Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Archives

• Prior to June 2003, requests for adminship were made and discussed on the mailing list.
• For Archives of discussions from June 2003 to the present, please visit Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives.
• Discussions about Requests for adminship can also often be found at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Desyssoping mechanisms

There's been some talk on this page in the last week or two about the need for a system for removing people from the adminship. Earlier, someone suggested that all adminships have a sunset clause that requires admins to be reconsidered once per year. This was widely opposed as unworkable (given that there are 800+ admins) and undesireable, since it would mean that admins have to think more about politics than policy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one, however, who's seen admins who have behaved very badly and who, if the community had known how they were going to act, would never have passed the RfA process. I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that there should be some mechanism by which the community, whose consensus bestowed sysoppery, might take it away. (There is, to my mind, a strange assymetry to our system in that it is community concensus that creates admins, but only ArbCom that can undo this).

What I see as a potential mechanism (which I'd like to hear your thoughts on) would be a two-stage process. First, a petition-like stage which would require that if a certain number of wikipedians-of-good standing (say 25? 50? some proportion of admin's RFA vote? recent admin vote?) sign on as requesting a review, the admin in question would be submitted to a new RfA process (or perhaps a RfA-like process). Perhaps an ArbCom/Jimbo approval to follow? Anyway, tell me what you think. Bucketsofg✐ 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's up to once a week, I see. Kim Bruning 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a page containing links to all the proposal pages and archived talk pages where we've discussed these things. We can use a Wikilink to such a page to respond to these now-weekly proposals. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Bucketsofg. I suggested this same type of system on the admin accountability proposal page. joturner 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Should have known that something similar had been suggested. Given the number who are against having a community-based mechanism in the discussion you link, my guess is that any change is a dead letter. Bucketsofg✐ 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. If an admin's actions are bad enough to warrant desysopping, take it to the ArbCom. I haven't seen any indication that they're overloaded with desysopping requests—so until there's an indication that they can't handle it, they seem to be the logical route. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, many of the accusations of rouge admin performance are based on the fact that there is disagreement over some fundamental policies of Wikipedia, and how those policies should be enforced, and how fast such enforcement should be (fast gives the appearance of being recklessly out of process). It is important to have people who understand the finer points of policy and process to make the desysop decisions, to distinguish between real rouge performance and the mere appearance of rogueness, and ArbCom fits the bill nicely. NoSeptember ^talk 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Were any actions taken based on the feedback, Jo ? "Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins", for instance, was voted 40-18. Tintin (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has that authority, as does Danny of the WP:OFFICE. Stewards have the technical ability, though they exercise it rarely and only in clear-cut cases (obviously insane or compromised account). The recent examples I can think of ended up before ArbCom for review anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has that authority as well, and I imagine they could pass an injunction fairly quickly if truly needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In an emergency, where there is question of an admins actions, the developers will desysop; they will, in some cases, do so more quickly than stewards will. There are plenty of mechanisms to have someone desysopped (including several of us who have home and mobile phone numbers of stewards and developers) if they really need to be; the fact of the matter is, there are very few cases where someone should be desysopped without an arbitration case or direct-intervention from Jimbo. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And this is when we ask how many developers and stewards you have been caught stalking :), seriously though I agree with Essjay that there are plenty of fallbacks in place and adding a new one would cause more problems that it would solve. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm swear not stalking..."DANNY! MARRY ME! PLEEEEEEEEASE!" </stalker> Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"That's hot!" Ok... seriously, is there actually a problem here about not being able to get hold of devs or stewards? ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this emergency desysopping has only been used on Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason before. So there's no big deal if we don't have a formal quick desysopping process. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo desysopped several (ungefahr 5?) people recently during the pedophile controversy. So there have been more than just Ævar. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He did, indeed, in fact, his only actions as a steward have been to desysop people in his capacity as "the safety valve." However, they weren't really security-related desysoppings (Avar's was, irreversible image deletions were taking place, and there was no response to requests to explain), but rather, desysoppings to stop a wheel war from sucking in more people. There wasn't any reason to thing any permanent damage would be done to the project (permanent damage meaning things like permanent loss of images, or irreversible page history merges, or DOS consequences from deleting huge pages, etc.); the real danger was that we could lose valuable contributors due to the heated actions that were being taken. So, "social" security concerns, not "technical" security concerns. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

new angle

I agree with all that's been said so far, but I had a different idea: we should have a mechanism to desysop admins that have gone on the record in saying that they are leaving Wikipedia and they do not intend to return. I mean, if the person has decided to kick the bucket once and for all, there seems to be no purpose in keeping the flag for that account, which may also end up compromised sometime in the future. Recently, Carbonite announced that he was leaving, and requested to be desysopped, but Radiant also left and the account still has sysop status. I would think some time would be allowed to pass, so that it can be confirmed that the user wasn't just blowing off steam and had no intention to actually leave the project — say, after a couple of months without editing following the statement that s/he was leaving? Redux 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of months is a tad too short. Ta bu shi da yu announced he wanted to leave last year, but came back after 2 months or so. Kimchi.sg 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping was used in the case of the Great Pedophile Userbox Wheel War (or GPUWW). Basically, a few of us arbcomers who were around notified Jimbo that an emergency was brewing, and based on the recommendations we gave him, he desysopped them until we could address it in a case. Raul654 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The original post by Bucketsofg was not about such emergencies but about those are invicil and who if they stood for an RfA now, would be soundly defeated. Tintin (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally, a user who makes a personal choice to leave, and actually does leaves, doesn't come back any time soon — leave it to Ta bu shi da yu to subvert that rule ;). If there are more common cases of users who state for the record that they are leaving for good and return after a couple of months or so, then we could wait a longer period, naturally (although it is also possible that the account be desysopped for security reasons and, if the user ever returns, s/he could request to be resysopped upon his or her return). I believe Raul was referring to Carbonite's situation. If I recall correctly, Carbonite declined an offer to be resysopped, saying that he had actually requested to be desysopped already, that he was leaving and had no intention of changing his mind. Carbonite's been inactive since February 11 (or so), but there's no issue there because the account has had the admin flag removed. To return to my other example, Radiant has been inactive since February 7, that is, over three months (closer to four months by now). Since the user left a very clear statement that he was leaving, retaining the admin status for the account seems pointless at best. Any accounts with admin access in a similar situation should be desysopped, but we don't have a system in place to make this happen — and it's not just admins: Optim left Wikipedia in March of 2004 with a clear statement that he was leaving for good. It took us nearly two years to remove his Bureaucrat access, and the account still holds admin access, despite being inactive for 2 years and 2 months (at the time of this post). Redux 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Zoe gone for a year before returning? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to remove access for any position held by inactive users except those that could be misused covertly or unreversably if they fell in the wrong hands (namely, developers and checkusers). There is no real risk with admins or bureaucrats. Creating a new policy for a non-issue seems unnecessary. NoSeptember ^talk 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But did Zoe go on the record to say something like I'm leaving for good? Because that's the instance I'm talking about. I don't know: it's been said time and again that, although almost every admin activity can be reverted, misuse of the tools consistently can cause a lot of trouble around. In this case, it would be about a possible compromise in the account that has been abandoned by the [ex?]user. And in any case, it would serve us to keep things in check: an admin is a trusted user who has the tools in order to do maintenance work, even if just occasionaly. A user who has left for good, and left a clear statement to that effect, is not going to be using the tools, and it's not as if desysopping an account is a laborous opperation that requires rebooting the servers. It's particularly simple when it comes to applying objective criteria (user declared that s/he was leaving for good / user did leave — not edited anymore) to someone who's not even interested in the project (let alone Adminship) anymore. Quite simply, it doesn't hurt anyone, it keeps the admin community "up to date" and it may even prevent occasional/eventual problems. Remembering: we could make it so that the [extremely] rare departed users who end up returning can request resysopping of their accounts (subject to some kind of community approval, maybe RfA-like) upon their return. Redux 15:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

They can say whatever they want, but unless they specifically request to be desysopped, why should we act as if they had? When was the last time an inactive admin went on a destructive spree? And if it happened, wouldn't we just take care of it promptly like any other problem admin? NoSeptember ^talk 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that when an Administrator, who is supposed to be a dedicated user, declares of his or her own will, for reasons that are his or her own, the s/he is leaving Wikipedia, and then actually leaves, that would pretty much mean that they forfeit any kind of privilege (not the best word, but it's late where I am...) that they had had bestowed upon them as dedicated users, which they are not anymore, by choice. Redux 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm...I left for a month at the end of last year...Should I be included in your list of undedicated users? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And, what if someone was forced to leave for 6 months because of, say, health problems that they didn't want to share with the whole world? Just let sleeping dogs lie. If they come back, great! If they don't, they aren't hurting anyone. If they come back to hurt someone, they can then be blocked and ArbCommed. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, again, I'm referring exclusively to users who go on the record saying that they are leaving for good for reasons that are their own (most say they're "outraged" by something, or just that they've "lost interest"). This does not apply to users who take extended wikibreaks or users that vanish misteriously (the latter because we could never be sure of what happened). Redux 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but often people decide to come back, and then what? Make them go through the RfA process again? Who is is hurting to leave these users be? I just don't see much of a point. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid computer... something went awry and submitted the page without my wanting to. My first missed edit summary in like 7 or 8 months! Argh! Harumph! Oh well, the new streak starts now. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of users who have left on the terms I've just mentioned that decided to come back. And the proposal includes a waiting period designed to make sure that the disgruntled Admin wasn't just blowing off steam in the wake of a very unpleasant episode. Consider this rhetorical question: would you support the RfA of a user who had gone on the record saying that they no longer care for the project (and meant it)? This is why the proposal would apply only to this particular situation. Hey, let's desysop Mark for forgetting the edit summary! ;) Redux 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they really meant it, and they aren't coming back, what is so egregious as to desysop them? If they really meant it, they aren't coming back to cause trouble, so rather than create some new policy or procedure, why not just move them to the "Inactive Administrators" list and forget about them? Why do they need to be desysoped? Is their tool retention injurious to anyone? And I would understand about the missing summary thing :-( Addendum: And for the record, I didn't "forget" it, some combination of keys and clicks caused it to submit before I had finished writing it... I had written "ore", but wanted to write "More" and somehting got messed up. I know it doesn't matter to anyone, but I was so proud, and it was some freak thing (i.e. not "forgetting") --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that it's injurious. It's a point of order. After all, Adminship is not an entitlement, and this should not apply just to users who are not yet admins but want to be. It serves no purpose for the community to have an admin who has said in so many words that s/he doesn't want to be involved with the project anymore. In the odd case that the user should return after a long period (exceeding the waiting period in the proposal), s/he would (should?) have to go through some kind of process to regain admin access (maybe an abbreviated RfA?). It's only fair: if one leaves saying one doesn't cares about the project anymore, then it would be expected that some kind of evidence be provided that the user has gone back on this entirely before Adminship can be restored. Plus, an account with admin access that's been abandoned, left unattended, it's a liability. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day.... Redux 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know of users who have left on the terms I've just mentioned that decided to come back." Hello Redux, nice to meet you, my name is Essjay. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you state for the record (on a wikipedia page — possibly your user page — and not IRC or something) that you were leaving for good and you didn't want to have anything to do with the project anymore? And if you did, you came back a month later, which would be well within the "observation period" before anyone would have suggested that you be desysopped on these terms had this proposal been in effect at the time. That is: nothing would have happened. Redux 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Quite a few people can attest to the fact that I did. I had no intention of returning, and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for about four very close friends I've made here who spent a month having email conversations with me, and my partner, who spent a month trying to convince me that it was worthwhile to do (the same partner who's vote in my RfB was described as "worthless").

My point in this is to point out what people tend to forget: Be very careful what you say, because you don't know who you're talking about when you make a blanket statement. Your comment about admins who leave being undedicated did include me, because it was a blanket statement directed at everyone who fits the criteria stated (desire to permanently leave, coupled with the corresponding action), and it did hurt me, because I don't think I or a lot of the others who fit in the same group you painted with a single brush deserve to be described as "undedicated." I'm not angry, I'm not going to scream and yell, but I am hurt by it; I don't think that was your intent at all, it was an unfortunate consequence of a very broad blanket statement.

My hope was that you would recognize the hint given, specifically, that you were treading into territory where you were very likly to unknowingly hurt and/or offend a lot of people who do a lot of work to keep this site running. It's fine to put forth a proposal, it's fine to support desysopping people, and it's great that you've put a lot of thought into it and made consideration for special cases. The comments in question left the realm of the proposal, however, to make a blanket claim: Any admin who decides to leave the project, and does so, is not a dedicated user. That covers a lot of people, and it hurts.

Just to clarify: It has nothing to do with whether or not the proposal would have applied in my or anyone else's case; it is about the fact that we were included in the group labeled "undedicated users." Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I've hurt anyone's feelings, that was certainly not my intention. I'm always very careful with how a word my remarks, exactly because this method of communication makes misunderstandings very easy to happen. Since I seem to have fallen short this time, I would like to clarify a couple of things: 1) From the very beginning, the idea included a waiting period to make sure that the user would follow through with the decision to leave Wikipedia. Everyone and anyone is entitled to venting steam, obviously, and in the process we can do and/or say things that we wish we hadn't once we cool off, or at least we reconsider what we've said, and it no longer represents our views. It would be preposterous to suggest that someone should be desysopped immediately after posting a note saying that they were leaving, simply because there's no way to make sure that this is a final decision — and obviously, such a decision is not usually made in a completely serene state of mind; most users do it in the aftermath of a very unpleasant situation; 2) Let me clarify something, I did not mean that anyone who has ever left Wikipedia is an "undedicated user". A user who leaves, but decides to return, doesn't become less dedicated because s/he once thought of leaving, or left for a while. It's not like we're getting paid here. And as for the user that left and didn't return, this doesn't cancel the user's past as a valued member of this community. I never saw this proposal as any kind of judgement on the character of anyone who's left. However, and logically, a user who is gone cannot be a dedicated user while s/he is gone — and if they're never returning... Doesn't mean that they weren't, or that they couldn't be again. The comment in question, and all of my comments in this thread, is referring to users who left of their own will and, this is central, stayed gone: taking the already-used example of Optim: he was a great user, and very dedicated; but when I refer to him, I must say that he was a dedicated user, not that he is, since he's gone,and for over two years now. The proposal is to desysop users who are gone and are extremely unlikely to return, but if they happened to return, they would be entitled to seek resysopping of their accounts, naturally. And the idea that they'd need to go through a revalidation process (RfA-like?) is just a suggestion at this point. Maybe no revalidation would be necessary. The user could simply post at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and link to his successful RfA and the user rights log showing his sysopping following it (proof that he was an admin). And again, this would all be in the odd possibility that the user did return — remembering: this is not about a user who said s/he was leaving but didn't, or returned relatively soon after, this would be users who declared they were leaving and didn't return for an impressive amount of time (six months? a year?).
Once again, I apologize for any offense or discomfort that any comment of mine might have caused. Sorry, this got a little long :P Redux 06:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real risk of abuse of old admin accounts, and the costs appear to outweight the benefits IMO. A desysoped admin would still have to rerequest the mop (even if only at the 'crats noticeboard), and this can take time. An admin willing to take up the slack immediately should be able to, and there's no real proof that old admin accounts have gone berserk. (Though this will undoubtedly happen eventually, the chances of it are very remote.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this idea of desysopping people who say they they may leave the project will yield any benefits. I am amazed to see how often suggestions involving all kind of rules attempting to fix what ain't broken show up on this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving aside the "clear statement" that someone is not returning which I find problematic, and bump the whole thing up to year. Simply, if an admin doesn't edit for twelve months, they get desysopped. And not as a punitive thing but rather to reflect that changes in policy need to be absorbed if such a person came back. An admin returning today after twelve months would think AfD is still VfD, not have a clue about WP:PROD, be unaware of changes to CSD criteria (and the debates behind them), and also know nothing about semi-protect. Perfectly reasonable to say "edit for a month or two and then re-apply if you want". Marskell 08:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are minor issues which don't merit desysoping. AfD had a name change, but that's as far as the changes went. (I stopped closing VfDs/AfDs for 1.5 years, and when I came back adjusting to the situation was a snap.) PROD is self-explanatory, and an admin who didn't get it would have the good sense not to muck with it. The CSD criteria may be a bit problematic, but most admins would have the good sense to provide a reason for speedying articles to prevent confusion amongst those unaware of the CSDs. (And besides, what harm would an admin unaware of the new CSDs do? At worst, she'd avoid speedying articles we're allowed to.) And semi-protection? The interface is self-explanatory. A returning admin would just go "Cool, new features!" (The interface doesn't call it "semi-protect", btw - it gives a self-explanatory title listing classes of users which will be banned from editing the page.) None of these changes are fundamental enough to make it worth forcing an admin to go through RfA again. If most admins use common sense and act with the encyclopaedia's interests at heart (WP:IAR/WP:SNOW), things will be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, with a waiting period anywhere between six months and a year before desysopping a "departed" admin, the cases of returning Admins (desysopped) would be quite rare. I would also say that this proposal has nothing to do with "trying to fix what is not broken". It's not broken, but nor is it perfect. I don't believe anyone here claims that it is. The purpose is to try to improve the system, and we need not wait until it's on the verge of collapse before we make any kind of change in the status quo.
I maintain that the only people affected by this would be admins who went on the record saying that they were leaving and did not edit anymore, i.e. they left for good (verified by not editing for an impressive amount of time). I wouldn't support desysopping a user who has just stopped editing without any kind of explanation, because, as others have already brought up, there could be any reason for that (sickness, overwhelming "real life" obligations, etc). It's quite different from a user who leaves with a statement like "yes, I'm leaving for good because I've lost all faith in the project". Once we verify that the user is indeed gone, this becomes an extreme case where maintaining Adminship for the account has no purpose. Desysopping in this situation is not complicated or laborous. The criteria are objective and the procedure, not really complicated. Still, it could be a useful step to leave a warning message in the user's talk page, something like "this account is about to be desysopped due to (...)", so that there would still be one last chance in the unlikely case that the user was considering returning.
Again, I'd like to make it clear that the proposal is not to simply desysop inactive users. Only those who left with a declaration that they were indeed leaving for good for whatever reason and, most importantly, stayed gone. Redux 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"We need not wait until it's on the verge of collapse before we make any kind of change in the status quo". In short, Wikipedia is in grave motal danger, and only rules, and yet more rules, are the only thing which can save her. :)

I believe it is rules, rather than anything else are the greatest problem, they may simply suffocate this project. You may be right, a time may come when a rogue admin or compromised admin account may inflict irreversible damage to Wikipedia, such as deleting a huge amount of pictures which were not cached by the server. But that's unlikely. I think we are fine the way we are, and attempts at "perfection" usually make things worse, not better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe that not treating adminship like an entitlement would be instruction creep — as a further note: our article on instruction creep is at Meta; on Meta, an admin can be desysopped simply for being inactive for a relatively short period of time; The page on Meta administrators also states that sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. By no measure is that regarded as instruction creep (or else there's a grave double standard at work over there, something which I don't believe anyone would claim). It is a question of policy. As I said in a response to Mark earlier, even if nothing bad is about to happen, there's still a question of logic and organization. This proposal seemed — to me, obviously — rather reasonable because it would concern only an extreme case. I still have other great arguments, but since there seems to be no interest in actually implementing the proposal (except for my own :P), I believe this can be dropped. Redux 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see taking admin accounts away from these inactive users as something to pursue. The only real effect I figure it would have is it might deter them from coming back, and we don't want that. I'm much more interested in the idea of having policy enforcement by the community regarding active admins. Everyking 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see my name mentioned here.  :) Yes, I was gone for more than a year. I took a long break, got a life (so much for that), and poked around again on Wikipedia, noticing that the person who had made life a living hell for me around here was no longer participating as frequently. I felt the time was right to come back. I don't see why somebody who has had the community's support to become an admin loses that support if they take a break for a while. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to de-admin someone after a few months of inactivity. There is a small security risk in having an empty empowered account lying around unmonitored. Once an admin comes back, it gives them a chance to get back into the groove of any new quarks that are going on. That person should have plenty of community support and it shouldn’t be a big deal making the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercoop (talk • contribs)

No, no. It wasn't meant to desysop people who take a break. Only users who declare that they are leaving for good and do indeed leave — as verified by extended absense, for months, or a year, but the user would have had to have made an inequivocal declaration that s/he was leaving for good, with no intention to return for whatever reason. Breaks and "misterious disappearances" were not covered by this proposal. Just to clarify, since the proposal is not going anywhere anyway. Redux 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True - I was trying to address the concerns in the entire thread. An admin that leaves is certainly inviting hackers to brute force that users account. However, I would go further and say that after two months of being inactive, that Admin is removed from the admin list. If that users returns within a year or two then automatically re-admin that person. After a year or two, too many things can change and that would require getting back into the groove and going through a new RfA. (make sure I sign it this time) --Supercoop 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this discussion has wanned, but perhaps there could be some middle ground. What if instead of desysopping anyone, the accounts were just blocked (hear me out) with a note placed on their talk page to the effect of "your dormant admin account may have been a liablility, and was therefore blocked. If you would like to be reinstated place {{adminunblock}} (or whatever) on your talk page and it will be dealt with." That way we don't have an admin come back and just start deleting things, etc. The actual process could be changed up a bit, but perhaps the idea is valid. Comments? --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of not removing sysop rights unless some transgression has occurred. Is there an actual case where this rule would have been useful? Or is this just a rule for the sake of it? Stephen B Streater 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A standard block has no effect on an administrator. The only way to shut off their sysop powers is to remove those powers. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So are there any cases where this would have been used? Stephen B Streater 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean if there are cases of admins that have been inactive for an impressive amount of time? Several, if not many. But as Ingoolemo said, technically, a standard block is not effective on an administrator. Redux 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No - I mean cases where an absent admin has returned to wreak havoc. Stephen B Streater 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. I was confusing what the devs had put in place. Didn't the devs a while back put a feature in so that admins who were blocked couldn't use rollback? Well, I guess I thought that meant they couldn't perform other admin functions as well. But of course. My mistake. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I can't remember any instance, but the underlying purpose would be prevention, not punishment. Besides, as I see it, the real danger would be that an account that has been abandoned is an account that could be hacked. That is to say, a different individual behind the wheel. Someone who never earned adminship having instant access to the tools. I mean, if my account was hacked tomorrow, I'd notice immediately, since I log in at least once a day. I would take steps to resolving the situation, but a person who's left completely would not be here to inform us that it is not him or her opperating the account. Once more, I must bring back the notion that the original proposal I presented would affect only accounts whose owners had made an inequivocal declaration that they were leaving with no intention to return, and did indeed leave (impressive absence, i.e. no editing for a long time). I believe it would be reasonable to assume that an account in that situation has been left completely unatended. And, from the logical point of view, there's the lack of purpose in maintaining admin access for an abandoned account. Redux 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit this is convincing. I would like a simple re-admin procedure for former admins to reflect their previous contributions and likely helpful future contributions. Stephen B Streater 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Review

My apologies if this has been brought up before, or already exists, but what about an administrator review? Within six months, a new admin is brought under review by a pre-selected group of experienced admins/bureaucrats, and they discuss what this user has done since they were sysopped, and whether that user should continue being an admin. They will be reviewed again in six months, and all active admins will be reviewed once a year after that. Emergency reviews can be held as well. I think this would help keep the number of rouge admins to a minimum. Thoughts? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution looking for a problem. Show me evidence that we need to spend our volunteer's time on this proposal. FloNight ^talk 12:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at admin disputes at Rfc and ArbCom, I think you'll see where I'm coming from. Plus there have been concerns over Admin actions in the Userbox debate as well. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, and handled by ArbCom for the most part. Also, such a body would have to review >900 admins per year. That's a huge body of work for little gain. I agree; this is a solution looking for a problem. --Durin 12:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How would this review have prevented such disputes? We're letting the wedge cases define how we deal with the vast majority of admins whose actions are uncontroversial. In any case, unofficial reviews of individual actions often go on at AN or ANI; I see no need to bureaucratise this. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We didn't elect bureaucrats to be ArbCom members (except those few who we actually did elect to both positions). Keep bureaucrats for the front end job of creating admins, and leave it to ArbCom or Jimbo to uncreate them. NoSeptember ^talk 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...I don't think D-Day suggested 'crats would be in charge of desysoping. Anyway, I'd favour giving them such powers for emergency disputes, but as Essjay and Raul have noted above, it seems it'd be easier to attract Jimbo's, a steward's, or a dev's attention. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the more people who have emergency desysop powers, the more problematic it will be. Even Danny and Jimbo did not perfectly coordinate the Eloquence situation. There is always someone around as it is now. NoSeptember ^talk 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with ArbCom? Is there something about it that doesn't work and I'm completely missing? As far as I can tell, a system of Admin review already exists - people complain, take it to ArbCom, they review it and act accordingly. If ArbCom is somehow broken, then that's a completely different discussion and should be held over there. --Tango 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the complaint is that the arbcom doesn't get a case till long over it's gone over the edge and it takes a blatant act of insanity or massive violation of policies and guidelines before the arbcom or anyone else for that matter acts. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If people have a problem with that, why don't they bring cases to ArbCom sooner? Are ArbCom actually refusing to hear the cases, or are they not being told about them? --Tango 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little of both, for good reasons the arbcom is afraid of accepting cases too early when there are better solutions possible and instead it seems like they're accepting some of them only after the damage has been done. On the other hand people are also reluctant to bring up arbcom cases until all else has failed so the arbcom either doesn't know about it or they more likely know about it due to discussions on AN, AN/I, or any number of another places but can't do anything about it until it's brought up officially as a case. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While there's certainly a perception that that is the case, I think reality is very different. Name me one blatant mop abuser who hasn't been hauled in front of the arbcom. Also, the arbcom can (and often does) issue temporary injunctions during the period of the case which prevent further action(s) being taken, so if a case is accepted, the accused admin will typically be placed on admin action parole or something of the sort for the duration of the case. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the prospect of reviewing the nearly 1,000 admins on Wikipedia every 6 months would be a full-time job. Beyond that, is there really a need? Do you feel there are a sizable amount of inept admins that are running around blocking and deleting out of control? Furthermore, this would start to encourage further encourage people to play politics, which there is enough of already. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, this proposal is to scrap tenure for admins and up- a system which has both considerable benefits and drawbacks (much as in the academic world). I haven't seen a persuasive toting up of the pros and cons in favor of making the switch. --maru (talk) contribs 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the end, this (and most proposeals like it) are probably all created with the same very small set of admin in mind. As much as I call for volountary admin reform, three cases (or five, or pick your own small number) almost certainly isn't enough reason to re-wash every other good, average, or null admin. Working the existing system combined with ArbCom being slightly more willing to slap down is probably all that is required. - brenneman^{L} 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But... I LIKE Rouge admins. Kim Bruning 03:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Demandation

You know, I am still waiting for my own Adminship!
All the sweet and good edits I have been doing!
I need a adminship, when I have one, I can be get the respect I need!

>x<ino 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're really serious about that, then simply follow the instructions. Given your past and on-going conflicts with other users, I personally doubt that an attempt would be successful though. -- g026r 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. These 4 lines scream to me "Do not make me an admin, I'm immature." Period. You don't become an admin to "get respect", you have to be respected before you become one. Kimchi.sg 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I feel somewhat the same way, but I don't feel the need for more respect from other users. Whatever they give me (if they do...) is fine with me. Also, "be get the respect" is awful grammar. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Several reasons I would vote no if you were nom'ed: "Demandation" is not a word; this edit violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; and it seems that the only reason you want to be a mod stems from these three edits. Want respect? We'll give it when you earn it. Want adminship? Show us that it's about the encyclopedia, not about you. RadioKirk talk to me 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more reasons why Xino will not be an admin any time soon... RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino is this some kind of joke? Sonic Hog 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the RfC regarding Xino, which contains a somewhat clearer description of his behaviour than the links already presented. I'm guessing Xino wants to become an admin so he can block and/or ignore other users, and myself. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly explains a lot, thank you. On the other hand, this edit provides new insight into User:HappyVR... RadioKirk talk to me 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: it certainly does. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And what would you all think, feel and say when I am a admin? It will be a L.O.L in your face and asses.

And as for you RandyWang, you can suck that RfC in your cheap skinny ass!

>x<ino 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? What exactly are you planning to do "when I am a admin"? RadioKirk talk to me 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm- the way we've been voting on "indecorous language" issues, you might want to rephrase . . . Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 09:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino, your case has been submitted for arbitration. Now may not be the most appropriate time to make personal attacks - particularly, it may be a bad idea to suggest that I suck anything, RfC or otherwise. Furthermore, as others have said: if you'd like to become an admin, and believe that you'd be successful, why don't you request adminship for yourself? RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino was blocked indefinitely after this edit. Conscious 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Demandation. You know, I like that word. I may have to start using it. "My demandations have not been met, prepare to face my wrath!" User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ut oh. Zoe and a new shiny word. :-) Kim Bruning 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates for Adminiship

Are these templates valid? I remember such things being deleted on TfD several times before:

• Template:User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator2
• Template:User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator

70.51.9.190 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be invalid they're perfectly acceptable and are quite informative in knowing who isn't an admin but wants to be one. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if someone needs to advertise their hope to be an admin, they're not ready. Either wait for someone to nominate you, ask someone to nominate you, or nominate yourself. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, perhaps {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} would be inappropriate either, considering that no one has to accept nomination, and the RfA doesn't even gets listed unless the potential candidate accepts. In theory, no one needs to post that they "don't want to be an administrator" via a template. Redux 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people who use the anti-administrator template due it less as an informative action that they don't want to be an admin and more of a sign of protest against adminship and the admin process itself... just from where I've seen that template used. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they do any harm, but they don't serve any real purpose. It's basically the same as asking someone to nominate you, which I don't like - you might as well nominate yourself and they can vote support, because it's the same thing. It's just an attempt to manipulate RfA since a lot of people are more critical of self-noms. --Tango 10:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess maybe some people who would like to be admins but don't feel they are ready would find the templates useful, but that's about it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They might also be useful for someone who is often confused with an admin, would, as Johleemk says, like to be one someday, but is not for whatever reason, ready or able to stand for RfA. I can imagine that the 30th "You aren't an admin? Would you like to be?" message probably leads one to really appreciate such a template. For the most part, they aren't hurting anyone, they're not being forced on anyone, and nobody is required to look at them (for that matter, if someone *really* hates it, we can set a div id for it and clear it out via thier CSS). In most cases like this, it's better to just leave it alone, rather than stir people up by telling them what they can and can't have; I don't think any of us can really argue that it's hurting Wikipedia, and certainly not anywhere near as much as a revival/ratcheting up of the user template war would. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case revise the wording to "No, I am not an administrator yet. Yes, I would like to be one. Stop asking!" :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels

Can a 'crat please close this? It wasn't on the main RFA page and needless to say the candidate will not pass. DGX 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was BOLD and delisted this as WP:SNOW and probable trolling. But yes, a crat should probably close it, or perhaps just delete it. --Doc ^ask? 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• And probably shouldn't have been. There's no reason to believe this user was trolling. He's not a vandal, and does not fit the profile of WoW. Further, he's been blocked before for his username, and appealed the block and was cleared. He's not the most active contributor in the world, and his attempt at RfA was misguided, but this has never been grounds for deleting an RfA before. If you're going to delete this RfA, then you should also delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ShootJar, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RAbbott, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kbandy, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joan53. All of those were RfAs for editors with fewer edits than User:Jesus On Wheels and were posted during this month. There's no more evidence to presume Jesus on Wheels is a troll than those other editors. Failing the presentation of any evidence that he is, in fact, a vandal and/or troll, I will undelete this RfA. --Durin 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Restore and archive. RadioKirk talk to me 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Undelete it. --Tango 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I heartily endorse this event or product. While he's been warned about the dangers of having a username like that, he should still be allowed the rights of a normal editor, albeit one who will tend to be watched a little more (like another user who had "WOW" in his name, WOW junkie or something like that). In fact, as of now, he is still indef blocked for his name. Looks like the blocking admin isn't online right now, but I don't know if I want to wheel war over this. I'm going to post on WP:AN about this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've undeleted. I don't know exactly what archiving old RfAs entails, so I've not done that. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies#J. --Durin 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, duly chastized. Will find something else to do. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's constructive criticism, meant in good faith. Please take it as such. I well recognize that bureaucrats tend to be targets of complaints. The above isn't a complaint per se, but more a request that we handle that situation differently. --Durin 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the wiki concept working at its best - Essjay boldly deleted it, it turned out concensus disagreed, someone undeleted it and no harm was done. Perfect. The whole point of a wiki is that nobody is perfect, so we work together to achieve something closer to perfection. --Tango 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Durin 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad so many agree. I guess I'm off the hook for reversing this bureaucrat action without telling anyone ;-) (yes, this is tongue in cheek) NoSeptember ^talk 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm filing an RfAr against you. How dare you do that! :) --Durin 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, he did confess. Let's just throw some rotten vegetables and eggs while chanting some catchy wiki-song. ;) Redux 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Snowballing

I was just wondering yesterday if any RfA had ever met the 80% OPPOSE mark. Right now there are two that have gone way beyond. One candidate does not respond. The other is RIGHT and refuses to withdraw. Why would the ‘crats not pull such lopsided RfA’s? :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Plenty of RfAs have had more than 80% oppose. Quite a number have had 100% oppose. There's been 60 since June of 2005 that have had 100% oppose. Of those 60, 23 have had 10 or more oppose votes. In general, there are a number of reasons to not withdraw clearly failing RfAs (see User:Durin/Withdraw policy for some). Some bureaucrats choose to withdraw clearly failing RfAs anyways. --Durin 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed earlier but I really feel there should be a basic standard for RFA candidates. Probably like 1000+ edits and atleast a month of Wikipedia activity. Otherwise we have WP:SNOW cases like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piemanmoo occuring all the time. Thanks. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been discussed more times than we can count. The general consensus has not been supportive enough of such ideas to implement them. Also note that WP:SNOW is not policy. --Durin 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:User:Durin/Withdraw policy That's pretty much what I thought. I just feel sorry for the guy who is so caught up in his own rightness that he won't withdraw. Hopefully, he will listen and use it all constructively. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally pull any RfA that has more than 10 votes, and 75% or more oppose. I will, however, leave a nomination for a bit if it hasn't had much time up, as there could be some issue that can be resolved and things will straighten out. I'm the only bureaucrat I've seen lately doing this on a regular basis; I don't know if the others aren't comfortable doing so, or if I just end up getting there first, or if I'm just not seeing them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove them early, but only if there are enough supporting factors that I can be confident they have no chance of succeeding. I consider most of the points Durin has outlined, and if there is evidence that the user and the community will not benefit from leaving it open, I close early. For example, a nominee with very little experience and recent vandalism, being blocked, or incivility or similar in the Rfa or extreme examples elsewhere. So typically that's going to involve few or no supports from at least somewhat experienced wikipedians and lots of opposes from similar. If those factors aren't too severe, I'll leave it for a while until the lack of a chance for success is clear, but in very obvious vandal nominations, I've closed them pretty quickly. - Taxman ^Talk 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with the view that leaving them open is more beneficial than closing early, especially if it means losing good contributors, which it often does. RfA is not Wikipedia:Requests for Review of my general worth as a contributor and perhaps adminship but I really don't think so but great if it happens. It's for requesting adminship, period, and that's all it should be doing. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've been accumulating evidence on the page I referenced above showing that some users are upset about early removal. I'd like to see similar evidence (Yes, I know it exists) that we're forcing users away by leaving RfAs up, rather than making the presumption that it always happens. Personally, I still do not see the harm in asking the user to please withdraw, rather than slamming the door in their face in non-obvious vandalism cases. --Durin 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While it's not a heavily used program at this point, users who are looking for feedback might be directed to Wikipedia:Editor review instead of using RFA for that feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Why hasnt a bureaucrat closed Joturner's RFA? Its now twelve hours overtime, and oppose votes are now piling on from all directions. However if discounting the votes that were made after the ending time, he should be promoted, right? (It has been done in the past). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the BCrat's noticeboard for relevent discussion. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Cool3's RfA

Just alerting RfA watchers regarding ongoing sockpuppetry at Cool3's RfA; copying the note I left there below:

This RfA has been voted on by three users with under a dozen edits -- Y-y-yoda (vote), David-wright (vote), Vandal buster 288 (vote) -- one of which has the same userpage styling as Cool3's previous RfA nominator (compare User:ErnestIsTheMan with User:Vandal buster 288).

~ PseudoSudo 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we shouldn't jump to conclusions that the nominee is the one with sock puppets; another RfA also had an issue and was confirmed via CheckUser that the candidate had nothing to do with it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

By the way... this is linked to the Exicornt vandal and EddieSegoura, from what I understand of it. See also WP:ANI. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:09 UTC (2006-05-26)

In this, Checkuser confirmed sockpuppets. See the report here. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Code problems

I just noticed a few minuutes ago that all of a sudden, an unknown force (can't find anyone in the history) nowikied the "Discuss Here" edit link so that it wouldn't work. I was wondering if I'm just going crazy or if some new software or something is being implemented. Thanks, Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 13:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's working fine now. I'm not aware of any reason that could have caused a temporary problem. Maybe your browser is rebelling against you? ;) Redux 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because all of them had mysterious <nowiki>s in the edit link. When I edited that out, it went away. Strange. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I had thought that whatever it was had gone away on its own. Now, going through the histories, I see you fixed it. Very strange indeed. If it was a transcluded template, I'd say someone had edited it, but that's not the case. It's as if someone had edited each RfA to add the nowiki code, but the history doesn't show it. I'll have to ponder a bit more about this one. But it is odd. Redux 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you know, Wikipedia is haunted. you just had a sighting ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)