use {{cratnote}} during the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case I would like to see 'crats leaving comments about opposes (after the RFA has closed) even if the oppose does not alter the outcome of the RFA. As it stands currently frivolous opposes are left standing because they don't matter, which encourages (or doesn't discourage) the person to keep making them. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 06:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I don't think its a logical fallacy of any sort. As far as I know, there are no clear rules as to a bureaucrat indenting an oppose, and the validity (in this case invalidity) of such a move. I simply can't base the above criticism to be "community consensus" by just a handful of editors who chose to respond on this page condemning the indent. I would prefer it either of you guys open a thread on the RFA talk page so that a proper debate can be reached on the appropriateness of indenting opposes during an RFA. The RFA page would be a proper place to debate and secure a quorum for community consensus. Please do word it carefully so as to make it a general query for community input and not of a forum to criticise any bureaucratic action. PS: just clear the archived older threads: It's going to be a spicy treat of several kilobytes. [Note: My responses might be delayed... quite busy from now till December end] =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what people are saying is that it might be a better idea to simply tell someone that you're going to ignore their vote, rather than striking it out. --Deskana (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It boils to the same issue doesn't it? mentioning "that the !vote is invalid IMHO" =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its more philosophical (or whatever word I'm searching for); when a bureaucrat decides not to consider a particular !vote, they are exercising their judgement for which they were selected to the position, but when a bureaucrat strikes the !vote out completely, they're doing the exact same thing, exercising judgement (which they are entitled to do), but they are additionally, kind of publicly snubbing the good-faith opposer (or supporter). It's just not as tactful to strike it out as it is to just disregard the !vote later while closing the RFA. I think that is pretty much the gist of the preceeding thread. Useight (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Indenting someone's vote is a public slap in the face and will be taken by users who cast good-faith votes as offensive. We have a rather spectacular and disastorous proof of it in this particular case. There are good reasons why good-faith !votes (even very weak or poorly argued ones) are not struck or indented during AfDs either. Moreover, indenting/striking good-faith RfA votes gives other users the idea that it is OK to do that if they find someone's logic unconvincing. That is a terrible road to take, policy-wise, as I said above. Imagine what would happen if people start edit-warring in RfAs indenting and de-indenting votes. The amount of drama and acrimony will increase exponentially. There is no need to go down that road. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree I could have handled the issue in a more tactful manner with a more appropriate choice of words. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Say “this !vote should be struck”, but do it as any editor, not as a bureaucrat action. Looking over past uses of {{cratnote}}, noting checkuser results is OK, but it doesn’t take a bureaucrat to post the note. This edit [25] is something I support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why as an editor and not as a bureaucrat? (the template is used in the CHU page, not checkuser) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason is simple, when you do it as a 'crat with the crat tag, you doing so from a position of power and authority. One of finality that would squelch the discussion entirely. Or at the very least biased the discussion significantly. As an editor, it is less threatening and leaves the door open for discussion. For example, in the Catholic Church, people listen to the pope. He is the head of the Catholic Church. Now most things that the pope says, are debatable. The Pope is technically first among equals... a bishop. If the Pope were to make a comment about women in the priesthood or homosexuality, his comments might spark some discussion. Not everybody would agree with him. Now, if he were to issue a Papal Bull, then his words would hold a little more weight. While not infallable, Papal Bulls are not issued lightly. If he were to issue the same statement "ex cathedra" then his declarations would carry the weight of infallability and (in theory) would have to be accepted by the faithful. I would posit, that as an editor, people do listen to you (and other 'crats)... this puts you first among equals. If you write in your comments, "as a crat" you are doing the symbolic equivalence of issuing a papal bull. Putting the authority of your position behind your words. If you use the cratnote, then you are issuing a statement ex cathedra, and doing so in a manner that says, "Discussion closed." Even if the discussion were to continue, by making such a strong statement, it significantly biases discussion because you cease to be "first among many" but rather the ruling authority. That might not be your intent, but that is the message sent when using the Cratnote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) For the Catholics out there,I know, it's more complex that that, but it illustrates the point

I agree with Nichalp here. If any !vote is indented or struck, it should be done by a bureaucrat, and not by just any user. We've specifically chosen our bureaucrats because of their knowledge of the RfA system and what it entails. Nichalp, I know you already realize that your word choice was not optimal, but I believe that the best course of action would have been to leave the !votes in place, but leave a note (perhaps with ((tl|cratnote}} as suggested above) saying that additional detail is required. Something along the lines of "As a bureaucrat, I do not feel that your rationale is adequate in this instance. I would suggest that you add more details if you would like your !vote to be weighed by the closer of this RfA." GlassCobra 10:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But by mentioning it, you (generic) give the person the ability to refine their answer or to respond to your comment. Perhaps you are missing something---by mentioning it, you give the opposition the ability to say, "You don't understand my concern, let me try again." By striking it with a cratnote, the message is sent, "Case closed." If calling upon the cratnote didn't indicate finality of a decision, then my reversing of the striking the !vote would not have been met with opposition from your fellow crats. Taxman and WJB both feel that I exceeded my bounds because I stood up and said this action is wrong, but (IMO) by appealing to it the authority of 'crats was exceeded. If the cratnote was not there, then there would have been no debate about my undoing the striking of the !votes, it would have been one editor disagreeing with another---which is clearly allowed. But because you claimed the perjogative of performing the action as a 'crat,' then it changes the dynamics. Most people would not challenge your actions, even if they believed they were wrong. Most people would see the cratnote as the judges decision, case closed. For that reason, there is a significant difference between the two.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty subjective to me -- usage of the cratnote template certainly conveys authority (as it should), but not "case closed." If used clearly along with diplomatic language like what I suggested above, I feel that this could be a very effective method of RfA communication between 'crats and users. This goes along with the point I make to Kingturtle below. GlassCobra 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago I myself made some edits of !votes of other editors. As I made the edits I thought that my actions were for the greater good, but through some discussions with other editors I came to realize that it is best to let the edits, positions and opinions of other editors stand. It is now my opinion that Bureaucrats should keep out of active RfAs as much as possible. We should let editors hash it out. RfAs reflect the priorities and desires of the community. If a majority of editors oppose an RfA based on the grounds of no self-nominations, then that would be the will of the body. Each editor is allowed his/her own opinion, and that opinion should be allowed to stand. Controversial, unpopular and unusual oppositions should not be removed or struck out; instead, they should be engaged through dialogue and rhetoric. These should be the tool to address such oppositions. The role of the Bureaucrat should not come until the RfA is closed, at which point the Bureacrat(s) can make a judgment call based on the closed, finalized discussion. The less role Bureaucrats play during the RfA, the more confidence the community will have in Bureaucratic decisions after the RfAs. Kingturtle (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can go along with that---but I do support asking for clarification of a position. But, IMO, if a position needs clarifying or strengthening, there will probably be somebody else who challenges it. We always see people making comments about how the crats will/might discard an unsubstantiated opinion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) The one time I can clearly see the use for Cratnotes in an RfA is to use similar to the way admins use archiving, to close discussions that are getting off tangent or disruptive.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Kingturtle, I disagree pretty strongly with you there -- the role of 'crats should be de-mystified, which means more active participation, not less. The current system has bureaucrats coming silently in at the end of an RfA and simply closing it one way or the other, with explanation only provided in controversial or borderline cases. Voters get no feedback on which opinions were counted or discounted, or how heavily certain arguments were weighed. As I said above, I would surely support bureaucrats informing voters that their rationales are insufficient and should be amended, or be discounted. I think this could actually have very positive ramifications for the RfA system as a whole; if voters knew that certain types of rationales, or sparsely detailed rationales, were totally discounted, maybe we would have more comprehensive participation. GlassCobra 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Nichalp did the right thing, and hope to see more of this in the future... but with some of the more diplomatic methods suggested by various editors above. I think back to my first RfA, which failed, and remember being frustrated that I did not have a clear understanding of what votes were given weight in the decision to close. I had zero experience with the RfA process when I failed, as do many of those who try and fail despite being good, qualified candidates. If 'crats are proactively hitting bad votes it sends a signal to those editors that they are at least being dealt with honestly, rather than simply losing a popularity contest. It also spares us from threads like this, and helps prevent "winning" an RfA from becoming a constantly moving target. As for Richard resigning his bit over a little friction, I can certainly identify with his anger at being "called out", and that speaks to the need for 'crats to do this regularly, and with a solid explanation. I think this is especially important when striking the vote of an established editor or admin. Establishing consensus without interference is important to some extent, but preventing the consensus from forming around topics unrelated to being a good admin, while recognizing that these votes are often still given in good faith should be a priority for the 'crats who are monitoring any given RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a bad !vote? If it is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, then that certainly should be scratched out, but if it is an unpopular opinion, the opinion should stand. Just because an opinion is unpopular does not mean it carries no weight. If there are 24 yeas and one opposition based on an unpopular opinion, that should be ok. A 100% successful RfA carries no more weight than a 96% or a 75% successful RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify that a little. By "bad vote" I only mean votes that are routinely dismissed by 'crats, not that their are inherently good and bad votes. If nominees fail an RfA, reviewing that RfA can be a valuable learning tool if they are serious about pursuing an RfA in the future. If the failed RfA is full of votes that were discounted, but not marked as such, then the learning experience is somewhat less constructive. Moreover, if votes are not identified as discounted, then people will continue to make them and thus clutter more RfA's. Popular or not, an opinion shouldn't stand in the final tally if it is not actually counted by the closing 'crat. I see this as making the process more open, as voters are free to discuss their reasoning. As a voter myself, I see it as helpful to know if my own votes are counted or not so that I can bolster the vote with a more clear line of reasoning and diffs. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I don't like that. Let's use one of our peren oppose reasons: "Self Nom." Well, most people would agree that opposing somebody because they are a self-nom is a poor reason to oppose. Whenever that reason came up, it was routinely criticzed by others. If there ever was an !vote that might merit indenture, it would be the opposer per "self-nom." Well, before Kurt stopped !voting here, others started to oppose per "self-nom." Others were starting to see value in that reason. While, that reason may never be widely accepted, other reasons might be. The only way for consensus to shift is via open communication, if a reason is discarded without discussion, we are entrenching our beliefs and squelching minority positions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The "self-nom" vote is a great example, but is that reason actually counted every time it is made? I've never seen a clear answer to that, and routinely see the question confuse people who are inexperienced in RfA. Nothing wrong with it being in the discussion, but if the 'crat doesn't count it, I would want to know that in my own RfA. This is particularly important if six or seven other editors make the same vote, as that really would make the difference between a pass and fail in RfA (rather than spoiling a perfect score RfA). Hiberniantears (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is where 'crat descretion comes into play. It shouldn't have counted, or at least been discounted. Can I say that every closing crat discounted/discarded it? No. Nor do I think we need to know. They were appointed crats in part because they have the trust of the community to weigh consensus and strength of argument. If they were to go through and start noting every support/oppose they found credible or discounted, then it would create a whole new flock of controversy. "How dare you discount my !vote. It was a valid reason!" And then others might join in. We might open up pandora's box wherein debates over the inclusion/exclusion of specific !votes becomes overwhelming. I do want our crat's to share their reasoning, but at a higher level. I don't want them to start pointing to specific reasons---unless it is because the reason was particularly profound in their reasoning. EG "Keeper made perhaps the best argument when he said..."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree Balloonman's points above. Community standards regarding RfAs are fairly fluid and not easily defined; in fact they constantly develop and change during the RfA discussions themselves. Trying to arrest this process by bureaucrat intervention is a bad idea. The very notion of what constitutes a "bad" good-faith RfA vote is rather ill-defined and far from constant. There is some benefit for an RfA candidate in knowing what was discounted and why, but this benefit is much more easily and painlessly achieved by crats providing more detailed closing statements, especially in controversial cases. Actually indenting good-faith votes is just going to needlessly offend people and cause more drama, with potential retaliations, edit warring, etc. Also, the idea that non-indented "bad" good-faith votes somehow turn an RfA in a purely numerical exercise is itself rather misguided. Poorly argued RfA oppose votes are, in practice, self-discounting. They are typically challenged by a discussion below such votes and do not generate significant follow-up opposes. Better-argued and more substantive opposes do generate more follow-up opposes. That is how RfA consensus is achieved. Personally, I do not have any problems with self-noms and I don't think most of the rest of the community does either. But that may easily change in the future and a "bad" good-faith oppose would become a "good" one. I do think that in one respect crats do need to be more active. Namely, when RfA discussions become heated and people start loosing their tempers and veering into personal attacks, crats do need to intervene and urge the participants to cool down. Nsk92 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all the time, the decision to promote or not promote an RfA is clear cut. When the RfA result is in the gray area, I consult publicly with other Bureaucrats about the final judgment. I read all oppositions (excluding pranks, sockpuppets and meatpuppets). Every contributor has a right to his/her reasons, even if minute, unpopular or petty. An RfA isn't going to be spoiled or destroyed by one person (or even a handful of people) making such sorts of oppositions. However, if 50 people support a candidate, and 40 oppose based on a minute, unpopular or petty detail, maybe the detail isn't so minute, unpopular or petty after all. It is best to let the conversations and arguments take place instead of crossing out undesirable oppositions. If we have Bureaucrats removing particular oppositions, then we have Bureaucrats molding RfAs to desired results. The last thing we need are RfA police or RfA manipulation. Kingturtle (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And it is specifically those 50/40 hypothetical cases where the decision of the 'crat is important. I have seen such cases where no logic is given, and some where a very detailed reasoning is given when the 'crat closes the RfA. Personally, I don't think having the 'crat explain it every time would increase or decrease the debate... things are already debated and discussed. My thinking on this comes down to the great "vote vs. !vote" debate; If it is a "vote" than the only thing that matters are numbers, and we don't need the 'crat. If it is a "!vote", and therefore merely a discussion, then if the discussion goes way off topic as online threads so often do, it is the responsibility of the 'crat to sift through the discussion and find reasons that would indicate consensus on a candidate's ability to have, or not have, the mop. Therefore, discussion about anything not related to the actual mop-related activities would be off topic. "Self-nom" would definitely fit this category since the nomination process allows for self-nominations. There is an ongoing debate about age that also comes to mind (as there is no rule setting even so much as a suggested admin age parameter). Likewise, support should also be just as heavily scrutinized (30 supports in a row that say nothing more than just "support" don't tell us anything, and contribute nothing to a discussion or consensus). Hiberniantears (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request further input on this request Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Lady_Galaxy_.E2.86.92_Dasani since the target matches a well known product. I left a note there and on requestor's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was able to find at least one instance of Dasani being a surname,[26] but there's also a post about the name itself.[27] I'd say deny it; the most widely known use of the name is a commercial application, and the request doesn't mention it being a real name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence that she's promoting the company, which I don't see, then the current policy is very vague, only stating that it is "not recommended" to have a company name. Which leaves it up to your discretion, I guess. There's nothing else linking this user to the company, so I'd be inclined to grant it, with the understanding that promotion of the Dasani brand would be grounds for immediate blocking.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many company and product names that are also surnames. People should not be penalized for the overlap. It is beyond their control. As long as the account is not used to promote the product, the name should be allowed. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has stated that they chose it for a different reason than a surname. Xclamation point 14:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she said it was from a Korean song. Are there other product names in use as usernames? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as was pointed out to me during my RfA, User:EVula runs evula.com, but he doesn't promote it on-wiki, so no one's moved to ban him quite yet. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do ahead and do the rename and ask she not promo the water company. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

She has a sentence on User:Dasani#About the name making it clear there's no connection. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Been thinking about Wikipedia:Changing_username#45Factoid44_.E2.86.92_VandalismWatcher3533. I'm inclined to agree to the change. Without the 3533, I think the name would come across as implying "undue authority", but the numeric seems to dilute that for me. Furthermore, as we know, any user can watch for vandalism. But I'm unsure; hence the post here. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In general adding numbers doesn't really dilute it to me, it just sounds like another in a series of people claiming undue authority, not much, but a little. I'd be tempted to deny, especially considering if this person had rollback or became an admin. It would make it look like their determinations of vandalism were official or something. - Taxman ^Talk 14:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll happily go with your opinions. Glad I posted here. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree; I don't think "Vandalism Watcher" denotes much authority, if only because of the inherent passivity in the name. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree; I don't see how "Vandalism watcher" implies much authority. bibliomaniac15 06:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you came to the party, even if a little late! Lol. I think we can agree it was a close-call and in that case, erring on the side of caution (declining the request) seems to have been probably the right move. Maybe I should have left the question here a little longer, but I do like to keep CHU ticking over. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think it really matters one way or the other; I may disagree, but I'm not about to shed a tear about the way the rename went. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent. "Vandalism watcher" doesn't sound like an official position to me. It's like calling the police a "crime watcher". Oooh so you're watching my commit my crime, but don't care? Excellent. :-p --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've dobbed all you bureaucrats in in a new idea for a safety valve/point of redress/check and balance/good governance/etc. --> here

My idea would be this was a low volume committee which could be established by any five 'crats for the situations described. Has something like this been discussed before? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See also WT:RFBAN and the last 3 or 4 RFBs were people didn't like this idea when I asked it as a question. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...similar...but yet different. I was thinking of desysopping (in well-circumscribed cases) and a goveranance issues with arb com, rather than bans. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, but the general feeling both at RFB and at RFBAN was that crats shouldn't do DR-type stuff. Also, obviously they would need access to sensitive data to review arbcom actions, and as of now, crats do not need to identify to the Foundation to become crats. Also, some crats, such as Bcorr, Cprompt, etc have performed a single crat action in over 4 years of crat-ship following RFBs with votes in the range of 8/0, not sure the community would like placing them on a committee above arbcom all of a sudden. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It always seems to come down to the fact that bureaucrats are selected on a criteria that has nothing to do with dispute resolution. For something like this to work, I think you'd have to have a "Request for Fiveship" or something in which the community selected the five bureaucrats who they also deemed capable to do dispute resolution. Useight (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Which makes the idea sound even worse, to me. --Deskana (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, too; it's along the lines of debundling the admin tools, which is a frowned upon idea. Useight (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

<dedent>If such a committee gained consensus in principle and then consensus was that they wanted Crats to be on it, we'd have to look at it, but until then, I agree with my colleagues.

Perhaps, Casliber, you're trying to get too much agreed up front, which is making opposition to the idea too easy and support very difficult. Raise the issues one at a time, starting with the biggest - the need for something. Once people agree with that consider what the response is to that need. Only then is the personnel relevant. That'll take you quite some time on Wikipedia, but you'll have more chance of success. Anyway, just my 2p. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is like RFA reform, many people agree reform is needed--here reform of matters related to arbitration, but the community has trouble attaining consensus on how to do it. If the ideas of Casliber and MBisanz can be refined to the point that they attain consensus, then we can implement them. I think the MBisanz/Casliber ideas (which are very similar) are worth further development. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...all food for thought anyway. I have not ventured into this side of things too much as yet. People are throwing up some ideas. Tenofalltrades shot it down rather comprehensively already but it is a good thing to talk about. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the best solution to a committee is another committee. Cratship is really a technical group, and although a lot of trust is needed to pass RFB, I'm not sure it's best to actually use crats for these kinds of dispute resolution cases. How would a fivecrat committee be appointed, or would each case have a different group of crats coming together by personal interest? bibliomaniac15 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I had thought it would be any five coming together at one time, for speed and versatility, as I figured the numbers of active crats were low enough that a bit of discussion should sort it out at the time (ever the optimist me :)) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up twice, both at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12 and WT:CHU. While the CHU template has a reason field, why doesn't the CHUU template have one? Xclamation point 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would a reason be needed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there are different reasons for usurping and it's good to know what that reason is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't most people would return an WP:ILIKEIT as an answer? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There probably would be a lot of that, but I suppose there could also be some privacy-related reasons or perhaps they want to usurp an imposter/doppelganger account (although that isn't done as much due to the advent of SUL). Useight (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicalp, there is a lot of ILIKEIT answers at CHU too, but it has shown over there that it does help us to identify problem requests. Xclamation point 17:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is no entry in the log that the rights for User:Jaranda were ever changed to remove the user as an administrator. Since User:Secret and User:Jaranda are controlled by the same individual and Jaranda was recently unblocked by Secret this came to my attention. My understanding is that individuals should not have multiple accounts with administrative powers. Note that there has been no use of the unblocked Jaranda's administrative powers, so this is a question of policy, as there has been no improper actions. --Lachoneus 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaranda is not still an admin. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: above link not completely safe for work. :P bibliomaniac15 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, apologies: I must admit that didn't really cross my mind :) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The removal of rights is done by stewards not local bureaucrats and so is part of the user rights log at meta, not here. See this link for the removal of rights from that account. WJBscribe (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

and here, you can verify Jaranda does not have admin rights. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? That link tells me I'm unable to proceede ......... Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Special:UserRights and type in Jaranda. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because that's the secure version of the site, and Pedro probably wasn't logged in there - hence no access to Special:UserRights. In any case, he couldn't actually change the admin right. A better link is here. Any user can see that. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

HDYTTO is correct - thanks. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have concern over a user having a just a couple of admin accounts you've not been reading Wikipedia Review recently. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I did not realize that the rights log on en was not accurate for removal and that those changes are being done on meta. And I haven't kept up on WR. --Lachoneus 20:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's best not to keep up with WR if you like editing here. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the opportunity to bring back something that has been discussed before, but it's the kind of thing that tends to get burried over time and edits. Concerning the transferrence of admin status to a new account, I handled several cases of it roughly a year or so ago, and eventually we got even Jimbo to comment on procedure regarding those. We were able to establish that if the admin has disclosed his or her identity and wants to effect the status transferrence there are 2 possible avenues: 1) make the dual request directly to the Stewards; 2) Ask a Steward to remove the status from the old account and only after this request has been fulfilled, ask a local Bcrat to +admin the new account. Requests to the Bcrats to +admin the new account while the old account still retains admin status are not to be fulfilled, notably because the Bcrat has no control over the de-adminning of the old account.
So normally, the best way to go would be to direct a dual request to the Stewards. It is possible, however, that the Steward will de-admin the old account but decline to +admin the new one, deferring this to a local Bcrat. If that happens, then the user can just make a request on the BN or to any Bcrat directly.
Specifically in the case of en.wiki, we can point out that a few of the Bcrats here are also Stewards (although the positions are not "related" in any way). Redux (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since a lot of people watch this page, not just Bcrats, I thought I'd drop a quick note here just to let people know I've returned. I apologize to all for the 3.5 months I've been gone, just got overwhelmed in "real life". But I have not abandoned the project. I'll be revising discussions on the WT:RFA page before resuming normal activities, but if anyone feels that there's any key event or change that has taken place over the time I've been out, feel free to let me know, here or on my talk page. All input is greatly appreciated. Cheers to all, Redux (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I can think of is that some bcrats now commonly give reasoning for their closes of "close" RFAs; this was discussed somewhat on this page. Another point raised was bureaucrat participation in RFAs - do bcrats have authority to strike votes from regular editors? I think the thread is still on this page; Nichalp struck a vote from Richard Cavell, and Richard resigned as an admin because of it. So I suppose, as a bcrat, it's a good idea to try and get involved a little more, but don't overstep the mark. Welcome back! – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The commentary on RFAs is mainly for when we think there are likely to be major questions, ie, on the "close call/crat discretions" ones or why we close it early, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Welcome back, Redux! Xclamation point 15:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man left for a five-month long tryst, so welcome back, man. Got some holes to fill in. bibliomaniac15 17:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful news: welcome back, Redux! Acalamari 17:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. You made me laugh when you said you'll be "revising discussions" instead of "revisiting" them. Useight (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not like I'll be amending anything or deciding on the "worth" of what was discussed. I'll be puting this quid pro quo on the "force of habit" tab. ;) Thanks to all for the notes. I've also already read through the RfA and related comments concerning Nichalp's action. The discussion on the BN has been quiet for 4 days now (which in "Wikipedia time" equals a month), so normally I would not rehash it; but if the community would like my opinion on it, I'll be happy to comment. I don't believe I'd bring anything radically new into it though, it would just be my perspective as a Bureaucrat. Redux (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Redux. The discussion has run cold as I have been unable to follow up on it and give a thoughtful response due to events in my city which directly affected me. You can read more on my talk page. As of this moment I am in no mood to edit wikipedia or in a position to continue in any sort of debate. I will be taking an indefinite wikibreak. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back. There was a discussion on Nichalp's delisting of a vote, above, which raised some important points on the precise remit of a Bureaucrat with regards to unsubstantiated oppose votes. Another proposal to grant 'crats the ability to desysop was shot down. The issue of "adminbots" also garnered a lot of attention and would be worth reading into, even if simply for your own benefit rather than because it is information especially necessary to a Bureaucrat. :) Synenergy also made an unorthodox request to have the closing Bureaucrat give a rationale for his or her closure of Syn's RfA (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11#My RfA). Oh, and Misza13 made an unusual request to have a Bureaucrat grant a bot to administrator status without community consensus (or, more explicitly, regardless of what consensus was derived from an RfA for the bot), which was rather overwhelmingly declined. Hope that breakneck summary is of some assistance! AGK 22:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose. But welcome back. --Dweller (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Redux, welcome back. no need to apologize for real life. As John Lennon put it: "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." Offline life trumps online life. You've been missed, though. And we're glad to have you back in the mix. Kingturtle (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much my sentiments as well; placing Wikipedia ahead of Real Life would give us cause to question your judgement. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Biblio---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) This should probably be shut down. Could somebody who hasn't participated in it go and close it? We are not here to embarrass people.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have closed it. bibliomaniac15 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some crat should step in and move that !vote, and the sprawling discussion to the talk page. I opposed the guy, but this is ridiculous. Pcap ping 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Each editor is allowed his/her opinion. Unless there is trolling going on, I prefer to let the !vote and reaction stand. Kingturtle (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, others have commented on the oppose reason, and I think the crats have enough information to weigh the merits (or lack thereof) of the oppose rationale.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This opinion is his opinion. It's not trolling or disruption, so I think it should stay. I'm sure the closing crat will weigh that opinion and the ensuing reactions appropriately. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with my fellow bureaucrats (and Balloonman too), but let's also look at the bigger picture here: that is just one oppose of many (28 at this time). If the RfA fails, I assure you, it won't be for that one opposition !vote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much that the b'crats can or should do. Nevertheless this smoking nonsense is exactly the stuff that drives RfA candidates crazy. For a few days they've been following the stressful progress of their RfA (and in this case closely contested RfA) and then boom! someone says smokers can't be admins. This is so utterly irrelevant (we're far, far beyond the prima facie level of irrelevance) that I don't think it's too far off to consider it trolling. Sure, it wasn't meant to be disruptive but it hurts the RfA process in the long run because it perpetuates the "RfA is like running the gauntlet" image that makes it so hard to find candidates. Nevermind the trout, Keepscases needs to be slapped with a sturgeon. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But each editor is allowed to have an opinion. If it was a doobie instead of a cigarette, would that be ok? For this editor, a cigarette is enough. It all boils down to the standards of the community. If hypothetically 35 editors opposed because of the cigarette, could or should we ignore it? In this actual case, one opposition in the matter isn't going to make or break the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that simple, sadly. I went there because of this discussion, and was tempted to vote in support simply because of that Oppose vote since it has nothing to do with the candidate's potential to be a good admin. However, I realise that such a vote would say nothing of the merits of the candidate qua Admin and be almost pointy. As a smoker myself, I know how useful it can be to take a step back and have a drag from time to time; it's a chill mechanism. Maybe tomorrow I will revisit the RfA and evaluate the candidate on his Wikipeida merits rather than his lifestyle choices; meanwhile, Pascal.Tesson is quite correct. Whatever next; "she shouldn't be an Admin because she wears makeup and dyes her hair"? Really. That vote should be struck as being irrelevant to the purpose and function of an RfA; it's about ability, not irrelevancies. Too much bollocks here at present. Support WP:TROUT at minimum. --Rodhullandemu 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed an opinion - just that the opinion is supposed to be of how the person will perform as an administrator, and nothing else. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, relevant opinions as to the candidate's suitability to fulfil the responsibility of adminship are welcome. Personal prejudices, not. I see nothing in the objector's vote that makes the linkage either cogent or relevant. Having been through a somewhat poisoned RfA myself, leading to an initially positive Checkuser for an opposing Admin alleged to be sockpuppeting, I know precisely how stressful the process can be. Irrelevant detail as in the current case (although it is now beyond saving), should not be allowed to raise smokescreens in the process, and Crats should be stronger in striking such detail, in my view. Swimming the Hellespont is bad enough without sharks, and it's no wonder good editors are deterred from applying for Adminship. --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the crats could perform a comprehensive review of Keepscases contributions at RfAs - many of his questions over a long period of time have been removed or generated controversies, and his votes have presented almost as much of a problem. I'm not sure what his strategy is at WP:RFA, but it has been disruptive for long enough that some action might be appropriate. Avruch ^T 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Strikes me that, if you're right (not saying you are or aren't, primarily because I'm too lazy to research it right now), this is something the community should handle; I don't think taking Keepscases to task for sub-standard RfA contributions should be solely in the hands of bureaucrats. RfA is the community's process; the smoking comment has sufficiently been derided by the community, which is why you won't see a bureaucrat give it a moment of consideration. Any further action in regards to the editor (Keepscases) or this specific !vote should, likewise, come from the community. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Update I've closed the RfA as No Consensus. In my message on Adolphus' talk page, I made it clear that the smoking bit wasn't taken into consideration at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument that "people have a right to an opinion" can only go so far. This is another case of mistaking "free encyclopedia project" with "free speech project". The point of RfA is not to have a forum where people have a right to say whatever they please so long as it's preceded by one of the keywords Support, Oppose, Neutral. The objective is to have a process to give the competent users a mop and anyone who intentionally or unintentionally derails this process needs to stop getting involved. Yes, the 'crats will disregard the !vote but that's besides the point. At some point we have to stop giving everyone a free pass and let people know in no uncertain terms when they are hurting the project. Not so long ago (can't remember but I bet the 'crats do) someone opposed on grounds that the candidate was not an ardent believer in God (or something to that effect, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to remind me which RfA it was). It is not unreasonable to assume we may one day get an editor who opposes any woman standing at RfA. Saying "oh but that's just an opinion and the 'crats will discard it" is the lazy way out. In the short term it's needlessly frustrating for candidates and if the choice we have is between a frustrated candidate and an editor frustrated that his idiotic rationale gets him fish in the face, well I'll take the frustrated idiot. In the long term, turning a blind-eye to the problem poisons the image of RfA. The correct thing to do when these things happen is tell that user: "if that's how you feel, please contribute somewhere else". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, RfAs are community decisions. Some people take age into consideration, others take number of edits into consideration. Some people take the nominator into consideration. There are umpteen different ways editors take a nominee's character into consideration. Some people leave no reason whatsoever. We should not have rules regarding what can and what cannot be acceptable reasons (except for trolling). Such rules would poison RfAs, IMHO. Consensus shall provide the general will, and a full discussion among editors will not hurt the project. An editor opposing an atheist doesn't hurt the project. Consensus shall prevail. It isn't turning a blind-eye, it is welcoming different points of view. Our community is served best by including all points of view. Telling people to leave because they have an unusual or unpopular opinion simply isn't right. Kingturtle (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kingturtle, though I take my argument in a slightly different direction: I see any "shunning" (for lack of a better phrase) to be (primarily, but not exclusively) the responsibility of the community at large, rather than one of a very select group of individuals. If the bureaucrats butt in and say "you're wrong", I can see a justifiable case being made for someone enforcing their opinion(s) on the process, but the entire RfA process belongs to the community; they should be the ones that police and patrol, with the bureaucrats being the executors. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I agree with that too. Fully. Kingturtle (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... plus, consensus can change, but only if minority voices are allowed to speak. Take the US for example, African American's were not considered human for a long time, then they weren't allowed to vote, in some places Jim Crowe laws existed until relatively recently (and unofficially still do in some places!) But now we will have an African American President. This only happened because minority opinions were allowed to speak. Some minority opinions will never garner much support, but 50 years ago, the idea of a black president would have been scoffed at.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Flawed analogy here Balloonman. Singling out smokers, or believers in God, or self-noms is the opposite of what transpired in the United States, where a group that was oppressed won rights to participate. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Flawed, maybe, but on the right track. The consensus of a population can change over time. Just look at what was acceptable for an RfA 3 years ago compared to today. We should not make a rulebook now to which the next generation of editors will be bound. Kingturtle (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

no analogy is perfect, but the point is that Consensus can change, but only when people talk about it. Who is to say that somebody couldn't make a compelling argument against people who advocate smoking that they don't start to convince others? I doubt it could happen, but theoretically it is possible. To say that it isn't would be like the person 50 years ago saying that the US would never reach a point where a blackman would become president. 50 years ago such a notion would have been seen as completely absurd!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That really is a poor analogy. I think if bureaucrats should decide whether personal views or actions should be a valid reason for opposition, that the key factor should be whether the views or actions affect performance. I don't believe smoking is a valid reason for opposition, because it doesn't hurt the quality of a user's work. Drinking doesn't either, although editing while drinking certainly might :) Personal views like sexism or nationalism are valid reasons for opposition, because they directly affect how an administrator would interact with other users. But I would put these in the minority -- most personal reasons for opposition border on the absurd. Ral315 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And does race affect one's ability to be a president or vote? No, but those were seen as valid reasons in the past. Does being a self nom affect one's ability to be an admin? No, but before Kurt stopped !voting he was persuading others to his cause. There are a lot of reasons that don't make sense to you and me, but perhaps it might to somebody else.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's an absolutely horrible analogy. Ral315 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's situations like this that make a good case for crats being a bit more activist. There's general agreement that RFA needs to be more functional. Yet, we have crats sticking to the old-fashioned notion that the community's opinions, no matter how stupid, are what should determine who gets the bit. Don't you guys see that people want you to step up and fix these problems? Friday (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

actually, this is a case where things worked perfectly... the community responded very clearly that the oppose rationale was poor. The crat discarded the oppose rationale and stated that is exactly what they did.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No harm was done in this case, sure. But meaningful improvement (which seems to be widely regarded as necessary) cannot happen as long as crats are so unwilling to apply their own judgement. Stupid opinions should not matter at RFA, no matter how many misguided editors hold them. Friday (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a repeat of this is what you have in mind?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the only thing that went wrong there was striking the vote. Had the vote been left untouched, but discounted when the RfA was closed, it would have created much less drama. Ral315 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't continue to answer serious questions with mantras like "consensus can change" or "this should be left to the community". Both of these phrases have been so overused that they have completely lost whatever meaning they may have had at some point. I don't want to single you out Balloonman but the above analogies are mind-numbingly absurd. You're saying in essence: let someone say a smoker shouldn't be an admin because although the current consensus is that this is stupid, that consensus can change. It won't and, if it did, it would destroy about 20% of the admin corps so we shouldn't let that consensus change. Let me repeat that raising the tobacco issue or the faith in God issue is not in any way comparable to the silly but still vaguely relevant Kmweber argument. If someone at RfA says that women, homosexuals or people that like Kid Rock can't be admins, I reserve the right to strike his vote and tell him to never do that again. We can't continuously hide behind cheap moral relativism: sure, anyone can believe that smoking is an RfA deal-breaker but people who hold that belief and actively argue along these lines during an RfA are hurting the project. The counter-argument is "this is just your opinion". Apparently it's not: everyone who chimed in said so and every b'crat said they'd disregard such opinions. This hypocritical stand is a perfect way to let things get out of hand. "This should be left to the community"? Again, this just means that nobody's really responsible for handling this. Were I to go to Keepcases' talk page and say "don't do that again", I'd probably be the one getting a wikiquette alert. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"This should be left to the community" does not mean "No one wants to take responsibility." In short, it means "This should be left to the community." A RfA result of (105/1/0) in no way tarnishes an editor's reputation or standing, even if the one oppose is for something like "Cannot support self-nominations" or "Cannot support those who glamorize cigarettes." If anything, what may be tarnished is the reputation of the editor who made such an opposition. All points-of-view (save trolling) should be preserved. The result should reflect the community. The result shouldn't reflect what the Bureaucrats see fit. The standards are set by the community at large at the the time of the RfA. Look at the standards 3 years ago as compared to today; things change, and they can change greatly.

There are over a dozen active bureaucrats, and another dozen bureaucrats who are active editors, and not one felt it necessary to remove the opposition or the dialog about cigarette smoking. It is not the place of Bureaucrats to dictate the morals of the community. We are not elders. We are not sages. We are utility workers who sometimes make judgment calls.

Lastly, to set the record straight, the opposition in question was not made simply because the nominee was a smoker, but because the nominee was (to paraphrase) glamorizing smoking through a photo on the nominee's userpage. If the photo was of the user shooting heroin or snorting cocaine, maybe more people would be upset. I don't agree with Keepscases's stance on cigarette use, but I respect that Keepscases has a strong political stand against cigarette smoking. Kingturtle (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "elder" or "sage" isn't quite the right word.. but RFA needs reasonable people who can use their reasoning capabilities. It needs this far more than it needs simple vote-counting. Look at AFD for example: It's already well-accepted there that it's the quality of the arguments that count. No number of people saying "Keep- he's my neighbor and a nice guy" is enough to save an unsourced biography article from deletion. Why are people so resistant to applying this same simple idea to RFA? Vote counting was something that was done in the old days because it worked well enough. The community has had years more experience now. We know what attributes will make someone a poor administrator. Tradition may be nice, for things like Christmas or a wedding, but here at Wikipedia we need a workable process. Screw tradition. It's time to break with the old-fashioned stuff and get away from vote counting. This doesn't seem like it ought to be so difficult. Friday (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. AFDs are closed based on policy and consensus. They were, at one time, VFD i.e. Votes for deletion, and it was a vote. Now they're closed through consensus. The difficulty with doing this for RFAs though, is that RFAs are vastly more popular than AFDs. AFDs also benefit from various policies and guidelines determining what is and what isn't allowed in our encyclopedia. RFA has only one thing to go on - opinion. And sometimes opinions are unpopular, and irrelevant to whether the candidate would make a good admin, but who is the one to say that? Bureaucrats? Judging by the above comments, our bureaucrats disagree. It's a bit of a dilemma. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In an AfD you don't have Admins striking votes during the deliberations. They may, when they close the case, say "I didn't find the keep(deletes) to be convincing per our policies/guidelines" but they don't indent/erase the "ILIKEIT" vote. I'd love to see 'crats take a more evaluate the strength of argument approach, but once they did, they'd be crucified. "How could you fail, X, he had an 80% support rate." But it is up to the community to speak out as to what is/isn't acceptable. We did that with the smoking issue, and the closing crat responded appropriately. That is exactly how it should be.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is about vote counting. Bureaucrats don't promote RfAs based on statistics. The issue at hand is whether bureaucrats should or should not remove from debate oppositions such as keepscases' stand on cigarette glamorization. Kingturtle (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think we should be encouraging 'crats or anybody to remove good faith reasons for opposition from an RfA. The rest of the community will chime in if the reason is stupid, such as smoking. The 'crats are (in theory) selected because they are wise enough to discard/discount said reasons. When an RfA is over, after the discussion period has ended, then the 'crats are (IMO) encouraged to use their common sense in judging the merits of supports/opposes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and agree that this happens probably a majority of the time. Speaking for myself, I get fired up when I see things like prima facie votes on self noms start to catch on with multiple voters, and the votes stand (I use that particular example because it has clearly run its course). I don't think that establishing the consensus of the community in an individual RfA is a good way to go, primarily because this opens the door to ax grinding against candidates you personally dislike. I think all RfA's should be judged on the same set of standards, rather than constantly moving the goal posts, or just chalking bad voting up to consensus. The standards should reflect the consensus of the community, so they should be debated and established somewhere other than inside an open RfA. Until something like that transpires, activist 'crats clearly demonstrating what is considered in bounds would keep things even keeled, and no less dramatic than they already are (which is highly, admittedly). On the other hand, 'crats and candidates would be spared the drama if we simply had a list of standards that reflect the consensus at that point of time. The list would be where you debate what counts. Anything with consensus would then be inbounds for an RfA. Not a perfect solution, by far, but at least we would be sparing the individual candidates from having to deal with random edit count standards, or absurd prima facie opposes. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You've said what I was trying to say better than I could manage. Many other problems on Wikipedia have been solved by making a generalized solution which then gets applied to particular situations. I see no reason why RFA should be different, yet there's some bizarre resistance to even attempting this. We should be trying to move away from RFAs being determined by the (oftentimes completely irrational) opinions of whoever happens to show up, and toward a more consistent set of standards. Crats could, if they so chose, apply those consistent standards. Numbers shouldn't matter much. Friday (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – If it ain't broke...--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrators
* Can add groups: Rollbackers, IP block exemptions and Account creators
* Can remove groups: Rollbackers, IP block exemptions and Account creators

Bureaucrats
* Can add groups: Administrators, Bureaucrats, Bots, Account creators and IP block exemptions
* Can remove groups: Bots, IP block exemptions and Account creators

I was told to get consensus here before making a bugzilla report. Might seem redundant or silly, but ideally shouldn't bureaucrat be able to add and remove rollbackers too? I mean changing user rights is the entire point of the group, ideally. This could be a problem if we ever had a bureaucrat that wasn't an administrator or if we wanted some consistency with the whole point behind bureaucrat in the first place. Probably an oversight when configuring the rights, because otherwise Bureaucrat wouldn't have IP block exceptions or Account creators either, cause admins can add and remove those too. Should probably be one or the other, for consistencies sake.

Thoughts? --Charitwo ^(talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

All our bureaucrats are administrators, so have this right bundled with their admin right. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I was under the impression that it is technically and socially impossible to promote to bureaucrat without adminship. bibliomaniac15 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you can be a crat without adminship. See this test of the feature at Meta [28] MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, technically possible, but not consensually impossible. --Charitwo ^(talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've actually tried to convince one person who adamantly refuses to run for adminship, that she should make a run for 'crat. And I think if she ran, she'd get well over 500 supports (and possibly over 100 opposes!) And that is without her being an admin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Biblio, have you tried? – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tried what? bibliomaniac15 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To promote someone to just bureaucrat. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I was a steward, no, I won't do it just to test it out. bibliomaniac15 02:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It might make for an interesting test the next time somebody is promoted to 'crat. First take away their admin status, then promote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2)I believe I covered that. Basically what I'm saying is, put Add/Remove Rollbackers on bureaucrats, or remove Add/Remove IP block exemptions and Account creators from bureaucrats. And it is possible (but not likely) to have a bureaucrat who is not an administrator. --Charitwo ^(talk) 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's possible, just that it's not the done thing. The only time it'll happen is if someone is testing, or the person is temporary one. I don't see what benefit there is in changing this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Because ultimately, bureaucrats entire purpose is to change user rights and rename users. And because of that fact, it's not "kosher" to have a right they can't add/remove that administrators can. They already can both add and remove IP block exemptions and Account creators, might as well make things "kosher" and "consistent" at the same time. --Charitwo ^(talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But bureaucrats can do those things. It's like adding the "edit" right to administrators. Xclamation point 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They're stacked privileges; each "level" doesn't need to contain every single right (for example, we don't need to specify that a bureaucrat can edit the MediaWiki namespace). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of what's written here makes little sense. It's perfectly possible for a user to be only an admin, only a bureaucrat, or be a member of both groups. Bureaucrats traditionally held the role of assigning bot flags and admin rights. If there's a consensus to allow the bureaucrat group to do more, it's certainly possible, however as some have pointed out, all of our current bureaucrats are admins. And it's not as though one can't find an admin to make a rollbacker or whatever. So all of this seems like an exercise in silliness.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)