Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Self-nominations

Do we really want to allow self-nominations? Lately I've been looking at this page and seeing self-nominations from clearly unqualified people (not implying that most of the self-nominations are such, but there's been several lately that were.) This bothers me because it puts others in a position of having to oppose and state why, and it could hurt the feelings of the user in question. This is especially true for newer users who don't completely understand how the site works.

Anyone who's qualified and wants to be an admin can easilly go to someone who knows them and ask them to submit a nomination. If a user can't think of anyone who'd do this for them, that's a pretty obvious sign that they shouldn't be an admin at this point. Isomorphic 23:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Perl 23:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just added myself to the list as a self-nomination. I am biased of course but if you look at my history you will see I have been here since at least 2002 (actually before that but 2002 is when I got the name) and have made many valuable contributions. However, I do not know anyone here who I would feel comfortable asking to nominate me. Therefore, I disagree with your statement that anyone who can not think of someone to nominate them is therefore obviously not fit for the position. Qaz 04:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion won't change anything in effect. The way things are now, UserX asks to be made an admin on this page, a variety of people object with reasons, and UserX doesn't get made an admin. In your system, UserX asks UserY to be nominated for adminship, and either UserY objects and gives a reason why (possibly prompting userX to go off and bother Users A, B, C and D with the same request), or they make the nomination on this page and then other people object with reasons why. How is that any better? --Camembert

People who ask too early, sometimes get it held against them when they are nominated. Perl 00:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the only really fair way then, it to have a strictly enforced minimum criteria before applying. You are not allowed to apply if you have been here less than X months, or have fewer than X edits. Any applications that do not meet such criteria are to be deleted on site. →Raul654 00:09, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

So long as people are fair and polite, and don't hold stupid grudges against other users, the current system is perfectly fair. If people are being rude or vindictive, I don't think there's a system that will stop them. --Camembert

I agree with Raul, and think the standard should be at least three months and 1,000 edits. That would prevent all those silly requests from people who are just here for 10 days, as well as the regular AlexPlank-clone requests. --Wik 00:23, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the 1000 edits. Spell checkers and formaters can easily rack up that much. I tend to write articles, and (as such) my count is not representive of how much I contribute, and I'm not the only one. I myself only had around 940 when I applied. So three months is fine by me, but I'd set the edit-count bar a bit lower (like 500-600). →Raul654 00:32, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

How many months had you been here when you applied? Perl 00:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I got here in August, 2003 and I applied in December -- 5 months. →Raul654 01:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you could have done the extra 60 edits before applying, no? 1,000 is not really much for three months - about 11 edits a day. Someone who is less active than that shouldn't need the adminship that much anyway, they can wait until they have 1,000 even if it may take five months. And anyone who fulfills the criteria can still be rejected, if it seems they artificially racked up 1,000 edits only to be able to apply for adminship. --Wik 01:48, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is - edit count is a bad indicator of who would make a good admin. IMO, the time someone has been here is a much better indicator. So make that 3 months (I would even say more like 4), and keep the edit count to a conservative 500-600. →Raul654 01:53, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Three months is a long time. I would say one month, and maybe 250 edits. This is generally long enough to tell someone's general character. That's if we have a requirement at all. I think this could be accomplished via a disclaimer at the top of the page--something like "Although any user is welcome to apply, applications are viewed more favorably if they meet X standard". Meelar 01:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We already have a disclaimer: Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for some months and contributed to a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.

It doesn't work. →Raul654 01:59, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, I stand by what I said. Fixing this could involve making said warning more prominent, or more specific--people are likelier to ignore things that are as vague as "some months" or "variety of articles". At any rate, I feel that 3 months is far too long--the added time will not help us catch future problems (what will show up in those months that doesn't show up earlier?) and will feel alienating to new users. If someone's ready at three months, they were probably ready at one. Meelar 02:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would also support a more strict minimum of 3 months and 1000 edits. This is not a popularity contest, admins are needed mostly to do clean up, and this need is not yet so great so as to have lower requirements. An admin that wasn't judged correctly due to the short time period and low number of edits on the on the other hand can cause a big disruption. Dori | Talk 02:06, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Nominators and nominations

I've just been wondering if -- as Wikipedia is growing so very quickly -- we might want to consider having nominations for adminship come from a current admin. I've just noticed that 3 of the 9 people currently up for adminship were nominated by the same person -- someone who's been registered for less than a month. Not that I want to discriminate against newer users, but I'm a bit concerned that someone so new is nominating so many people (a fourth was removed). Don't get me wrong -- I've voted for some of them as they are clearly deserving, but I'm wondering if a policy might not be in order. I don't feel like it would be terribly anti-democratic or restrictive to limit who can nominate someone else, as people could always suggest a person for nomination to an admin. Also I'm not thinking that we need to change anything about self-nominations.

So what do people think? BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:27, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that sysops controls who can become a sysop. I strongly oppose this idea. And if they are valid nominations, why does the user that nominated them matter? -- Quinwound 04:31, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

In making my determinations about whether there's a consensus, I have taken into account the longevity of people making a comment. I'm pretty much against a self-selecting population. Jimbo said basically that anyone who knows how to use the special sysop features and is generally well-known/trusted should get to be an admin (it's no big deal, really). Just want to be careful about encouraging vandalism. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there should be any limitations with that regard. I think nominations by very new users, or anons should be considered on the same level as self-nominations, since the new users/anons may not really be familiar enough with whom they're nominating. Vote accordingly is what I say. If you are bothered by who's doing the nominating, vote as if the person had nominated themselves. There is no reason to limit who can nominate someone. Dori | Talk 21:06, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was the user who nominated many people. I didn't know I did anything wrong. All of the users I have nominated (with the exception of sam spade) have been unanimously supported, and many users have noted that i made a good choice. Perl 22:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And you've been round longer than a month anyway, so the point is moot :). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

qualifications for nominators...

User:GrazingshipIV has made a nomination. GrazingshipIV's username is only 2 weeks old - and the user has amassed only ~71 edits on articles (along with ~17 edits on article talk pages and ~41 edits of user pages). This brings up many concerns I have about the nomination process. Without safeguards, what would prevent a sockpuppet from nominating another sockpuppet? What would prevent other sockpuppets from voting for the nominated sockpuppet? Once a crafty user-with-malintent became an admin through sockpuppety, who knows what damage could be done.

I would like to put forth this idea....to safeguard such things from happening, how about if only admins could nominate admins? Thoughts? Kingturtle 05:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Support - originally I thought that was how this worked. - Texture 05:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just treat it as a you would a self-nomination. What's the big deal? I don't think it is a good idea to restrict who can nominate. Dori | Talk 05:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

(cutting in) Dori has the right idea here. If the nominating user carries no weight with you, treat as a self-nomination, which we allow anyway. Martin 23:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The big deal is that someone with malicious intentions could use sockpuppetry to gain admin status. Kingturtle 05:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we see many new accounts supporting some nominations, it would obviously be removed. No bureaucrat would make someone an admin when there is obvious abuse, and there are plenty of regular users to oppose such nominations anyway. There is no need to restrict the priviledges of non-admins. Dori | Talk 06:01, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

A small army of well-designed sockpuppets would not show any history of abuse. Kingturtle 06:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think someone can maintain an "army" of sockpuppets without being found out. After all, developers can check IPs in case of suspicion. Even if somehow someone managed to slip through an entire army of sockpuppets (and he'd have to be someone with multiple personailities), the damage an admin can make is repairable pretty easily. With the new quickpoll policy, such an admin could be temporarily de-adminned, and the case could be scrutinized by the arbitration committee. Dori | Talk 06:16, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I think that restricting the right to nominate to current admins is an improvement over the current policy of allowing anyone to nominate anyone. However, I'd like to see a system by which non-admins can still propose nominations, the caveat being that they must be seconded by an admin (or perhaps a minimum number of admins) before being voted on. Acegikmo1 04:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fosters a cliquish, "us vs. them" mentality. Davodd 11:12, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. This argument against new members nominating seems rather weak considering the new user is nominating someone other than themselves who is then subject to a vote. The suggestion that "only admins can nominate admins" is rather undemocratic and certainly elitist. The current system provides the best safeguard against unqualified administrators being created-a vote. By having a stranglehold on who is nominated, current administrators would virtually control many of the most important operations of wikipedia by proxy. The sort of oligarchy created by excluding so many from the process would surely hurt wikipedia and the furtherment of its goals.GrazingshipIV 18:24, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Sysopship should not be a clique. However, what about qualifications for voters? Is there a current policy? Anthony DiPierro 02:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I would, however, support a requirement that nominators reveal their IP address. Anthony DiPierro 02:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

In response . I am not a "sockpuppet" as far as I know. If you look at my page I am more interested in what might be called the 'nonpolitical' pages of Wikipedia. I saw somone who I thought deserved to be nominated (I don't know the user personally) so I did. As I understand it, anyone can nominate anyone and as you can see by this users current vote, a nomination does not nesasarily mean they will win the vote. I checked the rules and abided by them. I just come on here to further free-knowledge I assure you after this expierence I won't be nominating anybody. GrazingshipIV 06:05, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

No one ever called you a sock puppet, though that might have been the implication, intentional or otherwise. Nevertheless, the point remains- suppose you are, or suppose someone else in the future is? What should we do about it? -Fennec 06:10, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it would seem the current response fits rather well, voting against on the grounds that the nominator (me in this instance) is too new to wikipedia....problem solved.GrazingshipIV 06:14, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? If they are good enough to become an admin, they will become an admin, whether they self-nominate, get nominated, or use sockpuppets. 68.105.188.67 23:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I care. Are you saying someone who uses sockpuppets is good enough to become an admin? --Wik 23:54, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. but whether my argument is good or not, it doesn't matter. He's not a sockpuppet. ugen64 02:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

And how do you know that? --Wik 02:37, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, in-and-of themselves, I don't have a problem with second accounts, so long as they're not used for ballot stuffing. →Raul654 01:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

While GrazingshipIV does seem to me to possibly be a sockpuppet, I see no evidence (other than the nomination) that s/he is a sockpuppet of HCheney. In the interest of eliminating questions, however, the prudent thing for HCheney to do would be to recommend that the vote of GrazingshipIV not be counted. Anthony DiPierro 02:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wikibooks sysop and a Maori bureaucrat. I would like to make other users aware of the fact that there is some "not-so-nice stuff" going on in the page. Mabye certain users who are causing problems could be temporarily barred from participating in the page (mabye for a month?). I'm not going to name any names because then I would be contributing to the "not-so-nice stuff" --- regardless you people know who you are and I'm sure everyone else does too. I hope this comment won't be seen as combative because it isn't intended to be hostile in any way. I just think some abusive users need to be prohibited from participating in the discussions because they *can* and *do* succede in changing other users opinions/votes simply by trolling. Perl 03:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removing comments claimed offensive

Should we be doing this? It seems very dubious to me. At the very least, a note should be placed that information was redacted. Anthony DiPierro 03:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my actions, should they offend anyone... wait, that's Wik's line! :-) I won't revert again, I promise. ugen64 03:12, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for my actions should they offend anyone... wait, that's Wik's line! I won't revert again, I promise. Perl 03:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Resolution

Stop this nonsense....here is what happened according to all sides

• 1-Anthony voted and deleted the tally maybe because he doesn't like the tally...whatever
• 2-I restored it and said don't delete it.
• 3-According to anthony he did not realize there were 2 neutral votes and put in a false tally (knowingly or unknowingly)
• 4-I then changed that back and told him not do mess with the tally
• 5-The tally was then deleted again
• 6-I reverted it and said don't delete it.
• 7-then anthony and I exchanged comments about who had the correct tally (as he would admit later I did)
• 8-then Ugen64 stepped in due to inflammatory comments anthony made
• 9-then they exchanged comments
• 10-then anthony messed with the conversation to suppliment the vote he had just made on tallies on the poll section
• 11-I reverted the edit
• 12-he changed it back and setup a page called "voting nonsense"
• 13-I reverted back the previous vote on the Hcheney page
• 14-He or someone censored my comment (I cannot confirm it was him) but I do beleive it was
• 15-we are stuck here

Here is the convo-

1. • • My vote was real, and the count was incorrect. (by the way, I'm from new jersey) Anthony DiPierro 01:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   • If I can unite you and Wik, I would probably make a pretty good admin. --Hcheney 01:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • Wik and I have been united on a number of issues before. In this case, I'm just not convinced (that you would make a good admin). Anthony DiPierro 01:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I know thats why I counted it your number 4 in oppose now stop deleting the vote count. GrazingshipIV 01:16, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • If the vote count is incorrect I will delete it. Anthony DiPierro 01:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • • The vote count has been correct each time you have deleted it. All you need to be able to do to affirm that fact is count. So don't delete it.- GrazingshipIV 01:41, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • The vote count was in fact incorrect the first time I deleted it. Anthony DiPierro 01:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Dude, the neutral count was always 2 you first deleted the count entirely, then changed the count to 1, then deleted it again. Just leave it alone for future reference all the votes will obviously be counted its pointless to delete the count.-GrazingshipIV 01:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • Dude, try participating on Wikipedia for more than 14 days before you tell people what do do. The oppose count was incorrect the first time I deleted it. Anthony DiPierro 02:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Ok then, what exactly justified you dropping the neutral vote from two to one smart guy....? GrazingshipIV 02:06, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
              • It was an accident. Anthony DiPierro 02:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Anthony, if you want to sound authoritative, don't say "do do". Also, whether or not he's been here for a short time, he's correct. ugen64 02:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
            • No s/he's not. There is no consensus that we should have toctallies in the first place. In fact, it's pretty much evenly split against them. That this person even knows about toctallies suggests to me that s/he has another account. Anthony DiPierro 02:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • And if the vote count was wrong, FIX IT! Don't delete it. That's like asking sysops to delete all unwikified pages, or any pages with incorrect information. ugen64 02:13, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
            • No, I'm not going to fix a stupid tally which I am opposed to in the first place. Anthony DiPierro 02:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • It's also policy not to delete useful information, whether you agree with it or not. ugen64 02:47, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
            • An incorrect toctally is not useful, in fact, it's the opposite of useful. It's anti-useful. Anthony DiPierro 02:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Anti-useful... that's an awesome word! ugen64 02:53, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
            • Thanks. I just invented it. Pretty cool, huh? Anthony DiPierro 02:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't mess with the order, your time is on the statement anyway. Everyone else is using the tally. Don't go vote on the poll and come back like you have principeled position-you CHANGED the tally-there is a difference.-GrazingshipIV 02:29, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
• This isn't nonsense. ugen64 02:47, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Stop vandalizing this page return the conversation back to the appropriate order and place. Your not helping your cause when you sign a document if you haven't figured it out the time is set its obvious you fooled with the prior conversation. Calm down and revert your edits. GrazingshipIV 02:58, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

note the differentiation in times

Listen lets just move the whole exchange between myself ugen64 and anthony here put it in the correct order (as donated by time signatures) and get back to the issue at hand-the vote GrazingshipIV 03:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

The correct order is the order of the thread, not time-based. Anthony DiPierro 03:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All your comments after your vote will be HERE, so stop editing you want to add something add it here not on the page.GrazingshipIV 04:06, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The two comments I made which are relevant to my vote will be kept on the page with my vote. If you insist on removing your own comment, I'm not going to stop you. Anthony DiPierro 04:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

sorry you don't get to pick and choose what you want along with others we are keeping your intial justification or returning it all in proper order you decide .......

GrazingshipIV 04:14, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Those are reasonable options. Fair for all. - Texture 04:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If he insists on keeping the entire off-topic conversation in there, then I can't realistically oppose it. However, what is the "proper order" is disputed. Anthony DiPierro 04:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have every right to keep an explanation of my vote on the page. Anthony DiPierro 04:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its not an explaination of anything you can strike or keep your previous statement and write something additional but you cannot use the previous material which is incomplete. Write something new, but do not use old material that is chopped into pieces all old material belongs here. GrazingshipIV 04:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm willing to let you remove the out of order part, however the comment by Hcheney and my response should remain. Anthony DiPierro 04:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And suddenly all is quiet. Looks like this vandal got what s/he wanted. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You know the deal. Create new information or put it all back up in chronological order-I will not allow you to villify him using bits and pieces of pervious conversations regardless of your personal problems with him. If you want to write something new to justify your vote be my guest, but I have more than an hour and won't allow you to vandalize people. My position is that of the US government, I won't negotiate under these terms and tactics. You've got something to say...say it here.GrazingshipIV 04:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

You CAN be blocked for vandalism. RickK | Talk 04:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add "bits and pieces". I added the entire thread between myself and Hcheney, and a comment that was made by myself. Anthony DiPierro 05:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk moved from Hcheney on VfA

(asterisk-depth reduced by 2 and capped at 4 - +sj+)

1. "Experienced editors" have supported Alex Plank too, when he used sockpuppets in an attempt to cheat himself into adminship. Enough said. --Wik 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
   • Ah, it's Wik. If it makes you feel any better, Grazingship already has more than 100 edits to pages besides his user and talk pages. He pretty much wrote all of The Conservative Order by himself, and regarding Cheney, he's meaningfully edited here longer than I have. ugen64 23:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
     • So? Alex did thousands of edits with various sockpuppets. And a user who plays tricks like that shouldn't become sysop, so we should wait until we can rule this possibility out. --Wik 23:53, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
       • Wik, why do you force others to do work for you? All right, fine, as you could have determined had you visited the contributions of Hcheney and Grazingship, on the 22nd of March, Grazingship made edits at 22:14, 22:15, and 22:19; Hcheney made an edit at 22:18. Is this sufficient evidence for you? Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. Did some more checking -- they both made edits at 20:57 on March 22. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
         • That's precisely what I checked too, and the congruence of times is evidence for the sockpuppet thesis, not against. If two users were making edits at widely different times it could prove that they are indeed different people, because one person would be unlikely to edit at all those times. For example, if the combined edits of two users span a period of 24 hours without any interruption longer than 3 hours, you can conclude that it would be difficult for one person alone to do. That's why I suggest we wait another month, and then analyze the edits again for a more conclusive picture. --Wik 00:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
         • Okay, I'm going to give up convincing you, Wik, but I think this is ludicrous. Any two users who happen to live in the same or adjacent time zones might easily follow the same pattern of behavior. I cannot understand why you have chosen Hcheney and Grazingship out to be "guilty until proven innocent". After all, if I had proven that they never edited at the same time, wouldn't you have also called that suspicious? We could claim any two users "might possibly be sock puppets" and it would be difficult to defend against that claim given the logic you are using. I wish you were a little more trusting. Jwrosenzweig 00:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
         • I'm not calling anyone guilty. I'm just saying we can't make a judgement yet. If they never edited at the same time it wouldn't necessarily be suspicious, it depends on the specific pattern. And no, you can't claim any two users might be sock puppets. For almost all combinations of two different users you should be able to find an editing period that proves that they are distinct, as I explained above. --Wik 01:11, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
         • So many asterisks... anyway, through my statistical experience, it's very likely that two people will edit at similar times by chance. You also spelled judgment wrong. Finally, I don't understand your reasoning. Alexandros made a couple of questionable decisions, and he should have known better. However, Hcheney has shown himself to be cool and understanding, and whether or not Grazingship is a sockpuppet (which is pretty much impossible), that's not the issue here. The issue is whether Hcheney would make a good administrator. ugen64 01:53, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
         • Of course, they will sometimes edit at similar times. And sometimes at different times. But so far the times are all similar, so we should wait another month. Also, judgement is a correct variant of judgment. Finally, it is not all impossible that Grazingship is a sockpuppet, and if he is, then Hcheney cannot be trusted, and therefore would not make a good administrator. --Wik 02:32, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney

In October, 2003 I received an e-mail about Wikipedia. For the next two months I browsed until in December when I got a username. I have been a regular contributor since and a couple of days ago, a user then unknown to me, GrazingshipIV, nominated me for adminship. I later received an e-mail from the same person that introduced me to Wikipedia, identifying himself as GrazingshipIV, saying I would make a great admin, and that I was expected to return the favor in good time. I do not feel I owe favors to GrazingshipIV, or any other user, for their vote or support.

I would like to state that I do not approve of GrazingshipIV's actions, use of the term "junta", and fighting with other users. In the past GrazingshipIV has been an exceptional contributor, and I can only hope that he will be able to overcome his conflicts and remain with Wikipedia as a contributor.

I do not intend to continue with Wikipedia having the status of a joke user. If the community deems me not to be trustworthy, I will quietly fade away for the good of the project. --Hcheney 17:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are, by the evidence of your past actions and this statement, the epitome of a trustworthy editor in my eyes, and I will defend that statement against any voice that seeks to drive you off. I will say also that the opinions and votes expressed on RfA indicate to me that in fact most of the community either trusts you or just hasn't interacted with you yet, and that the attacks on your character are coming from only one or two voices whom I hope you will disregard in this particular instance as being misinformed/unnaturally suspicious. Jwrosenzweig 17:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the status of a joke user and why do you think you would have it? --Wik 17:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jwrosenzweig. If you feel that this nomination has been tainted, you may choose to withdraw yourself from consideration, and wait until you are nominated by someone else. Either choice you make will be fine, and I appreciate your forthrightness in bringing this quid pro quo request to our attention. BCorr¤Брайен 18:00, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for mentioning this. I think the best thing to do would be to withdraw and wait for someone else to nominate you for adminship. Your contributions are clearly valuable here. +sj+ 18:36, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

Whatever Grazingship's reasons for the nomination, my support still stands. Tuf-Kat 20:19, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not you withdraw the nomination, I believe that your behavior--esp. over the past few days--has proved that you would make an exemplary admin. I'd be entirely willing to renominate you myself whenever you'd prefer. Sincerely yours, Meelar 20:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How you are handling this shows that you would be a fab admin. and from the sounds of it you are a trustworthy user. Quinwound 21:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney, I am glad that you've come clean with the truth. Graz put you into a lousy situation. I will not condemn you or hold you accountable for the actions of another. Nothing really in your history suggests you have mal-intentions. Graz, on the other hand, should be reprimanded. He may have started out as an unassuming user, but that all changed when, with covert motives, he nominated you for admin.

Many of us sensed something out-of-the-ordinary when Graz's nomination happened - and when the question of Graz's motives was raised, Graz over-reacted with personal attacks and baiting-maneuvers. Graz marched deeper and deeper into an alleged crusade against injustice - but that was just to fog the truth: that he was trying to make you an admin to benefit himself. His hope was to become an admin himself or to try to control you once you were an admin.

I've looked at your work. you are a benefit to this community. Graz, on the other hand, should be put on some sort of probation. Kingturtle 23:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that anything that Graz has done has any effect on people's opinion of you. I never made any claims about your abilities, only on how long you had been here. Don't think you're a joke, because you're not. RickK | Talk 03:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Requiring nominations to be accepted before they are posted

We have seen quite a bit of controversy and hostility over this page recently, some of which I think could have been avoided. I think we should consider a new policy, that when nominating users for adminship, you must first notify the user being nominated and find out whether they will accept the nomination.

For example, Sam Spade has stated that he does not wish to be nominated. Nevertheless, he has been nominated twice this month, and the nominations were promptly removed, once by Eloquence and once by myself. We also had the unfortunate situation involving Hcheney, whose nomination was effectively torpedoed largely because of controversy surrounding the nominator, instead of the nominee.

Making this a requirement would help protect people from undesired nominations. Controversial users can figure out that it's futile to be listed on this page, and avoid generating unnecessary hostility by refusing nominations. People who are genuinely interested and qualified to be admins, but waiting for someone to nominate them, can get a fair hearing by having more control over the circumstances of their nomination. Fair or not, many people read nominations and votes of support as a way of vouching for the nominee, and sometimes form opinions based largely on their views of the nominee's supporters, instead of looking at the nominee's qualifications independently.

I'm also hoping this will discourage abuse of the adminship process, such as the quid pro quo Hcheney claims his nominator was hoping for. Some users have gone on "nominating binges" of sorts, and while most of the nominees were reasonably qualified and supported by the community, I think it's fair to question the motive for such conduct. In at least one case, I strongly suspect that the user was nominating lots of people in hopes that someone else would nominate him, too.

So, do people think this is a good idea? Does anyone have ideas about alternative ways of dealing with this problem? --Michael Snow 02:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no clear consensus one way or the other, I have made a more modest change to the guidelines on the page, which now read: "Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them of your intentions in advance as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision." --Michael Snow 23:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Not a bad idea. Meelar 02:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Michael Snow 03:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Excellent idea. Alex S 03:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes, please. +sj+ 04:31, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
5. I dont know why, but you sold me on it Antonio El Drunko Martin 20:34 MST, 2004, Mar 27
6. Angela - Support, but people should be able to change their mind and decline it later even if they already accepted.
   • Of course. Accepting a nomination is not permanently binding. --Michael Snow 17:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Acegikmo1 04:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I feel that this will allow people to make the decision privately (perhaps with the help of talk page communications) instead of being pressured into it publicly.
8. Also see comment below. Lupo 07:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Texture 22:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. However, people shouldn't vote until the nomination is accepted. -anthony
   • Comment: Your suggestion is closer to the proposal than to the status quo. May I suggest you change your vote to neutral? Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • The purpose of the proposal is to prevent undesired nominations, not to prevent votes on unaccepted nominations. I don't vote on unaccepted nominations, but many people do. --Michael Snow 17:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Some people wait and see the reaction before making up their mind. Dori | Talk 05:24, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. I agree with Dori. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:55, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Dori. →Raul654 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
5. Tuf-Kat 18:43, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
6. Also agree with Dori. - Hephaestos|§ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Agree with Dori Ludraman | Talk 19:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. I'm with Dori. Quinwound 04:42, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
9. Agree with Dori, but also suggest user be able to delete with hard feelings as proposed below. Cecropia 04:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. I think making this a requirement a bad idea -- proliferating rules where we have no real problem doesn't make sense to me. Those few who make it know that they wouldn't want to be admins, the community at large will remember, and remove (politely!) nominations of those individuals, while explaining things to the nominator. But dozens of good admins have had to be convinced by overwhelming support, and this rule might lose us some or most of such admins in the future. Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Ryan_Cable 04:44, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Comments, other ideas:

• Modest individuals might turn down a nomination, but would accept after seeing how many people support them. Maximus Rex 03:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Or after a second person tries to nominate them. +sj+
• Would it be useful to allow the nomination to be posted, but not consider it amiss if the person nominated simply deletes the nomination with a remark like "respectfully reject the nomination"? Cecropia 04:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a very good idea. - Hephaestos|§ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I'm still not clear on why people want to be admins. I would imagine alot more people would prefer to avoid it, but maybe I'm missing something? Whats the selling point? Sam Spade 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, speaking for myself, I'm active on George W. Bush (and to a lesser extent John Kerry) and I simply couldn't handle it without a quick revert button for all the times Bush's pic gets turned into that of something amusing. Meelar 05:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Admins have the ability to delete pages, to ban IPs, and to revert pages faster than a regular user. Admins can also protect pages, again to fight vandalism or temper edit wars. These powers are used mostly to fight vandalism. Admins are housekeepers. Kingturtle 05:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm concerned, I do enough housekeeping, and other wiki chores as it is. It just seems like more work, and more reasons for people to bother me. Besides, I keep hearing 'sysops arn't editors' and I am an editor ;) Sam Spade 05:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • For me its mainly a warm fuzzy feeling. Plus the rollback link. Arvindn 17:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A lot of admins (myself included) are people who were doing some housekeeping work anyway, and appreciate being able to do the same things more easilly. Isomorphic 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand admins can run (read-only) SQL queries. Fennec 21:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I used to think that it was simply polite if the nominator asked the designated nominee whether s/he agreed to being nominated before nominating her or him. A nominee can still formally accept or reject the nomination later on (see Dori's comment above). Another idea: there have been quite a few nominations recently made by relatively new users. How about requiring that the nominator must have been editing at Wikipedia for at least as long as the nominee? The rationale being that experienced users are more likely to judge whether the nominee really would make a good admin, and also more likely to have a sound feeling of what others in the community might think about the nomination. Lupo 07:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, we're still finding people who have been here for quite a while and aren't admins yet. Using that rule, you might rule out most of the people who want to nominate them. --Michael Snow 17:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Lupo above: nominees should have a chance to decline their nomination before being nominated, but need not be forced to make a decision. That way, Sam Spade would never be nominated; nominees who have issues with the nominator can opt out too. If the user chooses to be nominated, after seeing the response, they can make their final decision. -- Arvindn
  • I think even the opponents of this proposal could agree that you should notify the nominee first, out of courtesy. My proposal probably wasn't clear enough that nominees aren't "locked in" by their acceptance - they can still withdraw. So maybe we can modify the page to tell nominators something like "Please notify the user being nominated beforehand, in case they object to being nominated." --Michael Snow 17:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)