User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Miscellaneous

Newbie questions

1. How does one know if another user is an administrator? (For instance, is Denni an administrator?
2. What counts as a "good enough" reason to nominate someone for adminship? Is a solid record of good edits and sound judgement good enough, or would one have to point to a particular reason the user needs adminship privileges?
3. Is there a quick way to find out when a user first started posting, and how many edits they've contributed? (other than going back all the way on "User contributions" and actually counting).

Thanks!--Woggly 11:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators, you can find most of your answers there very comprehensively. Still, here are some short answers:

1. There is a special page named Special:Listadmins that list all sysop-marked accounts. Also, Wikipedia:List of administrators lists administrators.'
2. On the Administrators page, you can read the Jimbo Wales quote, "There should be no big deal". Actually, even though we have lots of sysops, I think we need even more, and there is really no big deal.
3. No, there are some smart tricks with modifying the Contributions url, to use custom offsets to count the edits, but other than that there is no tally of edits or other user statistics to be found.

✏ Sverdrup 11:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I think I'll lurk a little more before nominating anyone, because I'm chicken. But for what it's worth, I think Denni should be nominated. --Woggly 12:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poll results (Archive 19)

Are the results of the poll above going to affect policy and place restrictions on nominations?

Acegikmo1 19:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which poll? The one on resubmitting nominations or on minimum votes? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering about the one on resubmitting nominations. The minimum votes proposal seems like more of a discussion now, though I'm interested in whether it will have any effect as well. Acegikmo1 19:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the way I read the poll results, most editors expect at least a one-month gap before resubmitting a nomination. The implication is, as with too-early nominations, that the renomination would garner criticism just for being early and maybe it shouldn't even be submitted until the month is up. So far, we haven't had any examples to test sentiment in a real-life setting. As to the "minimum," consensus has been that it's ultimately for a bureaucrat to figure out. It seems to me that if someone gets less than 10 votes in a week, it should be extended for a day to see if one or more editors take an interest to look at the nomination again--that way the decision can stay wholly with the voters. What do you think? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should the one-month minimum for nominations by others and the three month minimum for self-nominations be included in the instructions on the main RFA page (under Procedures and guidelines)? I'm not sure if it would be proper to add it or whether there is a more formal procedure for implementing new policy made on the basis of a vote (or whether that vote can actually change policy).

I agree about the minimum number of voters being decided ultimately by a bureaucrat (with possible extention if a nomination garners less than 10 votes). But again, should this be stated explicitly on the main page?

Acegikmo1 20:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think, we shouldn't overregulate Wikipedia. Bureaucrats are people, and I suppose with enough IQ. The policy works, why to change it? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree about overregulation but I don't think this is a question of changing policy, but of trying to gauge sentiment on possibly dicey situations. A word on the admin page similar to what we already have could explain to community attitude without saying you must, you can't. Maybe an opening statement like:

There are no hard and fast rules for posting a nomination for admin except that the nominator and candidate must be logged-in users, that is, editors with usernames. In theory someone could get a username and be nominated for admin the same day and become an admin a week later if consensus is reached that s/he should be one. In practice, however, the community has expressed the feeling, through practice, debate and polling, that many will vote against an otherwise good candidacy simply because they don't feel the user has been a Wikipedian long enough, has made enough edits, or has broad enough support. Nominators would do well to consider this sentiment before posting a nomination so that a person who may well be an excellent editor and would be a great admin is voted down simply because it was too soon.

and:

A person becomes an admin by virtue of consensus. Generally that means that almost all editors expect to see a 75% to 80% positive vote for a person to be promoted. In the event that a person has fewer than 10 positive votes total, even without opposition, a bureaucrat may extend the vote day to day to see if more editors can be encouraged to vote in order to reach clear consensus. Ultimately, the community has expressed the opinion that a Bureaucrat should make a decision in cases where it appears clear consensus for or against can't be reached, rather than leave the nomination "hanging" for an extended period of time, by examining the votes, editor comments and other material available about the candidate.

My direction is to express what the community finds tolerable but make it crystal clear that it is the editors who are responsible for vetting the candidates and that bureaucratic judgment is a last but possibly necessary resort. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) (P.S.: We might consider a separate page like What does the community look for in an admin? Some guidelines)

The longer we make the opening instructions (partly by piling on more rules and guidelines), the less likely it becomes that people will actually read them. Correspondingly, it also becomes less likely that any rules and guidelines we do have will actually be followed. When I rewrote these instructions earlier based on the poll, I felt it was necessary to cut and condense things considerably, and I still believe the remaining instructions are more long than is desirable. As has been eloquently argued elsewhere, Wikipedia policy is best expressed in brief, clear statements, accompanied by examples if necessary.

The pressure to keep accumulating more guidelines suggests that Cecropia may be right that a separate page is best. However, such a page is only useful for the guidelines about what people look for in an admin; it should not be used for administrative regulations related to RfA itself (i.e. nomination and removal, or quantitative guidelines for assessing vote results). Those should be kept to a minimum, and I think the general statements we already have are being used to good effect when called for. --Michael Snow 17:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed around 500 words from the intro. The meaning is basically the same as it was before but now shows less signs of instruction creep. Angela. 14:11, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'll leave it to an admin, but I really think someone needs to remove about 500 or 600 more. Isn't it roughly common sense that the Table of Contents should be visible upon loading the page, without scrolling down? The current intro is waaaaaay too bloated. (And Michael's right: The longer the text, the fewer people will slug through it.) Cribcage 15:09, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia :A Great Fun Place to Grow and Contribute (Archive 23)

When people , especially sysops, stray from these, problems occur.

These are only suggestion and proposals.I am not asking that they actually be implemented. I 'm just stating or repeating the o-b-v-i-o-us ...

To present and future administrators please,
1) FUN & GROWTH.
Please focus on making wikipedia a fun great place to grow and contribute. Please don't be abrasive, sarcastic, impolite. If people get pissed off, they won't say why, they just totally loose interest and leave.

2) 3 Cheers for the Policeman!
I agree with Gadykozma.Fighting vandalism and protecting copyrights are a must. Cheers to the unsung heroes! Policemen get misinterpreted. But...
Don 't overdo copyright violation checking don't expect innocent contributers to be happy about being misconstrured. Sincere policemen admins are needed. Authoritive , Wrath Of Khan types NOT.

With some wannabees, you can almost feel abuse fo adminstrative powers or disasters about to happen.

3) Keep the engine running!
Other administrator stuff to keep the wikipedia engine running.--Jondel 04:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions (Archive 28)

If you get nominated and get refused, can you be nominated again? Khulhy 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes; as above. Usually people wait a couple of months before trying again. This is the meaning of the "2" in the names of some of the nominations. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Cecropian Wikivacation (Archive 28)

I've got a bunch of stuff to do as the Fall approaches (despite rumors, I'm not retired) so, now that a few of our bureaucrats have gotten more active and we seem to have two new b-crats on the way, I'm going to try to Wikivacation for the month of September. I know y'all are in good hands! Cheers to all, Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Try four. Oh well...I'll man the fort. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Judging AfDs? (Archive 29)

How is it decided when AfDs are judged and which admin judges which AfD?

• There is no set structure. Either that, or there's a secret admin cabal page for AfD that I'm not aware of. Cue the spooky music! android79 18:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I expect that when we become admins, a bureaucrat or an older admin will give us a brief rundown of how all this "being an admin" works. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I would imagine what you're looking for is in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, or maybe Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and if it's not, it should be. I haven't looked at that in a while. Now might be a good time... android79 18:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't expect too much advice. When I was promoted a few weeks ago, all the advice I got was User:UninvitedCompany/Advice to new admins. As for AfD, I just skip those that I'm not sure of and I watch the admin that does close them, and I copy their behaviour if I think it's sensible. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Some general RfA Problems: Taxman said this was the page for it (Archive 30)

Admin User:Taxman, before he went on break, said (and I agree) that this was the right place to bring my concerns: "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places. That way it's not you trying to argue your way into adminship, but the issue is still handled." [1]

Note: It looks like the Bureaucrat who had initially reposted the RfA and said to let it run its "one week" course was outvoted, and other Admins have locked both the RfA page ("vote closed" reasoning) and its associated "talk" page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts.

It appears that my attempt to "talk about it" on the talk page was not even permitted: A clear attempt to stifle my voice. (They gave a reason, but I don't buy it; My attempts to voice my concerns over my failed RfA have moved to this page here, and I'm keeping a copy on my user page and my computer's hard drive -for archival and backup purposes.)

Why do they have such a talk page, when it is clear that they are afraid to talk about it in a public forum? They lock even the talk page! Wow.--GordonWatts 20:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Traditionally, an action or allegation by a person (or group of people) can be shown to be false by contradicting one of three gold standards.

• Contradicts:
  • Known Laws / Rules
  • Itself
  • Gut Feeling

Chi-Square test (Archive 39)

The reason I proposed the Chi-Square test (McNemar test), is that it can represent a lower bound below which RfA's ought to be automatically suspended(not closed). The McNemar test is based on binomial distribution with p(sucess) = 0.5. I feel that if at any time after two days of voting a candidate cannot a attract a level of support greater than chance with fully random voting, then their RfA ought to be suspended automatically (pending further discussion before it is reopened).

I don't think this is instruction creep at all. Instead this is a simple and objective way to avoid a problem which generates alot of needless rancor. That is the problem of RfA's which hobble along causing lots of needless controversy, hurt feelings and personal insult untill they crash out.

On a related note, I really favor an even longer voting period than 7 days, because it's important that any adverse evidence be brought up and cleared out before someone is promoted. A bad admin is a major problem because of the unfortunatly cliquish nature of wiki admin community. Klonimus 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that invoking mathematical formulae would make a guideline unnecessarily complex. I do think that a couple of days' discussion before voting would be a good idea. In particular, this could be facillitated by making a couple of spots near the top of the RFA template that allows users to write a short and neutral paragraph (with citations) of the nominee's good or bad actions. E.g. "User:Foo is involved in a controversy on Article, and his response to it is shown in this diff. Radiant_>|< 14:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I think the test and its usage as proposed is probably invalid. You certainly can't use any standard statistical test repeatedly in a situation where data is accumulating; you need a special statistical methodology and special "sequential tests" in a situation like that. And it certainly is not valid to watch data accumulating and choose a point at which to make a statistical test.

One of the things that was pounded into me is that the biggest cause of methodological error in applying statistics is not e.g. assumptions of normality, but the assumption of independence. There is no way that successive votes by voters, each of whom can read all of the votes and comments of previous voters, can be regarded as independent samples of anything.

So, I don't even think it would be valid to fire off a single statistical test, on a "one-shot" basis, exactly 48 hours into voting. In order for a traditional statistical test to be valid, I believe all of the votes and user comments would need to be kept secret for 48 hours, and of course users would have to solemnly swear that they had not been in communication with each other on the topic. Under those conditions, after 48 hours, you could reveal all the votes and perform the test and it would be valid. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it back. You need to be even more restrictive than that. The proposal is that the discussion be closed early because the statistical test is a reliable predictor of the final outcome. But for that to be true, the votes following the application of the test still need to be independent random samples... so the test would only be valid if the rules for an RFA was that during the voting period, all votes are on a secret-ballot basis AND no communication of any kind between voters is allowed. In that case, you could perform a single statistical test at a predetermined time and end the vote early if the outcome was "statistically" determined at that time. You could also... again assuming secrecy and no voter communication... keep the vote open for an indeterminate period of time, and use sequential tests and methodology to keep the vote open for as long as was needed to determine the outcome, and no longer.

Of course, we haven't even gotten into the issue of deciding how to decide how to decide what level of statistical significance (5%? 1%? 0.1%) is appropriate... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly why I proposed a McNemar Test, which is a chi-square approximation of the binomial distribution. This test doesn't make any assumptions at all. The only question being asked is how likely would this proportion of votes occur if the voting was purely by chance with 50% chance of any vote being made. We don't need to make any assumptions of independance or anything else since this a purely a test of proportions.

I think suspending (not closing) any RfA which fails to show a greater than chance level of support after 2 days of active voting is a good way to deal with the problem of crippled RfA's. If the candidate want's the RfA to be reopened they may do so, but this could be a nice easy way to end RfA's that are going badly without anyone losing face.

I never said that this test was a reliable predictor of final outcome. It is however a reliaable predictor of RfA's that will certainly fail. Like I said it's a lower bound test. Klonimus 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While I applaud your attempt at formularising RfA, I feel this is all unnecessary - and potentially may cause good candidates to fail. Voting patterns can easily change over the course of a week. Take your comment that if at any time after two days of voting a candidate cannot a attract a level of support greater than chance with fully random voting, then their RfA ought to be suspended automatically. I have seen candidates with a strong objection placed by one voter later explain why that voter is strongly against them. In tose cases, it is sometimes the case that in the period between the oppose vote and the explanation, several more oppose votes have been placed based on the comments of the original opposer. After the explanation by the candidate, these oppose votes are scratched out and moved to neutral or support. So a vote might go from 10-8-1 after two days to 16-3-5 after three. In those circumstances, your initial premise is false. There is nothing wrong with having a vote go for its full seven days, even if it appears early on that a candidate may not pass. There is little cost in having the vote continue until it is complete. Suspending an RfA after two days (or any period of time) should be the prerogative of the nominee, not decided based on some potentially incorrect premise by the arbitrators of the RfA page. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia riots (Archive 44)

In a section above, Jdavidb mentions the term "rioting" in relation to Wikipedia behaviors of late. I don't think the pool of admins is the source of the problem. I see several seriously bad things that are more common or have happened of late that have fostered this environment:

• Casual disrespect for new users by admins, some members of ArbCom, and even Jimbo. Not only must you be an experienced user to have your voice heard (and even being an admin doesn't count as experienced anymore), but you must also be acceptable by some nebulous standard before your voice carries any weight. In short, if you're not in the 'in' group, your voice lacks merit.
• Willful ignorance of policy and guidelines by some admins, and ArbCom supporting their actions in many cases.
• ArbCom's utter unwillingness to hear a case against some people yet clear willingness to hear cases against other admins who behaved much in the same way. I.e., major bias within ArbCom.
• ArbCom's several recent decisions and explanations which have, in summary, left all policies as meaningless. Policy is, according to ArbCom, defined as "common sense" and by how we do things. Both of these definitions of policy are nearly entirely encompassed within individual judgement rather than community judgement; this is starkly against what so much of Wikipedia tells us it is supposed to be; consensus.

I outlined a partial aspect of this on Talrias' self brought RfC. There are very serious issues facing Wikipedia right now with community behavior. If you think policy is important, you're called a policy-wonk and insulted. If you complain about out-of-process bannings, you get banned. If you complain as Marsden did about the nature of Wikipedia now [2], you get banned (by Jimbo no less [3]).

I have seen a significant number of very dedicated, intelligent, well-spoken Wikipedians who have left the project. Some have done so in a public outcry of defiance. Quite a number have done so silently.

I hope all of you are very, very careful in who you vote for in the upcoming ArbCom elections. This election could have a dramatic impact on what several users see as something of a coming revolution. As one of the persons I am in communication said, Wikipedia is not "genuinely free and intellectually open". Quite a few people are realizing this, and like rats on a sinking ship, are leaving. ArbCom and a number of admins think the rats are just that; rats and good riddance to them. Meanwhile, they are ignoring the tons of water rushing into the hold.

I intend on writing something more on this in the near future, and hoping to start something of a wiki-petition drive. --Durin 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While a fair amount of this commentary is good advice under any conditions, most of it is not new and the tone is unduly alarmist. People have been biting newcomers almost since the beginning, which is why we have a longstanding page that counsels against it. People have been getting frustrated, burned out, and leaving the project for a long time.

These problems we will always struggle with, but they are not proportionally worse than in the past (or at least no evidence of that is visible). In this you've fallen into the same trap you criticize above, believing that things are worse merely because the community itself is larger. The ship is not sinking.

The community does periodically go through phases of heightened concern over whether things are headed in the right direction. We're experiencing one now, prompted especially by the Seigenthaler incident and, on a more internal level, the userbox conflict and the tension of an arbitration election. But we can't spend all our time on self-flagellation; we have an encyclopedia to work on. This too shall pass. --Michael Snow 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What is different is ArbCom's and Jimbo's recent statements regarding policy. Policy is now meaningless, and ArbCom is currently refusing to hear any cases which bring up this departure from reality. --Durin 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick answer, as I'm just running through my watchlist: no, we aren't. Though we as a committee aren't actually equipped to handle really fundamental issues of Wikipedia culture such as are being brought up. And I don't think we should be; we can only really consider the roles of individual users in them and some issues of interpretation of policy in specific cases, and the problems are more than that; you're not going to get broad and decisive statements from one landmark case. (In my understanding, part of the reason we are not bound by precedent is that sometimes we make really glaring mistakes.)

I agree that there are fundamental concerns that overlap with what you describe and that the current requests are symptomatic of them, but I strongly disagree with your statement that policy is now meaningless; is this honestly and unexaggeratedly what you believe? If I and the rest of the Committee believed this to be so, we may as well have disbanded already. I consider some of your other statements oversimplifications as well (such as characterizing Marsden's block as being simply for his criticism), which makes it difficult to properly respond to them. I've already gone on too long in an out-of-place discussion, though; if you want my personal opinion, ask me, and if you want an official opinion from the Committee, ask on the relevant talk page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durin: A good analogy, in my opinion, of role of policy on Wikipedia is that of the way musicians use sheet music. Sheet music gives the performer an outline of how to play a new piece, and provide the basis of the information needed to play a particular piece. No performer, however, ever reads each individual note one-by-one when sight-reading (one grasps musical notation more as groups and intervals), and uses his or her own interpretation when performing the piece. Indeed, a perfomer cannot keep precisely to sheet music, for the simple reason that musicians are not computers; and of course note timing, the selection of ornaments, the decision on dynamics etc. are a combination of human factors and the performer's own musical judgement. (Bear with me on this one, I'm a musician)

Likewise, policy provides an outline of how to do things on Wikipedia, and provide the instructions on the "melody" to play. However, no Wikipedian should have to keep policy in mind word-by-word, and likewise since the Wikipedian posesses intellect and policy does not (it is fixed) the judgement of the Wikipedian trumps that of the policy, to his or her idea of the best way of doing something. Thus every person's interpretation of policy, and the extent of application, will vary, and rightly so. Indeed, just as a string quintet is not obliged to play Franz Schubert's Trout Quintet at a heavy metal concert, so likewise Wikipedians may choose not to follow a policy entirely where they feel it is not appropriate. (Actually, I'm having doubts about the analogy myself now, but I do think it is fun nevertheless) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to this analogy, sometimes musicians play by ear, or improvise. Likewise, Wikipedians use their judgement to determine what is best, without reference to policy or only following the spirit of it. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nicholas, I am a musician as well so your analogy (oh this is painful!) doesn't fall on deaf ears (baaad pun!). The problem inherent in individual users being able to trump policy as they see fit is that quite a number of people are being smashed for doing so. I'm not talking just politely pointed in a different direction; I'm saying well and truly mugged.
• Mindspillage, I don't have the time to fully respond to you right now. Yes, I believe what I say or I wouldn't write it, so no I do not feel I am exaggerating the case. I will be quite happy to provide you with cites that shows that a number of members of ArbCom do not believe policy has meaning. In the very least, this can be implied from a number of recent decisions by ArbCom. As one of your number said, policy isn't what is written down, it's common sense. Problem is, common sense is up to individual judgement, and there will be radical disagreements as to what "common sense" is most especially when this resource has people contributing to it from around the world from a hundred+ different cultures. What you might call reasonable another might call insane. Policy must be codified and while the letter of the law shouldn't be followed lockstep to the 7th layer of hell, it needs to be followed and as closely as rational thought permits us. That isn't what is happening now. Right now, we are seeing regular wikipedia riots break out in the form of wheel warring, reversion wars by long experienced users, a large number of users leaving the project, and all sorts of other mayhem. Maybe this isn't unprecedented. But, the situation as it is now is grave. Even if there have been a dozen riots before, the fact of the matter is serious damage is being caused now. Sadly, you're saying ArbCom lacks the jurisdiction (sorry for the legal term) to deal with it. That leaves...Jimbo...who has made statements that make it clear (at least to me) that he feels the policies are meaningless as well. The power of the project devolves from the people who contribute to it, not the other way around. Since ArbCom is unwilling/incapable of acting, and Jimbo (at least so far) fails to understand the grievous situation at hand, then it is up to the users that care about this project enough to mount a large enough voice to force change. In my car this afternoon, I thought of another apt analogy; that of the riotous crowd. Does it matter if they are right or wrong? If they have sufficient mass to cause grave damaged, such as the burning down of the Savoy, does it matter if they are right or not? Their issue is real whether you call it right or wrong. I am aware of literally hundreds of people who are likely to share a common sentiment on this matter. If ArbCom is incapable of managing this, then change must happen to develop something that can, whether Jimbo wants to acknowledge it or not. His baby is bleeding. I will comment more later, but I must go now. --Durin 03:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maple and Oak forest. The maples are hard to distinguish from oaks during some seasons. Mature maples can be as tall as their oak competitors; in fall their foliage is distinctive from the oak.

There is unrest in the forest

There is trouble with the trees

For the maples want more sunlight

And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples

(and they're quite convinced they're right)

They say the oaks are just too lofty

And they grab up all the light

But the oaks can't help their feelings

If they like the way they're made

And they wonder why the maples

Can't be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest

And the creatures all have fled

As the maples scream "oppression!"

And the oaks, just shake their heads —BorgHunter (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying to be happy with second class citizenship? ~~ N (t/c) 03:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say with Rush fans. Credit where credit is due, of course...Hamster Sandwich 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There are places whose inhabitants cherish the maple. No second class label for maples, please. Oak can be despised for some uses as well (e.g., furniture); so under what condition can you call oak first class? --Ancheta Wis 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Riots occur when the only productive action left to people is to dismantle the system that overpowers their productivity, for productivity is measured in the mind as consensual, and the functioning of Wikipedia is no longer at the consent of large numbers of her editors. --لæmäļ al diη 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hard to tell oaks from maples in Winter? Not really. Anyway, the whole oak-maple issue is really driven by fire & climate, not light competition Guettarda 19:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant votes (Archive 45)

I was thinking yesterday at night, about how I recently voted "Reluctant oppose". Other people have made such votes too sometimes in the past. I can understand why people do so. They feel the candidate is a good person and has great potential, but has too little experience or is too controversial at the moment, so they have to oppose the nomination for now. But what if it was the opposite? How could anyone ever vote "Reluctant support"?

The same goes for AfDs. I can understand "Reluctant delete" votes, they are for articles about valid and encyclopedic subjects, but which are badly written. But how could anyone ever vote "Reluctant keep"? JIP 10:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

at AFD it happens all the time. I see people vote reluctant keep on video game characters or barely notable schools which are kept because of precedent and policy, but which the person voting keep on would rather could be deleted. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think that "reluctant keep" would make more sense when it was a very, very close call, and you happened to come out on the keep side. Voting keep when you actually wish it was delete doesn't make much sense, better just not to vote at all in that case. —Cleared as filed. 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice (Archive 45)

Oppose votes are no longer allowed. Anyone found to be voting opposed shall be submitted to reeducation. -The Cabal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestylefrappe (talk • contribs)

Hey, can you please calm down? The way you're treating this isn't likely to get anyone to agree with you or compromise. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Addition: And not just you, this whole situation is getting out of hand. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I don't know how I can politely say this, but you're acting rather immature. Knock it off. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody calm down. This is why you elected bureaucrats. Now we're even fighting about issues before a particular promotion/removal is made. -- Cecropia 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A sense of humor helps. But this takes an atmosphere of self-confidence. Any paranoia seems to remove the fun out a situation. It's important for us to somehow build rapport with each other, a sense of common ground. Fortunately, there is an encyclopedia to build here. That ought to build the community spirit. But when a defensive reaction occurs, somehow we collectively seem to harden our hearts against the recreants. --Ancheta Wis 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

CENTRALIZE DISCUSSION >>> (Archive 47)

Can we centralise discussion to Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Centralize: everyone move that way >>> Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship Kim Bruning 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Walk this way >>>> .....Sorry..... I couldn't help it! hydnjo talk 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Who changed everything here to "vote"? (Archive 48)

We are not voting here, this is very misleading Kim Bruning 13:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh! Since september! I haven't been paying attention here, have I? :-( Kim Bruning 13:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, so much for me thinking I've been doing a good job. I mean, drat. Ok, and now I just know I have adminitis. I'm outta here before I do damage. Kim Bruning 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Utterly silly question (Archive 54)

If RfA were American Idol, who would be Simon? =P —Keenan Pepper 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm out of touch enough with pop culture that I had to go read the heading of that article. Someone who opposes everyone for controversial reasons? That would be Masssiveego, I'd say. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a rather flattering thing to say, you know. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No way. The canonical example would have to be Boothy. --maru (talk) contribs 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

On RfA, I have no idea, but on FAC, it'd have to be User:Tsavage. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Even sillier question (Archive 54)

In Lord Voldemort's last RfA, references were made to various spoilers in the Harry Potter books. This prompted me to put a spoiler warning at the top of his support votes. LV then inquired if this was the first RfA to have a spoiler warning placed in it. Is anyone aware of any other examples? JoshuaZ 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not... Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No but I recall an argument over whether they should appear on userpages.Geni 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not aware of any. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any either -- but the way to verify this would be to scroll through the last list of RfA's for character names that might merit the disclaimer. Xoloz 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been following RfA for quite some time, and I don't recall ever seen it too. That was a first, as far as I can remember. Redux 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing one, but I appreciate you adding the spoiler warning. I'm a little behind on reading the books to my kids and avoided reading all the comment least they spoil something for me. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Google doesn't think so, sadly. Flowerparty☀ 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But a spoiler warning on a RfA is very funny. How about some on AfD? Tyrenius 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For your enjoyment (Archive 56)

I've put a little ditty together that I hope RfA regulars will enjoy: The RfA Candidate's Song. --Bucketsofg✐ 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That is brilliant, even better than the other version of that song over on Meta! --maru (talk) contribs 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I would have to oppose that candidate for singing off-pitch. :-) Seriously, though, witty song! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Impressive, but are you performing at Wikimania? I'd pay admission for that. :) I was just wondering the other day if we had some wikipedian songs, and of course, we have several. - Taxman ^Talk 03:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You think we can get Jimbo to sing along too? Maybe the Board of Trustees and the members of the ArbCom as well! And in the background, the Bureaucrats!! Redux 05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? A Bureaucrats quartet! --maru (talk) contribs 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! bd2412 T 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Some wierdos (you know who you are ;-) ) put a wikisong in my namespace too: User:Kim_Bruning/Lion. Kim Bruning 11:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

;-)  ! Bucketsofg✐ 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Now you can hear it, too. I've added a sound file of um, me, singing it at The RfA Candidate's Song. (Be merciful, it's a tough song to sing.) Bucketsofg✐ 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

*violent standing ovations* But I somewhat miss the chorus ;-) --Stephan Schulz 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You all get to do the chorus when I finally come up for my RfA.  ;-) Bucketsofg✐ 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... [ponders and then holds up sign reading '9.5'] :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[frowns at Flcelloguy & holds up a sign reading "10"] ;-) --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[looks at Srikeit, scratches his head, and then flips the '9' part of the sign to make it a '6'. Looks at the '6.5', frowns again, and changes it back to '9.5'. Sits down, and realizes that this comment is going nowhere... holds up a '10.1' :-)] Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

<Soviet judge>[Holds up a sign reading '3']</Soviet judge> ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of these jokes would look better without the smiley at the end. Tintin (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. (Sometimes they're necessary to indicate that the comment should be taken in humour; comments can easily be misinterpreted.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can put the whole discussion between html code: <;> </;>. ;0 Bucketsofg✐ 16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A minor anomaly? (Archive 57)

I guess that no bureaucrat had noticed this but the recent RfA for Whouk has a slight mistake. Bhadani voted TWICE for this RfA (See vote number 36 and 62)! Anyway it did not make much of a difference. However, this further clarifies the point in which we need more bureaucrats in Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a good catch, but I don't think more b'crats is the only way to deal with problems like that. --W.marsh 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Siva1979, I don't see how having more bureaucrats would have changed anything about the RfA you note. Could you clarify what you mean please? --Durin 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a robot bureaucrat. It parses the votes, eliminate duplicate votes, which a person won't see. Afterwards,

   identify (sockpuppets); 
   if (percentage > 75)
      promote;
   else 
      not promote;
   end

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Robocrat... lol. Kimchi.sg 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my mistake in missing it. I didn't check every vote because it wasn't remotely close. More bcrats seems a little besides the point though because we aren't necessarily going to catch something like that even if we cross checked each other's closings. For sock concerns and double votes we have to lean on the community to at least bring concerns to our attention in a civil way. Politely comment below a vote what the concern is and then we can deal with it. - Taxman ^Talk 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Oleg Alexandrov stated it quite clearly for me. What we need is a robot bureaucrat. However, we must not neglect the human involvement in RfAs as well. I feel that the responsibilities of a bureaucrat as grown given the number of users in Wikipedia. As these issues require attention, more bureaucrats would be able to deal with bureaucratic issues such as RfAs and changing of user names more efficiently. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw this post & started to go through my recent RFA & found that User:Anonymous_anonymous has supported me twice (no. 49 & 55). Just thought I'd bring it to your notice. Thanks. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be symptomatic of a more general problem- people don't pay enough attention/ think enough about the RfAs they vote in. JoshuaZ 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think more bureaucrats are required for cross checking & other such things. I suggest that while nearing the end of an RFA, an admin, an experienced user or even a bot should check the RFA for duplicate votes, suspected sockpuppets, tallying problems etc & leave the closing 'crat a note in the comments section. Although I don't think giving a bot bureaucrat powers is the way to go. Bots, if created, should assist bureaucrats not do their job for them. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The best solution to these kinds of things is for users who are interested in the particular RfA (regardless of which "side" they are on) to keep the RfA on thier watchlist. Bureaucrats have a dozen RfAs to watch; most users have, at most, 1 or 2 that they really care about at a given time. If users watch for things like double votes, vote tampering, and sockpuppets, and bring these things to the attention of the bureaucrats, it greatly decreases the chance that a mistake will be made. Given that many if not most RfAs are having more than 100 voters, and some reaching up into the 200 edit range by the time commenting, question answering, and the like is finished, asking bureaucrats to review each and every edit with a fine toothed comb is expecting just a bit too much. We're a community here; just because you don't wear the bureaucrat title doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't help where you can. Arbitrators have clerks; bureaucrats have the voting base. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Essjay's suggestion has given me an idea. Why not start an RFA watchlist commitee? The commitee can assign members to watchlist each RFA. The 'watchlisters' (for lack of a better word) can update tallies, check for duplicate votes, sockpuppet votes & generally keep an eye on the proceedings. In case of delayed RFA closings they can strike out late votes & after an RFA period is over leave a general summary of the voting proceedings for the closing 'crat in the comments column. Any user having a good knowledge about RFA's & voting procedures will be accepted as member. What do you think? Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But won't this be extra bureaucracy for a trivial task? The voters who watchlist each RfA are quite good at pointing out discrepancies or fraud votes already. Kimchi.sg 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet we have cases like those mentioned above where duplicate votes slip through. In my RFA as mentioned above the duplicate vote was tallied & missed by the bureaucrat even though it was quite close to the orignal vote (no. 49 & 55). If we check all archived RFA's we might probably find many such votes. I doubt that such a commitee will increase bureaucracy. All the committee will do is organized RFA watchlisting. And all the 'watchlisters' (still searching for a better word) will do is keep an eye on their assigned RFA's. The only proper task is to add a voting summary to the comments section like "No duplicate votes found. No sockpuppet votes apparent." at the end of the RFA. The committee will just make life slightly easier for the 'crats. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No m:instruction creep, please. There's no evidence that an official committee will substantially improve the situation, which - at any rate - does not appear critical. If the double votes are enough to tip the balance, people would be combing the RfA (and its subsequent closure) for any discrepancies whatsoever. On the other hand, if it's clear that the candidate will pass with or without the double vote, whether there was a double vote or not is immaterial. Adding an extra layer of bureaucracy is patently unnecessary, especially since it assumes there will be people eagerly volunteering to help out. On Wikipedia, most things get done ad hoc due to its decentralised nature, which is largely a good thing. The people most interested in an RfA will already be watching it, with or without the committee, and there's no evidence that forming a committee will get more than these interested people to participate. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for an official committee if it just becomes part of the RfA culture to check for and point out double votes, sockpuppet concerns etc. People of course need to have solid backing before pointing out sockpuppet issues because if there's no basis for the concern it's quite rude to claim sockpuppets. But if it becomes part of the culture, newer RfA participants will see the polite way to point out issues in an RfA and we then have a much better checking procedure than all the bcrats put together could do. - Taxman ^Talk 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for an official commitee, but an unofficial one might be good. Similar to how RC Patrol works - there's no burocracy around it, but there are particular people that regularly do it. --Tango 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Then have at it! :) I take it upon myself to help ensure RfAs are stamped with the proper end time, are closed properly, and other sundry tasks around RfA related pages. Didn't take a committee :) So, go for it. You don't need approval :) --Durin 14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can handle the closing unless you're talking about failed ones removed under WP:SNOW. :) But the rest would be great and would make closings nearly flawless. Lets see, the tasks would be sock checking, double vote checking, proper end times, making sure the numbering isn't messed up due to comments. Anything else? Maybe we could put that up at WP:RfA/RfA Patrol because this talk page discussion will be lost in the archive eventually. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we need anything formal. --Durin 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about a bit, I feel the guys above are right. A committee is unnecessary & will be m:instruction creep. Like Durin says above, anyone interested can take up the job themselves & they don't need any approval. Well so much for my brilliant brain fart, guess I'll go back to patrolling RFA's myself. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to expect a bureaucrat to spot minor errors in an RfA that is not close. Double votes happen more often than you think. Mine had two cases of double voting. Anyone who spots it should fix it. the more 100+ vote RfAs we have, the more common double voting that goes unnoticed will become. NoSeptember ^talk 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Even though such mishaps are more common than one might think, the overwhelming majority of them gets spotted and pointed out before the RfA is closed, so it is rather rare that one of those will get by — and if they do, it's usually because the RfA went very smoothly, so the chance that any real harm might be done is quite slim. Redux 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the candidate would be most likely to spot it, I spotted it when MONGO voted twice on my RfA. Prodego ^talk 23:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Oversight (Archive 59)

Moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#New access class oversight since it isn't really relevant to RFA, and could benefit from a wider audience. the wub "?!" 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat disconcerting (Archive 60)

The problem is not necessarily that someone would write something like this, but that they are probably correct in their analysis. bd2412 T 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The key point is that we should rely on some people known a user and his contributions, and we should weigh question #3 very heavily; a user who's never had a conflict isn't a good admin candidate anyway. However, I think we also need to end the culture of giving our fellow admins more of a free pass than other users; the personal cost of confronting another admin on rules violations is, unfortunately, often quite high. If we don't give admins who start to "correct the right-wing bias on Wikipedia," or whatever other agenda, a free pass when they start breaking rules, then here's what'll happen:

1. Somebody will make 1000+ useful edits.
2. They'll be noticed and forced to stop when they drop their "deep cover."

So no problem. -- SCZenz 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The only part I did not really like from that "essay" is the one stating that, in order to become an administrator, Two key points are to participate in Articles for Deletion and Request for Adminship fairly regularly. When you do this, you should err on the side of deletion and support votes respectively, but generally go with what others say. which goes completely against my beliefs. [4] But I trust voters will examine votes and realize when someone decided to join a waterfall just because. -- ReyBrujo 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If administrators were required to provide their identity to the Foundation confidentially, it would obviate this potential problem. I understand that anonymity has been a tenet of Wikipedia but, by the time a user becomes an administrator, s/he should have sufficient trust in the organization so as to be comfortable taking this step. Accurizer 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And how hard would that be to fake.Geni 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several errors in the person's methodology, which we don't need to detail per WP:BEANS, but most importantly is their failure to understand that admins don't have much special force in content arguments. If an admin tries to POV push they will be opposed and fail to gain consensus. Admins are opposed in their article editing opinions all the time. Any admin that tries to throw their weight around to push a POV will be discovered and if attention is drawn to it as necessary they will be unsuccessful. - Taxman ^Talk 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen it personally, yet, but I would hope that an admin abusing their power to attempt to bypass policies would end up getting demoted before too long. On another note, do many people actually feel that Wikipedia leans to the right? I'm an opinionated moderate, so I've found that conservatives think I'm liberal, and liberals think I'm conservative. I imagine Wikipedia has some of the same problems when editors try to report facts without taking sides. Sxeptomaniac 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly take that statement at face value. If anything, Wikipedia has a politically negative and anti-establishment bias, by which I mean that it is much more inclined to report negative things that can be said about any politician than positive... then again, I think most politicians are corrupt, and have set up a system that feeds their corruption, so who am I to say? Cheers! bd2412 T 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's basically an information inclusion bias. As long as they have good sources to cite, either side can keep the negative information about their opponents in an article. And we have enough people on all sides of the spectrum to ensure that everyone gets smeared ;-). I find it amusing that so many people think that negative information about a politician in a Wikipedia article is going to help defeat them, it has a lot less impact than people suppose. NoSeptember 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this sounded familiar, it's from this thread on Wikipedia Review. the wub "?!" 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is, if we made Colin an admin for a month and then took it away, and asked him to "earn" it back over the next few months, he'd probably decide to not bother to work for it, once he realized how little power an admin really has. (Let me know if I violated the official "admin secrecy pledge" here, I don't want to discourage people from working hard for adminship, we always need more workers ;-). NoSeptember 15:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT???!? Admins have very little power?!?!?? Oh man, I thought adminship would be my ticket to taking over the world, or at least to joining the cabal. *sigh* I'm going to have to rethink my adminship then. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can admins even do any real damage? Maybe with image deletions, but I was under the impression deleted images can be retreived by devs. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They just took away our last significant power, now that images can be undeleted by admins, it doesn't even take a developer to do it :p. NoSeptember 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true. However any admin who did do something simular to what I'm thinking of would be neutralised instantly.Geni 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Block Jimbo? —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! I know what it is! It's AAAAAH THE WP:BEANS POLICE ARE BEATING ME WITH BLUNT STICKS oh ow ow ow help —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty pathetic when "knowing" what one can do is one's power, not actually doing anything ;). NoSeptember 01:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Jimbo is soooooo six or seven months ago. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Given geni does a lot of image-related work, I think unprotecting all the images on the Main Page would be more like it. Kimchi.sg 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's too late!!! You're stuck with the work, ha ha ha ha ha!!! bd2412 T 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Images can be undeleted by any admin, AFICT (haven't tried myself), but only if deleted after 03:35 June 16, 2006. So, the only unreversible action an admin can do is to merge page histories (this also can be undone, but not automatically). (Liberatore, 2006) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOO!!!! </ Luke and Anakin Skywalker mode> --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We just have to fake it. We are admins at the 16th biggest website in the universe! We MUST be powerful. NoSeptember 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you not feel that aura of admin power? I can... it's... intoxicating. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys being funny? I think there's a policy against that somewhere... —D-Rock 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your boldness, being the only non-admin to join this sub-thread. Don't forget to file the permission slip you received permitting you to do so ;). NoSeptember 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to bother if someone is trying to make his way to admin status. Just think about it...He will have to make atleast 2,000 non-minor edits to stand a chance at RfA. If someone did that, he certainly has helped Wikipedia a lot, even if it is addition of stray names and dates here and there. After he becomes an admin, he will realize how powerless admins are. He will either have the option of taking the janitorial route (which I think isn't what he looked for) or try to force POV in an article. Even the latter would be difficult in popular articles and since disputable content is added after discussion based on merits, he will feel powerless. He couldn't even block those who oppose him as most regular users know their way to ANI or some other experienced user. All he can do is bite the newcomers; again a risky thing to do. Overall, I think he will refrain from using it wrongly for the fear of losing admin power for something so cheap. What I feel is that he will leave Wikpedia as a satisfied user having satisfied his "ego" or just save it for the rainy days (i.e. some eventuality that actually would never arise), in which case he will need to keep coming back doing some serious edits. Hence, anyway it won't harm Wikipedia. If we can get 2,000 good edits per account in return of boosting a person's ego, is it really such a bad deal? I think we should welcome more COLINs. :D -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambuj, how do you know that admins are powerless? wait till one of us blocks you ;) --Gurubrahma 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gurubrahma, I am blocking you for 1 year for making a threat. Ah... that felt great! Better than coffee! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for that, I'm changing your username. See how long it takes you to get blocked and how much power you have when your username is Death on WHEELS!! - Taxman ^Talk 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have the guts... Death on WHEELS 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have lost my permission slip. Will you take an affadavit from my dog saying I'm more or less a nice guy? —D-Rock 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"16th bigggest website in the universe!" In the UNIVERSE??? Ahem. Here on Earth maybe but I challenge you to produce a cite for that outlandish claim!... ok, seriously, I've seen this essay and variants of it before... surprised it took almost month to surface after being posted this time ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia first.. (Archive 61)

What should we do about this? Apparently, an current admin candidate has just died. [5] — The King of Kings 21:00 July 03 '06

I'd say wait several hours to make sure someone isn't just playing a horribly sick joke, then close HRE's RfA. Of course, it would probably also be appropriate to post a message on his talk page and/or User:Sad News's talk page sending condolences. joturner 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was a joke, then this person would have also been a hacker because he posted the same above message on HRE's account. [6] — The King of Kings 21:09 July 03 '06

I'll, unfortunately, have to agree that that confirms it. I presume that the person who made that post was HRE's brother, who knew his password. joturner 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't 'have' to know his password. Sometimes, if you don't log out before you leave the computer, the next time you get on, it will automatically log on under the name you were on previously. I do that all the time. I'm thinking thats what happened here. — The King of Kings 21:32 July 03 '06

In any case, that would only confirm he was very close to HRE to have access to his computer, which was why I chose to believe this is true. -- ReyBrujo 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, HRE used a university or library connection sometimes. If someone then used the same terminal, is it possible for them to change the password so the real HRE would not be able to log back in? If the car crash happened, it should be in the papers. I know someone currently living in Belgrade as I assume many others who voted on the RfA have. This COULD be verified, even if it entices breaking the anonymity rule. I just do not want to think this is real. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, this ruined my day.. :( — The King of Kings 21:38 July 03 '06

I didn't mean to make it sound like I was still skeptical; the method of signing onto his account is completely insignificant. By the way, could one of you post to my talk page a little bit of information on how to connect to IRC? I've attempted it previously on my own to no avail and it's times like these I feel out of the loop. Thanks in advance. joturner 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a unification of these talks, currently this is talked in the Comments section of the RFA, the talk page of HRE's RFA, and here. Sad as it is, we should keep calm and direct all discussions about this matter to a single page to prevent cross posting, especially with matters this serious. -- ReyBrujo 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep it here; talk pages of individual RfAs aren't as visible. joturner 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the majority of the discussion is occuring on IRC. And at the moment the best thing to do would probably be take things slow and wait a bit. Cowman109^Talk 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be a housemate, friend or relative playing a prank. I don't think it's usual to refer to one's "minimal accomplishments in real life" if someone you know has actually died. Homey 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what is going on at IRC, WT:RFA (ie, here) should be the main venue for discussions relating to on-Wikipedia/RfA issues. This is indeed very serious and very sad. But we need to take it one step at a time: we must remember that there had been suspicions that HRE's password had been compromised in the past. For that reason, I can't take that post as undeniable confirmation of these terrible news. However, it is also true that HRE is a very active user, so I would propose this: if his account remains inactive for three days, I'd be fairly certain that something bad did happen, and then we can take the necessary steps about his RfA. Until then, if anything out of respect for HRE, we should keep it active. Of course, this is all subject to change, bearing the presentation of impressive evidence either way — such as HRE's return to editing. If this is acceptable, once the period of time elapses, I will close the RfA and archive it properly.
Furthermore, if we confirm HRE's passing, and being that his account has undoubtedly been compromised, I will block it indefinitely. Suggestions? Thoughts? Redux 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for the 'crat to chime in (sad grin). I concur wholeheartedly. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ReyBrujo 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

+ concurrence. joturner 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anybody noting the posibility HRE is not dead. Now I'm doing that: what if he's not dead? --Dijxtra 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there is the possibility of a compromised account, most likely by someone getting onto his computer which has autologin or something. If HRE returns to editing I'm sure he'll be very, very careful to log out properly in future. Otherwise I think we proceed as Redux suggested- basically wait a few days and see. Petros471 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Disclamer: I realise the thing that I'm going to say is highly inapropriate if HRE is dead. So, please read my following sentence baring in mind that there is no firm evidence that HRE is dead: What if HRE is alive and this is his way of leaving Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dijxtra (talk • contribs) . Sorry for forgetting to sign --Dijxtra 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to stop with the hypotheticals. Let's not come up with possible situations as it's horribly disrespectful whether he's dead or alive. joturner 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continues in several locations; this has been brought up (except for the "his way of leaving" possibility, last I looked). I have been looking over HRE's contribs and a long break during these hours is unusual (he's usually winding down about now), but not unprecedented (roughly 3 times in the last month). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be great. Yes, for once I'd like to hope someone's account was hacked (and there's still a part of me that believes it's possible as the statement mentions that the poster received a list from HRE). I would like to see HRE show up here and say my idiot friend was messing around with my account; I'm not dead!, but I don't want to get my hopes up. Unfortunately, his contribution history shows that he often contributes around this time. But we haven't seen anything from him in nine hours. joturner 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this news be true, it will of course be sad for all of us, and we would not want to say or do anything now that we would regret if the worst turns out to be the case. On the other hand, we have to suspend judgement, as we are surely used to all kinds of behaviour on wiki, until we can establish the truth; and that is a reasonable thing to want to ascertain. In the meantime, I suggest the RfA is protected, with a note to direct to this discussion and a request that the RfA is not edited. If HRE is not hurt, but returns, the RfA can be continued with extra time added for the time suspended. Tyrenius 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. BTW, does (did) HRE have an e-mail? Orane (talk • cont.) 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we respectfully ask for Sad News's understanding that we are often plagued with false messages on this encyclopedia, and we are worried about making a mistake here, as it is not usual for someone who has opened a new account to be so conversant with how to use wikipedia and send messages so quickly,[7] although we realise there could be a proper explanation for this. Also that someone logging on for the first time would not normally bother to create a user name, although again we see that this could have been done as a sign of respect to communicate grief. Furthermore, wikipedians do not usually keep lists of other wikipedians, as this is stored for them. If however he did do the most unusual thing of passing on a list, while he was dying, this only shows how much wiki meant to him. However, in order not to needlessly upset a lot of people and create a situation of bad faith, we need to move carefully at the moment, and we know that this is something HRE would understand and wish. Tyrenius 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict) Unluckily, the piece of news and the way it was informed has disrupted the normal flow of Wikipedia, where it is assumed that the edits made by an account have been effectively made by the owner of the account. At this point, if he is alive (wish I could say this as confirmation and not assumption), he cannot probe that by just editing with the HRE account, as his account integrity may have been compromised. A mail to the foundation or some admin/crat would be (not ideal but) more suitable to probe identity, as the last thing we want is to have someone else to edit under HRE's name. -- ReyBrujo 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we can't be certain either way, I would not suspend an RfA based on less-than-concrete evidence. I would trust users to use their better judgement when/if participating in the RfA. However, it is undeniable that this situation can affect the outcome decisively. So how about this (naturally, only if HRE turns out well): if this is resolved quickly, I will consider an extension matching the period of time during which we were sorting this out. If we end up having to wait a longer period of time to confirm the situation, and depending on how long it takes and how the RfA progresses during this time, I will consider restarting the RfA (again, only if HRE is well). Redux 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and if his account were compromised with its password changed, he would probably log on with another account and let us know... since we have yet to see an announcement like that, we have to assume that, in one way or another, HRE has left Wikipedia. I truly hope that this is just his way of leaving, but I think we have to assume the worst. Maybe we can ask HRE's cousin to tell us his real name so we can have leave a proper tribute in his name. --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I proposed that to Cousin on IRC, but he didn't disclose HRE's identity. I also proposed guys on #wikipedia-sr to call the police and ask whether a anybody died in a car accident today, but nobody wants to do that. --Dijxtra 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I refuse to believe this because I think it's false or because I don't want it to be true. I was only talking to him a few days ago... --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me evil but I don't believe it. How did cousin know to go straight to RfA, to use talk, to use edit summaries, and to speak of "distrustful admins on IRC"? I was here two months before I even heard of IRC. These posts are coming allegedly a few hrs after HRE died - and this makes absolutely zero sense. I just don't believe it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me evil also. I deal with death and dying on a daily basis, and this is by no means legitimate. Most likely a hoax, less likely a hack, but I give it no credence at all -- Samir धर्म 01:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No harm in waiting it out and seeing what happens, I guess. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe HolyRomanEmperor's name was Igor. — The King of Kings 23:08 July 03 '06

As I see it, his cousin's name is Igor. --Dijxtra 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[8] Oops, your right. — The King of Kings 23:15 July 03 '06

This is Sad News' 2nd edit. read the edit summary. Does this make any sense?? - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sad News appears to be trying to prove that he has access to HRE's account, so is using his PC to access his account? It seems to just be an attempt to prove what he is saying is true. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deskana - I ask you - where would Sad News know about "distrusty admins on IRC" from?? - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A guy with nick "Cousin" was on IRC and said he was the cousin of HRE. --Dijxtra 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLOCK, I have given HRE's account an indefinent block. Contact me if this needs to be removed for some reason. --W.marsh 23:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Isn't that a bit hasty? I think HRE should be unblocked ASAP. I am an administrator but I don't want to start a wheel war. Does any other administrator think I souhl unblock HRE? --Dijxtra 23:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't only assume hoax here people. It might be possible that his cousin has used Wikipedia before. It's very possible that HRE has died. Could I also ask someone with CheckUser if HRE and Sad News came from the same IP. If its not the same IP, its probably a hacker, if its they same IP, I think we can eliminate a couple of options. — The King of Kings 23:23 July 03 '06

That would probe little, as he may have connected from his own house. -- ReyBrujo 23:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK is rather clear cut on this issue. I don't know how to but this delicately, but if HRE comes to says he's not dead, I will of course remove the block, or any other admin can do that for me. Otherwise there's no need for the account to be used. --W.marsh 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he cannot come to say he's not dead because he is blocked. --Dijxtra 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He can edit his talk page, or send me an e-mail. I am also on IRC now so I can be reached there. --W.marsh 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is able to confirm this, please let me know and we can post the relevant information to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. If anyone can find an obituary that would also help.--Alabamaboy 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Either:

1. HRE is dead
2. HRE's account is compromised
3. HRE has played a hideous prank by way of saying goodbye

I have no opinion as to which of those has occurred (I do hope it isn't 1 or 3) but I believe the list is exhaustive. The block makes sense for all three scenarios, really. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I thought it over, it makes sence. Let the block stay. --Dijxtra 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In a situation of such extremity, a family member, identifying themselves by their real name, and giving an ongoing means of contact, would communicate, and, furthermore, would give HRE's real name, as there would be no need for anonymity. These things would be done, so that friends of his on wiki could properly pay their respects, and obtain details of the funeral, to which some might want to go. When a death has occurred, people do not make these kind of anonymous communications. We await these details, and, until they are provided, must assume that they have not been given, because we are not dealing with that reality; we must assume in fact that this is a hoax, whether perpetrated by a hacker, by a friend or family member or by HRE himself. Tyrenius 23:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly, he is perpetually logged in as I am, one of his younger siblings (or older siblings...doubtful though) found the computer he was using (if they are living in the same home) and thought it would be funny to deliver a prank. My young brother, Clyde Miller, has sometimes shared a computer with me (including right now), and he has twice made the mistake of editing under my username. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was one of HRE's siblings delivering this sad news or playing a cruel prank.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was a prank, more than likely, in some way, we'll hear from HRE again. If he (a fairly active user) doesn't respond within a few days, I think we can assume the worst. — The King of Kings 23:52 July 03 '06

Consider this, copied from HRE's RfA:

I don't like how this nomination goes - especially ig Joy doesn't support for adminship (I do not know a better person/wikipedian). I'm going to leave this nomination today and maybe tomorrow - if there are some more complains (especially if we get a deja vu from my last nomination - I don't want to pass through all that again), I'm pulling it and assessing the corresponding matters. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, "hoax" was one of the first things that occurred to me; after reading that edit earlier, it also occurred to me that the user might have left his home in anger, taking a drive to "cool off". Over the years, I've done it dozens of times; fortunately, I've never been involved in a serious accident as a result, but we have to assume the possibility. I'm in the wait-and-watch camp, no question. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If we continue making "what if", "but", "look this" sentences, we may reach terrible conclusions . We can just wait. Maybe in a couple of days we will learn some more. -- ReyBrujo 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trying very hard to WP:AGF, but I wasn't born yesterday, and this just reeks of an utterly terrible hoax. -- Samir धर्म 00:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We have been told nothing of any substance and nothing that can be verified, only things that will play on people's worst fears. Until shown otherwise, I suggest that this should be treated as a classic cry for help, by someone who has a strong emotional commitment to wiki and is feeling terribly rejected by it yet again, as in HRE's comment above: "I don't want to pass through all that again." He's said what he's going to do: "pulling it" and he has. Tyrenius 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very apt synopsis -- Samir धर्म 00:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I have seen a friend going through what appears to be the same thing (though less extreme) and causing a lot of distress. I am concerned that people don't get hurt by this, when it could well turn out there is nothing to get hurt about. Tyrenius 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely stunned at your failure to assume good faith. NSLE 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF is a policy for discussion in general, but not for something as bizarre as this. Ashibaka tock 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

HRE's RfA should probably be closed now. Either: 1) the unspeakable has happened; or 2) something very strange has happened. The first possibility renders the RfA moot and disrespectful; the second would corrupt it irredeemably, even if HRE has been the victim of an awful prank. Keeping the RfA open feels very wrong, from my POV; It is my nature to assume no one would ever perpetrate a hoax of this sort. Although I appreciate skepticism, it also feels odd to see comments evaluating the truthfulness of this circumstance. A close is best for all. Xoloz 00:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If this was a horrible prank, then having it cost him his potential adminship would be extremely unfair to him. Obviously it needs to get resolved exactly what happened, but I think it's premature to shut down the RfA. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Without meaning any disrespect to him, I don't think this event will change anything with regard to adminship (assuming he is alive), as support is only around 65% currently. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't it be put on hold, till we know for sure what's going on? Tyrenius 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Something's got to be done.[9]. Options seem to be "close" or "protect" with a note not to edit? Tyrenius 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is easy way to confirm whether he is live or not. His cousin should give us his real name and I will tomorrow see in newspaper whether such person died in car accident or not (Such accidents are usually mentioned in daily newspaper in Serbia). PANONIAN (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the gravity of the situation, it's kind of silly that we're concerned with whether he can be an admin or not. He might not even be alive. I strongly encourage a b'crat to close the RfA quickly. --W.marsh 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It *might* be a prank, nothing has been confirmed. I suggest we stick to Redux's plan in the previous section: Wait 3 days before closing the RfA. Kimchi.sg 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we wait three days, unless W.marsh and all those who want this RFA closed are willing to "compensate" HRE in that sense if he is still indeed alive. NSLE 02:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Suppose it's a prank... if HRE took part in it, and admits that, he'll never become an admin. If he was an innocent party, is there absolutely any chance the RfA would succeed in 3 days? I think we need to assume good faith (as odd as it sounds in this situation) and assume he's dead until there's actual evidence (as opposed to conjecture) otherwise. And in that case, the RfA should be closed. Like I say, there's no point in keeping it open anyway. --W.marsh 02:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Several hours removed from my earlier comments, and especially with the knowledge that this has spread over several fora, I would remove this Rfa from the main page and suspend, rather than close, it. We can, if need be, reinstate this with proper retroactivity. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a little bit of caution wouldn't go amiss. Suspending it gives everything a chance to settle down, rather than rushing into a decision, which might not seem the right one tomorrow. Tyrenius 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

His account has been used by someone claiming not to be him, and has been blocked indefinitely. This account can never be sysopped, even if it should eventually be unblocked. It is compromised. The RFA should close and remain closed. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states that an account which gets compromised at some point is permanently not-sysoppable? I can understand being really careful about such cases, but people's computers get cracked from time to time and laptops get stolen... even with firewalls and good virus checkers and the like. Not that this seems likely to come back in this case, since someone must have gotten enough credible confirmation to Danny that he asked for the RfA to be closed 8-( Georgewilliamherbert 03:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another ridiculous failure to AGF. If it was indeed just used by a relative, but he's still alive, requesting a new password would work (as a relative wouldn't get away with changing the email I'm sure). I would only accept that in a circumstand in which he may have forgotten to sign off at a public computer. NSLE 02:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, any kind of action would be based on speculation, since we do not have any kind of conclusive evidence as to what might have happened. I know it can be frustrating, but right now we really must wait and see. We need to be able to verify, at the very least, that HRE is not being the victim of a prank. Here's what we can do, depending on how this plays out:

• Scenario 1: In less than 3 days, HRE returns and admits that he was behind the news: I will allow the RfA to complete normally, since the candidate would have caused the situation himself. If it fails, it will be delisted and archived normally — but I would consider an early delist if, in the wake of the situation, the RfA were to turn into a pileon.
• Scenario 2: In less than 3 days, HRE turns up and it is revealed that he was the victim of a prank: I will not allow pranksters to cost him a fair, 7-day RfA. If that happens, the RfA may be extended or even restarted, in order to give HRE a fair chance (unless he decides to withdraw).
• Scenario 3: If nothing new is revealed, and HRE does not posts in his talk page (since he is blocked) for three days: I will close the RfA early and archive it.

I am not assuming any of the scenarios to be true at this point, simply because I have no evidence to support any of them beyond the shadow of a doubt. The three-day period of time is only because we can't let the uncertainty last forever, and since HRE is a fairly active user, a three-day absence, during an active RfA, would be extremely unlikely, and that would provide us with a minimum degree of assurance to shut down his RfA.
I agree that, save for an extraordinary situation, the hacking of the account may be resolved by changing passwords. It is also worth noticing that the community would no doubt demand from HRE reassurance as to the status of his account before granting him sysophood. Redux 02:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Would support this suggestion. NSLE 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A good suggestion, but perhaps moot in the light that the RFA has since been delisted, closed and fully protected. Jude (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with the scenarios, except for that it's a terrible idea and utterly pointless to leave the RfA open now with what we know now, which is not much. That is just a total trainwreck to have an RfA open of someone who is, if we assume good faith, dead. Freeze it until we know something new... either we hear from him, or it's been a reasonable ammount of time (3 days is okay) to assume he's not coming back.--W.marsh 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have explicit tags for a suspend I don't think. I've reverted NLSE's reversion and protected the page. I further put a note in saying that it's not necessarily a permanent closure. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that your original protection of the page violated WP:PP2. Do not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute (Category:Conflicts). NSLE 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

following the dictates of the OFFICE is not an edit dispute. pschemp | talk 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The RfA would remain open because we don't know what happened, and we can't assume either way at this point. I realize that the situation is without precedent, which is why this is being discussed here. Now, so far we had absolutely no support to suspend, protect and certainly not to delist the RfA at this point. On the contrary, several users have supported my proposed course of action. Lar, you said that Danny asked for it to be delisted. I'm sorry, but if this was asked on IRC, it absolutely cannot stand, and especially if it happened, as it appears, in a restricted-access channel. I've been working with the community on this from the beginning, as I felt that the situation would be best resolved not with a unilateral decision from a Bureaucrat, but rather in a concerted decision, given the uniqueness of the situation. Unless the users here support what has been done, I'm afraid I'll have to ask that those actions be reverted. Redux 03:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there's this: [10]. Don't know what to say really, it will probably be clarified a bit better in time. --W.marsh 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty much ices it for the moment... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, this stands. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Strike, per above. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You can ask, but they won't be reverted by anyone who wants to keep their sysop bits. This situation is under "Office" supervision now; no editor who wishes to remain an editor in good standing will act contrary to the instructions given us by the Foundation's executive staff. This RFA is suspended/closed and shall remain that way until instructions from the contrary are received from the Foundation executive office. May I remind you that (a) Wikipedia is not a democracy, and (b) an executive decision of the Foundation takes precedence over the decision of any number of bureaucrats, and also that of the community? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this "obey or else" seems to be way too heavy handed. I hope things are not the way you see them. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

Wikilawyering is not necessary. I know my policy. I was following the data from Lar and Bookofjude, and it led me to believe that something had been decided over at IRC, trumping the discussions. This should not have been done so soon into the problem though. It's not like this would be the first elaborate attempt at undermining a user, if this turns out to be a prank. The RfA would have been closed as soon as we had minimal elements to dismiss the possibility that this was a prank played on HRE. My sole purpose was to safeguard his right to a fair RfA, and not have it be derailed by a [in-terrible-taste] prank (should that be the case, which we can not dismiss at this point). Redux 03:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not a matter of something being decided by IRC talking admins trumping developing consensus here onWiki (something I do not care for at all), it was that Danny (acting officially) was asking that things be done a certain way, and that DOES trump consensus, and it became an OFFICE action. I agree with the suggested recourses you outlined and think that once this is resolved they ought to be used, but the edit warring had to stop which is (I speculate) why Danny stepped in. I guess I could have waited til he had time to do it himself but he asked that it be done, and I'd rather think that people are willing to take my word for stuff when I say that Danny asked. I've placed my actions up for review at WP:AN/I ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I never doubted that Danny had asked you to do that. I only thought that he was making a Bureaucrat decision from IRC — certainly because OFFICE is not that common to see around (thank goodness) — since I knew that intense discussions were taking place there as well. I thought that it would be unusual for Danny to do that, but given the uniqueness and gravity of the situation, I did think it could have happened. Really, this was/is a very unsual, disturbing even, situation, and I believe that everyone was doing their best to have it resolved as smoothly as possible while showing HRE and the whole situation the due respect. It was a minor miscommunication, thankfully with no higher repercussions. There really is no need for your actions to be reviewed. Redux 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I support Danny's judgment. Whether true or not, the report of sad events has compromised this RfA. If HRE were to return now, and be proved an innocent victim of a terrible prank, this thing would absolutely need to restarted. A report of death renders this RfA completely nuts. In fact, let's all stop thinking about the RfA, and start sending positive karma/prayers/wishes HRE's way, eh? Xoloz 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Xoloz completly. The important thing we have to remember is we just someone in the community, whether it by hack, prank or death, he's not here. So show so love, eh? — The King of Kings 03:38 July 04 '06

I agree with Danny's reasoning. My condolences to HRE's family. Werdna (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine DragonflySixtyseven -- will be able to provide use with a few more details in time.[11] I wonder whether this phenonmenon has a name yet? Internet death?[12]

Death and the internet is a strange beast -- as the following sites tell: ::Death & internet friendship IRC friend died Death on MySpace. I imagine a wikipedia article about this is the future... regardless of the exact circumstance here. The uncertainty about death in cyberspace is reality. Either way... it seems we've lost a good contributor. Nephron  T|C 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just today I bumped into Anna Svidersky, while wandering through articles doing small fixes. -- ReyBrujo 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a bureaucrat compare the IP addresses of the last and the previous posts by HRE and those by SadNews. Just to be sure. Tintin (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That would require a person with checkuser, not a bureaucrat. Naconkantari 05:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I thought all b'crats had checkuser permission (which, as you said, isn't true) Tintin (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think CheckUser would tell us anything. Any of the 3 situations are possible either way. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 07:12Z

Probably not. If there is no foul play, the last HRE post should have come from HRE's own machine and from his usual IP. If it did not, it will need an explanation. Tintin (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think CheckUser could serve some purpose as it would eliminate a couple of optins to what happened. A couple of possibilities are that his account was hacked, which would prove to be definantly a differant IP than HRE's. HRE could have been using a public computer, so if we gave a CheckUser to Sad News, and it proved to be differant than HRE's normal home computer, than that would prove it once again. Then the only options left is that he died or that it was a prank either by someone or HRE. — The King of Kings 08:13 July 04 '06

Stopping the RfA

From Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4

Given the circumstances, this RfA is stopped until the matter can be clarified further and conclusively. I will assume that the HRE or his family are watching this page, and hope that someone contacts me directly to clarify this matter. I can be reached at dwool AT wikimedia DOT org. Thank you and best wishes. Danny 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true (and I see no reason to believe it isn't), honestly, this whole page ought to be deleted. Some of this discussion is just downright distasteful given the circumstances. BigDT 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go as far as to delete it. Maybe a courtesy blanking would be sufficient. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is under WP:OFFICE. I would advise against blanking. Ashibaka tock 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was talking about this talk page, not the RFA itself. I don't know about the RFA ... maybe opening it back up so that those who would like to strike their own oppose votes can? I was considering making that request. But anyway, I was referring to this talk page - it's distasteful. BigDT 14:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't think we delete comments based on the rationale of it being distasteful. Distasteful, maybe in some eyes, but delete worthy, no. This had to be discussed one way or the other. The RFA is currently under the advisory of WP:OFFICE and shouldn't be edited. Next, why would people reverse their vote or oppostion about HRE in this stage of the conversation, at this point, its almost confirmed to be a hoax. That would actually make more people change their support if anything. — The King of Kings 14:19 July 04 '06

I, personally, if this turns out to be true, would like to remove not my vote, but my own comments. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do. It's a respectful thing to do. I'm not going to try and tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do - I'm just asking for my own oppose comments to be removed if he actually has passed away. As for this talk page, pretend you are a grieving family member and read it. If it is true, the talk page ought to be removed or blanked out of good basic human decency. BigDT 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If WP:OFFICE gives us a go on editing the RFA, then fine, but user nor admin should be editing it as stated on the template there. As it stands there is no grieving family member as it was a hoax, see below. Comments are usually deleted because of personal information being released, not because of the harshness of a conversation. — The King of Kings 14:36 July 04 '06

Information

What I read today in newspaper (Večernje novosti, Utorak, 4. Jul 2006.), is that the only person that yesterday died in car accident in Serbia was from Sivac (a village in the Kula municipality of Serbia). As far as I know, HRE was not from Sivac, but from Belgrade. Regarding this, I do not think that he is dead, not only because of this information, but also because of not very high possibility that somebody who dying would call his cousin and tell him to inform certain users of Wikipedia about his death. Also, regarding the writting style of his cousin, which is by my observation very similar to the writting style of HRE, I suspect that User:Sad News is nobody else but HRE himself. Even User:CrnaGora was unable to trick me with his joke, not to mention this. PANONIAN (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that this was his way to leave Wikipedia as HRE, but he probably will come back as new user starting from the beginning. PANONIAN (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Da ne griješim dušu, but you theory looks really plausible:
1) how did User:Sad News (contribs) know for certainty who Holy's wikifriends were, and left a message to their talk pages? and
2) They both use the characteristic syntagm "good friend" [13]
3) this stinks.
4) HRE was likely employed or studied on University of Belgrade, and this IP address belongs there. If your cousin died yesterday, would you sit 2 hours at the (university?) computer in the middle of the day? Duja 12:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No way. And my aunt and uncle would not even think about sending a cousin off to post messages on a website the day after one of my cousin's died. They would be too grief-stricken to even think about things like that. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly and it wasn't even a whole day. Comparing the UTC to the time zone Serbia is in, his "accident" had to have happen sometime between 4:30 pm (his last contribution) and 11 p.m. (when User:Sad News posted the first message about his death). Now how can a family go through a tramatic experience like this and plan a funeral (message posted at my talk) all in this short period of time that this occured? — The King of Kings 13:23 July 04 '06

I think the latest edits by Sad News are helping confirm this is not true. Posting a notice about the death is one thing, to keep on trying to post (see User talk:Sad News for all the autoblocker activity) on somewhere other than on the talk page, combined with the things pointed out above (like this) makes it look like a hoax for me. Some sort of external confirmation (like externally reported news of the accident) is needed for this to be believed properly. Petros471 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not middle of the day.The posts seem to be from 9.22 pm to 10.39 pm Belgrade time, which is very odd indeed. Tintin (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You refering to the comment made on the IP coming from the University of Belgrad? — The King of Kings 13:45 July 04 '06

Sorry. It was about the first few posts, but it could have been from anywhere. I have deleted that comment. Tintin (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh.. ok. ;-) — The King of Kings 13:52 July 04 '06

---

It also appears that the two users Sad News and HRE has a distinct preferable time to edit. HRE and Sad News both prefer to edit at the same times:

HRE's contributions:

• 10:05, 1 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Podgorica Assembly
• 22:52, 30 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Mehmed-paša Sokolović (as per the talk page's suggestion; some minor improvements)

Sad News contributions Now and Monday, June 3rd:

• 10:20, 4 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sad News (?)
• 21:39, 3 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4

I think I rest my case. — The King of Kings 14:06 July 04 '06

HRE's message on sr-wikipedia

Please observe this: [14]. This is... somebody (I don't know who's who anymore really) using HRE's account on serbian wikipedia to post a message. I will now translate the message. --Dijxtra 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't read serbian, but I think that's HRE. ;-) And I can read the English on there, so I just saw [15]. — The King of Kings 14:22 July 04 '06

The uncyclopedia page has been deleted. What was one it? BigDT 14:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a newly created account, it wasn't deleted. — The King of Kings 14:37 July 04 '06

[16] existed and was deleted, as can be seen here: [17] --Dijxtra 14:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the message:

---

I'm observing the whole situation. I tried to login over Tesla from RC of ETF (computer center of Faculty of Electrotechnics o.p. by Dijxtra), but it won't work (IP address blocked) (I don't have time at home) - I login to this one - and same thing again.

This is one extremely frivolous and distasteful joke. I really don'+t know who could be behind this. What's the worst, have you heard of Uncyclopedia? I heard about it from two sources: 1) last time when I was on Wikipedia IRC, there was a discussion about it and 2) A unknown person (ih, what a coincidence!!!) sent me a message with this link: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User:HRE's_accident

It seems there was an article HolyRomanEmperor on Uncyclopaedia dedicated to God killing me, and that (thank God) I'm burning in hell. But - I took a look at that ridicule of encyclopaedia - and I couldn't find that article anywhere. (the article is deleted, do we know an admin on uncyclopaedia? o.p. by Dijxtra)

I cannot describe amount of frustration I feel at the moment. Help me to fix this insanity.

I see you started to suspect - but, I don't blame you. I just want to know how I feel. Can you please go to Wikipedia and solve this situation? This is a real horror. First of all I cannot understand how this happened (OK, I can understand that there are people who are against me and who would do all kinds of things), but I can't understand why.

And now excuse me - I'm blocking this guy's comp. --[18] 15:55, 4. July 2006. (CEST)

---

--Dijxtra 14:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt to communicate with him over the Serbian Wikipedia. — The King of Kings 14:45 July 04 '06

Checkuser findings

There is a direct correlation between the IP addresses used by HolyRomanEmperor and SadNews. I've resolved to two distinct physical locations, both in Serbia. I think we safely dismiss the "hacking" claim: if true, then his university room and his private residence (parent's home?) have also been compromised. I find this highly unlikely. Editing times are consistent with the pattern of going to bed in the evening. Based on what I've seen, I am confident that if HolyRomanEmperor's account has been compromised, it is by someone who has obtained direct physical access. This is consistent with what's been revealed so far by the supposed family member. The other possibility is that HRE is faking his own death, a distasteful proposition but one we have to consider. The IP evidence supports this interpretation as well, obviously, although the shift in edit location from university to home is abrupt, unless he's on vacation. It would be helpful if someone knew the vacation schedule for the University of Belgrade. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what I meant about finding something good on the CheckUser results. Now that the factor of a hacker is out of the way. The only remaining possibility is that he is faking his death. As mentioned in a section above, that have too similar patterns of editing times and the fact he doesn't want to meantion HRE's name is suspicious. — The King of Kings 14:30 July 04 '06

Since nobody else with such knowledge of Wikipedia could have used his PC at home, HRE must be guilty, right? But you are all wrong... The real culprit is... (drumming)... his evil twin brother! If you take a look at the bottom of the last RfE, you will see that HRE explains how he solved controversies of Serbian POV pushers, "including by my own brother". :-) Sorry, just couldn't resist it... And the whole thing is getting ridiculous anyway. --Zmaj 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move this discussion to ANI, it is no longer that relevant to RFA. NoSeptember 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason not to. Mackensen (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No! For the sake of having only one discussion. --Dijxtra 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, no. It is relevant to his RFA, and I think everybody on Wikipedia knows about this from here now. — The King of Kings 14:44 July 04 '06

The less said anywhere the better. This is WP:BEANS that will be the new standard for people leaving and burning their bridges :P. NoSeptember 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if you do move it though, just let it be this section about the CheckUser. — The King of Kings 14:51 July 04 '06

Well, with valid arguments not to move, I won't do so. But the last three sections are a bit off topic on this page. Hopefully, until final confirmation of the true story, there is not much more to be said. NoSeptember 15:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You just have to bare in mind that HRE used a "tunnel" or such to connect to the internet from his home. Namely, he used to connect through ETF (The Faculty of Electrotechnical Engineering in Belgrade) from his home, thus getting IP addresses of the University. I know this because he used to log in on Sunday evenings with those IP addresses to IRC (*@galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu) and facutly in question clearly doesn't work in those hours. The hoax could've, therefore, been ployed by his colleague or anyone who had similar access. --Filip (§) 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, that's useful. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Computational Center of Faculty of Electrotechnical Engineering in Belgrade doesn't work only on January 1st. Other (364/24) time it is working. I am wandering about the second IP address. galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu is a multiuser computer with a couple of thousands of users. It is possible to make SSH connection from anywhere in the world to this computer. If you still need investigation about IPs, please contact me via email. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another case for checkuser

Talking about checkuser... can someone check this post that user:24.66.94.140 (signing as a C-c-c-c, who is blocked) wrote on User talk:Bormalagurski. . Nevermind. See #explanation. --Ante Perkovic 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Original: Hteo sam da ti kazem, bila je ne sreča.[19] C-c-c-c 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation: I wanted to tell you, there was an accident. [20] C-c-c-c 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if this is a hoax, I would like to shed some light on the role of those two users. --Ante Perkovic 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What I understand from the above, is that if this turns out be a hoax', then you'll privy everyone to important information on myself and Boris, and what we have to do with the incident? Wouldn't that mean you're involved too?

P.S. Don't use idioms if you don't know how to use them. C-c-c-c 22:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

A checkuser for what? I was merely informing User: Bormalagurski about the the "accident", because he was about the only person who had a significant history with HRE, who was NOT contacted by User: Sad News. I've been perma blocked, and that has been my only edit, to inform User: Bormalagurski of something he would surely want to know. But now I'm uncertain because no one knows whether it was a hoax or not. I've been perma blocked for a month now, so I'm wondering what kind of light a checkuser would shed on me, the IP I'm using now is the one and only I've EVER used, it's not block evasion, I had seem Bormalagurski editing just before my comments, and knew it could reach his faster that way then by email, so I did. Also, User: Sad News's IP is out of Serbia, likely 10,000km from Canada, so I don't know what evidence you could possibly have. Anyways, Just because I haven't been editing doesn't mean I've stopped reading the discussions. Don't consider everything a conspiracy theory involving myself and Boris. Regards C-c-c-c 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. I somehow understood that you have some news from outside wikipedia, since you mentioned "accident". Nevermind. I apologise for this. --Ante Perkovic 22:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Something doesn't matchup with something you said C-c-c-c. You said Sad News IP is out of Serbia, which it isn't, is actually in Serbia and the same exact location(s) used by HRE. — The King of Kings 06:58 July 05 '06

I think in the use above "out of Serbia" means "coming out of Serbia", i.e. in Serbia. Tyrenius 08:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Confused

OK, help me out here... from the tranlsation, it seems that someone logged on to make us think that HRE had died... but if so, why has he not edited to tell us otherwise (even from an IP or an unblock message)? Am I missing something here --Robdurbar 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You're seeing this mess from the vantage point of a mentally sane person. So, you need a change in perspective.Mir Harven 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if someone compromised HRE's account, they could have changed the password, locking HRE out - although nothing would prevent HRE from creating a new account and writing us from that to inform us of the situation. bd2412 T 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be naive. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Mir Harven 21:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody sum this up for me now? Is he dead, or is this a hoax, or ... I'm confuzzled. —Nightstallion (?) 09:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read through User talk:Sad News who posted this in the first place? Tyrenius 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Or HRE talk page Tyrenius 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back

User:HolyRomanEmperor is back online. And, I'm afraid, this doesn't clarify anything. If you check out his contributions, you will see a creation of a really wierd page in his userspace and some pro-albanian edits. And if you read through his RfA's, you will see some people stating he is a Serbian nationalist, and you will see some Albanians insulting him. And, another curious thing is this edit summary featuring a typo which is highly unlikely for HRE to make, and which was a common spelling error of problematic Albanian user User:Hipi Zhdripi, which has been known to attack HRE. What I'm 95% sure is that Hipi didn't hijack HRE's account since we already know that the person which is behind all of this had access to HRE's private computer. What I'm 100% sure is that I'm getting braindamaged by this situation and that it is time we get some explanations. I propose we request HRE to explain the situation throughly before doing any more edits. --Dijxtra 12:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by the fact that one of HRE's last edits was "My Last Reply to You" to User talk:Emir Arven, who has been somewhat difficult with him. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no other alternative. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this certainly deserves an article in uncyclopedia :))). -- Ante P.

I think I know what is going on here! He is just the first one to be kidnaped by aliens, who made secret pact with the rest of the world against the Serbs. This is real, judging from all the things I've seen on TV Beograd in 1990's. In few days, Boris and some others will also begin to show pro-albanian sentiments. Just wait and see ;). --Ante Perkovic 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge you for an urgent block of... that... Duja 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is now past ludicrous and even those isignificant traces of respect that I had for HRE are disappearing at an alarming rate. There is now a number of edits coming from HRE's account which would seem to indicate that his account has been hijacked by some semi-intelligent Albanian nationalist with broken English (who, my goodness, is the exact opposite of the "actual" HRE and quite conveniently correspond to the profile of Hipi-Zdipi or whatever). Of course, this semi-intellingent Albanian nationalist is now keen to convince us that he is in no way HRE (I mean, the best and the most logical way to harm HRE is to prove to the Wikipedia community that you are not HRE exactly at the moment when you have access to his account. THIS REALLY MAKES SENSE!!!). Of course, this idiotic Albanian nationalist is probably studying/teaching at the same University of Belgrade (again, perfectly sensible). Thirdly, everybody, but the actual HRE, seems to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Should I stop or is it clear that someone is really desparate to provide us with a very lame excuse? 83.131.65.71 13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is wrong exactly, I guess none of us know, but this whole thing is just wrong. I've blocked the account until a satisfactory explanation of this whole series of events is given. --JoanneB 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll support you on that block if anyone questions it. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As will I. I would've blocked him myself, but I was afraid that'd be a little too bold. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Being that the WP:OFFICE got involved, maybe this should be run by Danny. -- Avi 14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did run it by Danny, on IRC. After I explained the situation to him, he agreed that a block would be the best thing to do. He suggested not only blocking but also rollbacking, which I did. --JoanneB 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know WP:OFFICE is dealing with it?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. pschemp | talk 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be possible that the person who compromised his account gave the password to Hipi, who then logged in. Can we get a second Checkuser? Ashibaka tock 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't explain why HRE hasn't logged on as anonymous IP or created another account in order to explain the situation (particularly in view of the fact that it has been established that notes of HRE and Sad News have been coming from his computer (or the computer he normally uses). He has already informed us of his well-being on Serbian Wikipedia condeming the person who was behind this. The note, however, did not contain any reference to his account being hijacked (which is VERY strange because it would be the first thing I would mention). As for the Hipi Z. who is a very interesting account indeed, I can say that this is beginning to be very reminiscent of an almost schizophrenic IP User:87.116.154.180, who attracted much attention back in April after sending a death threat (in broken English of course!) to several Serbian (and other pro-Serbian editors) who edited controversial subjects related to the Kosovo region. Of course, the perceived Albanian version of Scarlet Pimpernel Hipi Z. was immediately blamed for the incident. There was, however, one thing that didn't fit and, unfortunately went unnoticed: the first and only contribution of [User:87.116.154.180] before sending the death threat 4 days later was to make a very pro-Serbian edit on the Cetina river in Croatia. This paradox is reminiscent of the change in editing pattern we have witnessed today with HRE's account. I am sorry, but someone here is playing a game trying to give an impression that the person controlling the account couldn't possibly be HRE. 83.131.72.175 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please explain how you relate to this matter given your obvious keen interest? After all this is your first ever post. - Glen 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the above message was a registered user commenting anonymously.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am attracted to this case because of my keen interest in near-cyber-death experiences and other paranormal phenomena. 83.131.19.212 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lying (on whoever's part) is hardly paranormal :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 09:10Z

Quarl, why are you being so sceptical? No reasonable person can deny the anomalous energy patterns emanating from HRE's account, electronic crop circles left on his discussion page, a mysterious and mischievous Albanian ghost (in dire need of English lessons!) that snatched away his password... 83.131.14.156 10:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 20:26Z

I don't think this is Hipi. No one can beat Hipi's English, and this one's, while far from perfect, is far better than that. Apart from minor spelling mistakes, this is fairly acceptable English. Duja 08:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest another option. Ahem....how about Ferick for starters? He is very lazy in making his edit summaries, ie. this one, with him saying "Kosovo.com is definitely not a reliable information source. I appreciate your affords to “add sources” though", another one here, then there's this really messed up one, here again to similir to what HRE's imposter, or HRE, are making. The two users in question have also had a recent history as is clear here on Ferick's talk page, and it seems Ferick was extremely agitated by HRE efforts to stop the spreading of POV. Ferick has also got a degree in computer science, and it could be that Ferick managed to hack into HRE personal computer, and make edits from there. (I've seen this done before, as kids in my school routinely manage to login into their home PC's to bypass internet filters, and actually shut down the entire system with very little hacking abilities). If Ferick (or anyone else) has any kind of hacking abilities, it wouldn't be to difficult for him to manage this. Again, this is just a thought, my sincere apologies to Ferick if he is pronounced innocent. However it is very good to hear that HRE is alive and okay, let's hope we can sort out the rest of this as quickly as possible. C-c-c-c 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like another, more comitted version of this, an admin in the process of an uncertain RFA making a dramatic exit. 24.94.192.247 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, lets not start rumors about things like that. Jaranda is an admin, and would not, are far as I know, lie about things like that. Plus, he was just stating he was going to be inactive for a little while, not dead. — The King of Kings 01:34 July 08 '06

I agree, that is very different. This case is very odd, but it can be assumed that either for some reason or another HRE is unable to contact us, and someone else is using the HolyRomanEmperor account or (less likely) HRE is delibratly misleading everyone. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering everything so far, I have to still have faith in him, even considering everything against him. I'm presently waiting for a response on the Serbian Wikipedia were I sent him a message, but no response has been made as of now. HRE did post there a little while back that his account here had been hacked, so assuming good faith, I have to believe him. I can't except that HRE would be dilibratly misleading us like this, its not like him. — The King of Kings 02:52 July 08 '06

If we disregard the HRE faking option, whoever is using the account is definitly not Holy Roman Emperor, the user did not know about the e-mail user function, and did not know his/her own username. [21] Prodego ^talk 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if we disregard the HRE faking option, we pretty much have to assume that the current holder of the account is a moron, haven't we? I mean, given her/his severly limited intellectual capacity - of which Prodego has furnished us with some evidence - it is a miracle of the awe inspiring kind that (s)he had succeeded in stealing HRE's account. Of course, things like this can happen and all this might well be a good material for Forrest Gump 2. Nonetheless, even if we assume that this obviously perfectly logical scenario is valid, we would still have to answer one question: why hasn't the HRE contacted us yet? He simply disappeared into thin air in the middle of his 4th, 5th(?) race for adminship leaving another of his heart-breaking and infallably melodramatic messages on his (by that time already doomed) adminship's talk page. Maybe the guy has said goodbye in a slightly akward manner and we should just leave him to lick his wounds and open up a new account? 83.131.8.79 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god. I'm sorry if I'm missing part of the story, but it's 1am and I don't have IRC and I can't really read Serbian, so did HRE's account get hijacked by someone, who created another to pose as his brother, to fake HRE's death and then hijack his account? God. Highway ^Batman! 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All see User:HRE. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor: He's back (Archive 61)

User:HolyRomanEmperor is back online. And, I'm afraid, this doesn't clarify anything. If you check out his contributions, you will see a creation of a really wierd page in his userspace and some pro-albanian edits. And if you read through his RfA's, you will see some people stating he is a Serbian nationalist, and you will see some Albanians insulting him. And, another curious thing is this edit summary featuring a typo which is highly unlikely for HRE to make, and which was a common spelling error of problematic Albanian user User:Hipi Zhdripi, which has been known to attack HRE. What I'm 95% sure is that Hipi didn't hijack HRE's account since we already know that the person which is behind all of this had access to HRE's private computer. What I'm 100% sure is that I'm getting braindamaged by this situation and that it is time we get some explanations. I propose we request HRE to explain the situation throughly before doing any more edits. --Dijxtra 12:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by the fact that one of HRE's last edits was "My Last Reply to You" to User talk:Emir Arven, who has been somewhat difficult with him. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no other alternative. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this certainly deserves an article in uncyclopedia :))). -- Ante P.

I think I know what is going on here! He is just the first one to be kidnaped by aliens, who made secret pact with the rest of the world against the Serbs. This is real, judging from all the things I've seen on TV Beograd in 1990's. In few days, Boris and some others will also begin to show pro-albanian sentiments. Just wait and see ;). --Ante Perkovic 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge you for an urgent block of... that... Duja 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is now past ludicrous and even those isignificant traces of respect that I had for HRE are disappearing at an alarming rate. There is now a number of edits coming from HRE's account which would seem to indicate that his account has been hijacked by some semi-intelligent Albanian nationalist with broken English (who, my goodness, is the exact opposite of the "actual" HRE and quite conveniently correspond to the profile of Hipi-Zdipi or whatever). Of course, this semi-intellingent Albanian nationalist is now keen to convince us that he is in no way HRE (I mean, the best and the most logical way to harm HRE is to prove to the Wikipedia community that you are not HRE exactly at the moment when you have access to his account. THIS REALLY MAKES SENSE!!!). Of course, this idiotic Albanian nationalist is probably studying/teaching at the same University of Belgrade (again, perfectly sensible). Thirdly, everybody, but the actual HRE, seems to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Should I stop or is it clear that someone is really desparate to provide us with a very lame excuse? 83.131.65.71 13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is wrong exactly, I guess none of us know, but this whole thing is just wrong. I've blocked the account until a satisfactory explanation of this whole series of events is given. --JoanneB 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll support you on that block if anyone questions it. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As will I. I would've blocked him myself, but I was afraid that'd be a little too bold. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Being that the WP:OFFICE got involved, maybe this should be run by Danny. -- Avi 14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did run it by Danny, on IRC. After I explained the situation to him, he agreed that a block would be the best thing to do. He suggested not only blocking but also rollbacking, which I did. --JoanneB 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know WP:OFFICE is dealing with it?--The ikiroid (talk•desk•Advise me) 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. pschemp | talk 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be possible that the person who compromised his account gave the password to Hipi, who then logged in. Can we get a second Checkuser? Ashibaka tock 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't explain why HRE hasn't logged on as anonymous IP or created another account in order to explain the situation (particularly in view of the fact that it has been established that notes of HRE and Sad News have been coming from his computer (or the computer he normally uses). He has already informed us of his well-being on Serbian Wikipedia condeming the person who was behind this. The note, however, did not contain any reference to his account being hijacked (which is VERY strange because it would be the first thing I would mention). As for the Hipi Z. who is a very interesting account indeed, I can say that this is beginning to be very reminiscent of an almost schizophrenic IP User:87.116.154.180, who attracted much attention back in April after sending a death threat (in broken English of course!) to several Serbian (and other pro-Serbian editors) who edited controversial subjects related to the Kosovo region. Of course, the perceived Albanian version of Scarlet Pimpernel Hipi Z. was immediately blamed for the incident. There was, however, one thing that didn't fit and, unfortunately went unnoticed: the first and only contribution of [User:87.116.154.180] before sending the death threat 4 days later was to make a very pro-Serbian edit on the Cetina river in Croatia. This paradox is reminiscent of the change in editing pattern we have witnessed today with HRE's account. I am sorry, but someone here is playing a game trying to give an impression that the person controlling the account couldn't possibly be HRE. 83.131.72.175 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please explain how you relate to this matter given your obvious keen interest? After all this is your first ever post. - Glen 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the above message was a registered user commenting anonymously.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am attracted to this case because of my keen interest in near-cyber-death experiences and other paranormal phenomena. 83.131.19.212 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lying (on whoever's part) is hardly paranormal :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 09:10Z

Quarl, why are you being so sceptical? No reasonable person can deny the anomalous energy patterns emanating from HRE's account, electronic crop circles left on his discussion page, a mysterious and mischievous Albanian ghost (in dire need of English lessons!) that snatched away his password... 83.131.14.156 10:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 20:26Z

I don't think this is Hipi. No one can beat Hipi's English, and this one's, while far from perfect, is far better than that. Apart from minor spelling mistakes, this is fairly acceptable English. Duja 08:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest another option. Ahem....how about Ferick for starters? He is very lazy in making his edit summaries, ie. this one, with him saying "Kosovo.com is definitely not a reliable information source. I appreciate your affords to “add sources” though", another one here, then there's this really messed up one, here again to similir to what HRE's imposter, or HRE, are making. The two users in question have also had a recent history as is clear here on Ferick's talk page, and it seems Ferick was extremely agitated by HRE efforts to stop the spreading of POV. Ferick has also got a degree in computer science, and it could be that Ferick managed to hack into HRE personal computer, and make edits from there. (I've seen this done before, as kids in my school routinely manage to login into their home PC's to bypass internet filters, and actually shut down the entire system with very little hacking abilities). If Ferick (or anyone else) has any kind of hacking abilities, it wouldn't be to difficult for him to manage this. Again, this is just a thought, my sincere apologies to Ferick if he is pronounced innocent. However it is very good to hear that HRE is alive and okay, let's hope we can sort out the rest of this as quickly as possible. C-c-c-c 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like another, more comitted version of this, an admin in the process of an uncertain RFA making a dramatic exit. 24.94.192.247 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, lets not start rumors about things like that. Jaranda is an admin, and would not, are far as I know, lie about things like that. Plus, he was just stating he was going to be inactive for a little while, not dead. — The King of Kings 01:34 July 08 '06

I agree, that is very different. This case is very odd, but it can be assumed that either for some reason or another HRE is unable to contact us, and someone else is using the HolyRomanEmperor account or (less likely) HRE is delibratly misleading everyone. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering everything so far, I have to still have faith in him, even considering everything against him. I'm presently waiting for a response on the Serbian Wikipedia were I sent him a message, but no response has been made as of now. HRE did post there a little while back that his account here had been hacked, so assuming good faith, I have to believe him. I can't except that HRE would be dilibratly misleading us like this, its not like him. — The King of Kings 02:52 July 08 '06

If we disregard the HRE faking option, whoever is using the account is definitly not Holy Roman Emperor, the user did not know about the e-mail user function, and did not know his/her own username. [22] Prodego ^talk 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if we disregard the HRE faking option, we pretty much have to assume that the current holder of the account is a moron, haven't we? I mean, given her/his severly limited intellectual capacity - of which Prodego has furnished us with some evidence - it is a miracle of the awe inspiring kind that (s)he had succeeded in stealing HRE's account. Of course, things like this can happen and all this might well be a good material for Forrest Gump 2. Nonetheless, even if we assume that this obviously perfectly logical scenario is valid, we would still have to answer one question: why hasn't the HRE contacted us yet? He simply disappeared into thin air in the middle of his 4th, 5th(?) race for adminship leaving another of his heart-breaking and infallably melodramatic messages on his (by that time already doomed) adminship's talk page. Maybe the guy has said goodbye in a slightly akward manner and we should just leave him to lick his wounds and open up a new account? 83.131.8.79 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god. I'm sorry if I'm missing part of the story, but it's 1am and I don't have IRC and I can't really read Serbian, so did HRE's account get hijacked by someone, who created another to pose as his brother, to fake HRE's death and then hijack his account? God. Highway ^Batman! 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All see User:HRE. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"before a rather dramatic, weird thing happened." (From User:HRE). At least that clears up a lot. So, his account was compromised? --Draicone ^(talk) 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: Why is this on the talk page for WP:RfA, I don't see what it has to do with admin promotion. (confused shrug) MichaelBillington 09:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i see. I just read Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor_4, so ignore me. MichaelBillington 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumping through hoops to get access to parts of the Wikicode (Archive 62)

Following my first RfA, I decided I would try out the requirements stated by different editors. It was a good training course. I went into areas I might not have done otherwise, and learnt a lot from it. If I'd been sysopped initially, I wouldn't have abused the tools, but the intervening experience has made me in a much stronger position to use them - and even so, I realise there's still a lot to learn. quoth :Tyrenius

Interesting issue. There definitely are people who are not familiar with various aspects of Wikipedia and would benefit from a walkthrough tour, of sorts. I don't think that making this a requirement for administrator tools makes sense though. This just strikes me as making more hoops for people to jump through and encourages a gaming of the system while people try to style their accounts to look like something that a "good admin candidate" would look like. That's really bordering on viewing adminship as a trophy, which is something adminship decidedly is not.

--ScienceApologist 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - Front matter (Archive 62)

Would it not be considered a conflict of interest for an editor to edit the Front matter while there is an RfA on said user in progress? Themindset 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer it didn't happen, yes. Changing the rules while trying to follow them is one of the things I see users scream about most for rouge admins. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am not trying to change any rules and this page is supposed to be simply a description of the process which I have found to be extremely inaccurate from personal experience. --ScienceApologist 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to make such changes after your RfA is closed? Themindset 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? I noticed some things wrong with the description of the RfA process and I tried to fix them. I'm not saying my edits were perfect, but I hope we have an improved description now after having a discussion and an interesting exchange over the vagueries of some of the finer points. If the consensus is that my edits are problematic, then the whole point of the wiki is that others will notice the problems and help to fix them. The spirit of Wikipedia is to be bold, after all, so I'm a bit uncomfortable with the accusation of a "conflict of interest". After all, the description of the RfA process has no bearing on whether my RfA passes or fails. The beauty of wiki is its transparency. If I was gaming the system, you should be able to articulate it. --ScienceApologist 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I made no mention of gaming the system. My point stands. Themindset 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why a conflict of interest would matter if not for concerns of gaming the system. Please explain. --ScienceApologist 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, if you refuse to identify it as being somewhat inappropriate based on common sense, then you good for you. But perhaps you should recognize, at the very least, that it might appear distasteful to others. And if you can't recognize that, please don't ask me to explain it. Themindset 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to base my conclusions about the intent of editors at Wikipedia on the actual content of their edits and an assumption of good faith. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it more inappropriate for ScienceApologist, a nom, to edit than for other users that are participating by leaving comments to achieve consensus? RFA is a community activity, right? FloNight ^talk 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Were the edits an improvement? :-) Kim Bruning 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of Process (Archive 64)

I apologize if this has already been brought up in the archives, but since I didn't find anything:

Is "Requests for adminship" the most appropriate name for this process? At the time of writing, ten candidates are under consideration for adminship. Only two are self-noms-they can legitimately claim to have "requested" adminship. The other eight, however, were nominated by others. Judging by this, and the broader pattern of nominations from other users, I feel like "Nominations for Adminship" would be a more relevant name. Comments are apprectiated.--Lkjhgfdsa 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But you still have to accept a nomination, so it is still a request by the candidate. At one time, the page was divided into two sections, one for self-noms and one for nominations, but we did away with that. NoSeptember 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the proper name is obviously Wikipedia:Flexible process not involving voting for the approval of the granting of certain additional technical abilities to trusted editors. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a request if the person self-nominates or consents to the nomination, thus expressing support and interest. Michael 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the best times (Archive 64)

For a first time visitor to the RfA page, it would look like the process is very easy. As of now, there are five candidates, all above 90% support. Also, apart from User:Wickethewok, the others have 97%+ support. This would look like a good time for aspirants to join in and "make hay while the sun shines". Ever since the summary creation started, I don't remember seeing such a good scenario. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Either it's the self-correction of standards mentioned above, or these five candidates are that much better than recent groupings. I'm inclined to think the former, with no offense intended toward our current crop of nominees. :) -- nae'blis 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

...and you get to discuss here, vote here, and voice your opinion! all on one page. This truly is a historic moment. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like RfA's are now falling into two distinct groups: a) the ridiculously qualified and b) the ridiculously unqualified. The latter group is simply getting removed, whether on their own or by beurocrat (sp). That's probably a large reason behind the huge percentages on this page. alphaChimp ^laudare 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the recent high qualification levels mean only the most experienced and innocent will risk the gauntlet. Stephen B Streater 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...And if such is the case, it is likely that people would be more critical of those who may not be as experienced as some other users. Michael 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, several people have withdrawn their nominations lately, so on further reflection it may not be that we've recalibrated our standards for approval, just our standards for letting your RfA run to completion. I'm not sure that's such a good thing... -- nae'blis 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that could prove problematic. In that case, one could re-submit him or herself a great number of times, withdrawing if the votes do not go in his or her favor, and then, he or she has the right to re-submit without the burden of having been rejected once or twice in the past. Michael 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I can immediately think of a few recent attempts where the candidate was neither highly qualified nor highly unqualified. One is me, one is Werdna648. Another is Badlydrawnjeff, still another is Sean Black. All but the last closed with supermajorities insufficient to promote, the last also closed a bit under the usual standard but was promoted. At this precise moment we do happen to mostly have landslides open, certainly.

It would be interesting to see how the distribution varied with time: how many clear winners, how many clear losers, how many with really no consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia conference and administrators (Archive 65)

Will there be an opportunity for discussions about administrators at the upcoming Wikimedia conference? Perhaps it might be beneficial to talk about issues surrounding adminship there as well? --HappyCamper 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope so, even if only informally. Anyone that wants to buttonhole me, should... ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be an opportunity lost if there is no productive discussion about this at the conference... --HappyCamper 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Administrator status will become, I think, a focus of greater and greater attention and problems. As the chance of passing an RfA goes down over time (and it is dropping), the frequency of complaints about administrators will rise. The more selective the group, the more negative consequences there will be. --Durin 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As the number of administrators in Wikipedia rises and the chance of having a successful RfA (in the first attempt) decreases, ordinary users would demand and expect a high standard of behaviour (as well as edits and vandal fighting) from admins. There should be a productive discussion about this at the conference. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whether there is or is not, it might behoove us to consider having a discussion about this here, on Wikipedia, and consider the consequences of this shift. --Durin 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, I think I'm going to sit back and wait for another Wikipedian to take the initiative to do that. --HappyCamper 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking up your offer, it appears there is a growing trend for some users to be excessively harsh and oppose candidates because they have not been involved in a particular issue (e.g. not going to WP:IFD can be construed as lack of knowledge about image and deletion policy), yet they do not consider whether the admin candidate would actually stop down and ask how to do something if he were faced with a particular situation. That's why specialist admins aren't such a bad idea to begin with, and I guess that's something that will get the ball rolling... Titoxd^(?!?) 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, my opinion is that admin should at the base knowledge of other tasks. --Masssiveego 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfer of Adminship (Archive 65)

At the moment I have two accounts, User:Wilfried Derksen and User:Electionworld. Usually I use the latter, but I am an administrator under the first name. Is there a possibility to transfer the adminship to the latter, so that I can limit myself to using only one useraccount (which is more according to Wikipolicy). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, users will be rather skeptical of the claim; it would likely spark quite a discussion (and no doubt will shortly) of whether doing so is appropriate. Without commenting on such, the first step would be to log in with the admin account and post confirmation of what you have said; until you do that, it will only be speculation that you control both accounts. Users will no doubt speculate on the possibliy of a hacked password, and will discuss extensivly the motivation for having multiple accounts, regardless of the policy involved with doing so. I steward would be needed to desysop the admin account, and given that the possibility of doing this hasn't been discussed before, to my knowledge, users will likely want to discuss extensively whether a transferral of this nature should be allowed. However, all this is really moot until we hear confirmation from User:Electionworld, though I have no doubt whatsoever that a lack of confirmation will do anything to halt a lengthy discussion of the matter. Essjay (Talk) 07:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to keep in mind your reputation as an admin. under your current status. Which carries the larger load of your work-that may be looked upon by users who may question your credibility. Michael 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, you might want to indent back out, as the double-indention makes it look like you're replying to me, rather than to the initial post. Essjay (Talk) 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted on User talk:Electionworld asking for the usual confirmation that two users are the same. Essjay is correct in saying that the community almost always doesn't allow one user to have two admin accounts (the only exception I can think of is User:Danny/User:Dannyisme, and that's a pretty unusual case), and so the old account would have to be desysopped. Also, it's usual to give notice of use of alternate accounts rather than just redirecting: see User:Typochimp or User:Shayl, for example (alternate accounts of User:Alphachimp and User:MiraLuka respectively). Even if all the conditions were satisfied, I'd be happier if there was a discussion at WP:AN or a WP:RFA application that showed the community was happy with the sysopped-account change. The stewards at m:Stewards are likely to be happy to do the desysopping required if a 'crat decides the sysopping change is appropriate. --ais523 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that several Admin nominations were opposed on the basis of the name - or at least this has been a contributing factor (eg Requests_for_adminship/SynergeticMaggot oppose 23 and Requests_for_adminship/CheNuevara oppose 8). I don't see this being a problem here, but worth mentioning nevertheless. Stephen B Streater 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that was a different type of case when credibility was questioned, thus defeating adminship. I don't think those problems play as much of a role here-just the fact that as an admin., this user will be questioned due to its lack of reputation. Michael 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I use in both accounts the same signature. As you can see in the History of this page, the request was done from my adminship account. Now I am editing from the Electionworld account. When I decided to choose the electionworld user name, I didn't know how to transfer adminship. Normally I use the electionworld acount. The old account I use rarely (since you have to log out and in and after finishing, out and in. It just doesn't work. If the adminship is transferred, I will only use the Electionworld account, the old account can be deleted and/or desysopped, and I can make more work out of the adminship. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (Electionworld account) and Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (Wilfried Derksen account) (check history)

Is there a reason you have two? Michael 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to work under my own name. I have seen that that is not normal in Wikipedia, so I wanted to rename my user account. At that time not having any clue how to that, I created a new account with a name similar to my previous own website. I had to keep the old username because of its adminship feature. I was allways very clear about having two user names for one user (see the signature and the redirect from the old user name to the new user name. I was done in good faith, not to create a suckpoppet. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (now logging out as Wilfried Derksen and logging in as Electionworld)

Oh, I see. Michael 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you just want to protect anonymity (or whatever the purpose of the change), a request at WP:CHU might be easier and faster. Admins change usernames all the time (BD2412 comes to mind). I'm reasonably sure you could even get it changed to Electionworld by changing that one first. Essjay does things like this all the time, from what I can tell of past requests.--Kchase T 09:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be option, if I would be sure that I could change it to Electionworld. Can somebody confirm that to me?. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you simply change username "Wilfried Derksen" to "ElectionworldAdmin" (or something similar)? I would find this better anyway as system operators do login as root (or whatever) only when needed and do their normal work under a non-root account (here under a non-admin account). --Ligulem 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that compatible with the idea of not having two accounts? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. What's the problem with using two accounts? We also have bot accounts. Some users also use a separate account for their WP:AWB edits. But nevermind, this is Wikipedia :). --Ligulem 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Which account's contributions do you want to be associated with the account you will be using into the future? That should determine how this is done. Since your Electionworld account has been used most recently, you may want to do what you first asked (a sysop of that account, and desysop of the older account) Either the name change option or the desysop resysop option should be fine. This has been done in the past. NoSeptember 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Then after you get a bureaucrat to agree to sysop Electionworld once Wilfred is desysoped, you can request desysopping on Meta. (Or you can get a Steward to do both) NoSeptember 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly confused now; my initial understanding was that you had an admin account and a separate second account (perfectly valid) but hadn't acknowledged the connection between the two. Now, it's sounding as though you created a new account as a rename, rather than getting a rename (also valid, and quite common), and are now wanting to abandon the old (sysop) account entirely and use the new one exclusively. If that's what you're wanting to do, we can do a quick desysop and and resysop the "new" account; I was under the impression that you were wanting to switch adminship from two seemingly unrelated accounts (as though you'd been using one for one thing and the other for another). Provided this is simply an abandon of an old account for a new one, and you want to keep the non-sysop username, I can get this fixed up for you shortly. Drop me a note on my talk page that says "Yes, I want to move my sysop flag from X to Y" and I'll take care of it. Essjay (Talk) 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for transparency: User:Wilfried Derksen has been desysopped and I've sysopped User:Electionworld per the confirmations here and on my talk page. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A horrible realization! (Archive 66)

Essjay has no category talk and no portal or portal talk editsHe needs to be immediately recalled! [23]! And yet he is not only a sysop but a crat with checkuser as well. What was anyone thinking? JoshuaZ 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. And not enough user edits either. This is a disgrace. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you point this out at a time when Essjay hasn't edited for 2 days ;). NoSeptember 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And did anyone see his SIGNATURE?!?! The horror, the agony! -- Avi 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• And he only had less than 500 main namespace article edits at the time of his RfA! What insanity! Clearly RfA is broken if it let him through! Time to raise the standards. --Durin 21:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This joke appears so many times in so many variations. Just to add fuel to the fire: Jimbo Wales probably wouldn't qualify for most people's RFA standards right now. Themindset 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Including yours. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. And I believe it's perfectly reasonable. Themindset 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So you support the fact that you are blatantly hypocritical (no personal attack meant) in your standards towards adminship? Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not hypocrisy when you consider if that Jimbo was a normal editor, he'd probably have a lot more edits than he currently does, since he wouldn't have to worry about PR and fund-raising. Johnleemk | Talk 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But have you ever seen the go it alone, self-important attitude that Jimbo has. Half the time it's like he has no respect for normal policy or process at all, and just does whatever he wants. Why would anyone think it was a good idea to give him admin powers? Dragons flight 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've chastized Jimbo once in the past. He makes mistakes like all of us in fact, it got me on the cabal's black list...Go me! :). At the core should be the question, does Jimbo have the best interests of the project at heart and will he not abuse the tools? Of course he does and of course he won't. --Durin 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're being sarcastic or not... but Jimbo-bashing is at best an unhealthy pastime on Wikipedia. From the one incident where I've had to deal with him I found him heavy handed, but also acting in good faith. If I had issue with his status/behaviour I would simply leave the project. Themindset 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm serious. I took issue with him and told him as much. Told him his behavior was akin to the CEO of a large company coming down to the loading docks and telling the guys in shipping how to do their jobs. --Durin 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure where this is going, I would say that your example is not particularly convincing. If I was a CEO and saw the guys on the loading docks screwing around I would probably do something about it. Themindset 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone makes mistakes but I think every mistake Jimbo has made has been in a good faith effort, that being said he has to be careful, even more careful possibly, about throwing around his power because if done too often it'll either a) lose all meaning, or b) entirely skew the structure of Wikipedia to the point where he ends up being an active dictator of everything rather than a passive dictator who lets the community makes decisions semi-independently. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• de-indent The point is that a CEO showing up at a loading dock might take action, but being that his job isn't shipping, there's a pretty decent job he's going to screw it up. The problem is, when the CEO does something, nobody is going to disagree with him...even if he's wrong. Speaking more abstractly, all of us are human, and all of us make mistakes. There isn't any reason that Jimbo should be treated any better than the brand new editor here who has made one edit. --Durin 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the core principles of top management is that you have to choose the areas of involvment where you can have the greatest impact. CEOs who understand operations may well visit the dock if there are problems with shipping and receiving (a far more common scenario that we might like to believe). On the other hand, if the dock is working fine, or if operations is outside the CEO's area of expertise, such a visit would be unwise. I think that Jimbo chooses his battles well; as a rule, if he shows up and edits something, it's because there's a broader point that he's trying to make about the way things ought to be. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My comment above is only half-sarcastic. I agree with you that there are examples where, in my opinion, Jimbo has misused his power by asserting his authority over situations he didn't really understand (e.g. Radiant!). I know he means well (hence "misuse" not "abuse"), but he isn't involved in the day to day operations of this wiki and that lack of experience, when coupled with absolute power, can and does occasionally lead to serious mistakes. If you have had a good experience "chastizing" Jimbo, then I congratulate you. The last time I was upset by Jimbo's behavior, his response to my concerns pushed me close to leaving the project. Dragons flight 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Jimbo has made any serious fuck ups yet (besides the somewhat depressing case of Radiant!), but I know he has made fuck ups. The problem I see with Jimbo is that he has good theories and principles that we should be applying, but when he butts in and tries to get us to apply them, he fails quite frequently. I'm not arguing against intervention from some higher and supreme authority, but in a company, the CEO (as UninvitedCompany says) ought to pick his battles. There's always some other executive he can have doing his dirty work, which is why I've previously advocated devolving some of Jimbo's authority to a group of people more familiar with the English Wikipedia, e.g. the arbcom. Anyhow, I'm quite over these pointless meta-issues now. I'm far more concerned with our article-writing process, which I think more often than not involves well-meaning snot-nosed newbies and equally well-meaning but overly defensive professional academics/people with such experience. (The breaking point for my first and only wikibreak ever was when I was basically told to fuck off when I advocated the removal of trivia sections from an article.) We don't have more than a handful of experienced WPians involved in the policy issues of content, and those who are involved can be overwhelmed by said snot-nosed newbies often enough. (Case in point: Worldtraveller's GA project careening off course into being a less-than-FA-but-still-a-star-for-my-homework process for articles which could become an FA; in the first place, GA was meant to fill a niche for articles which could never be FAs.) Now this would be somewhere worthy of Jimbo-scale involvement (aside from the issue of BLPs, which everyone has been devoting an exceedingly large amount of attention to). Johnleemk | Talk 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rouge-Admin.png (Archive 66)

I have put Image:Rouge-Admin.png on IfD. You may say this is a violation of WP:POINT, but I must say I have always found this to be highly divisive. Also the notion of rouge-admins is highly divisive. --Ligulem 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You created an en image description page for a mirrored rendering from Wikimedia Commons. I've deleted the empty imagespace page here. If you'd like to nominate this media for deletion, you need to do it at commons:Template:Deletion requests. Jkelly 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Then let's discuss it here, because that banner is used by admins on en. That banner was used by Brigate Rosse, an Italian terrorist group who murdered prime minister Aldo Moro. I find this banner offensive and divisive. Is this what these "ambassador" admins want to express here?

• 
• File:Moro br 1.jpg

--Ligulem 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rouge admins is also discussed for deletion here. That banner is used there. If Category:Administrators open to recall is divisive, is Rouge admins not divisive? --Ligulem 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

W/ due respect to your comments, i must say that the category would end up w/ a "no concensus". I agree w/ Kelly that the procedure must go thru commons:Template:Deletion requests. -- Szvest 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where that banner came from, and I have to say that given its origin it is in bad taste for admins to display that on their userpages. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

May I just say that I find this all rather silly. Themindset 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what aspect exactly you deem silly: the fact that I brought it up here or the fact that some admins on en are using this banner to decorate their user pages. In any case, I admit that this is somewhat a matter of WP:POINT from my side, because none of those admins did put that banner in bad faith on their user pages. Neither was the Category:Administrators open to recall created in bad faith and nobody is forced to comment on that cat. Nevertheless both the rouge banner and the cat were both put on deletion discussion. Now, what is more ridiculous/divisive? Most of those that want the Category:Administrators open to recall have deleted argue it is divisive. Nevertheless some of them are on category:rouge admins, which I try to say is divisive too. How much do we need to extinct divisive things on user pages? --Ligulem 07:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly second Christopher Parham on this. Tyrenius 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the image came from a military organization. However, upon learning it's actually from a terrorist organization, I concur that it's quite disrespectful. -- tariqabjotu 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some jokes just push the envelope farther than others, they're still hilariously funny and incisive though. Take, for example, the September 11 joke by an Arab on The Daily Show a few nights ago. They were talking about how Bush and Rice keep saying that the problems in the Middle East are merely "the birth pangs of Democracy" and "a great opportunity". The response was to contrast how the Bush administration expects the people in the Middle East to respond to their crisis and how we responded to ours. We didn't consider 9/11 a "great opportunity", for instance. --Cyde Weys 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how that's relevant. We're talking about using a terrorist banner as a Wikipedia admin symbol. -- tariqabjotu 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is in bad taste. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested in this image it is now listed for deletion on Commons, here: commons:Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Rouge-Admin.png.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What i believe is that none of the admins tagging h/ userpage w/ the image is really "Rouge". We don't really need all this spectacle. I'd have agreed w/ you if one of those admins is behaving as a "terrorist". None. What's the problem? -- Szvest 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, Ligulem, I think all sides of this "issue" are rather silly... PS, Cyde, I caught that episode of the daily show and was amazed he got a laugh out of an american audience. It was, as you say, hilarious and incisive. Themindset 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even I thought it would be tough to get the image deleted from Commons because its use in an inappropriate manner (if even that) on Wikipedia probably shouldn't mean the image ought to be deleted outright. For the most part, I wanted to get this discussion into the right forum. -- tariqabjotu 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion seems a bit extreme...people are free to be tasteless, with the awareness that it affects how other people view them. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But I'm a rouge user, you insensitive clod! Kim Bruning 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

question about the process (Archive 68)

why is voting entirely optional? so if by some random chance only 10 people vote within the week and 8 of them vote yes, itll go up for final review and passed. how does this ensure candidate is even the right person for admin duties? and how much of the edit count do you people take into account towards your vote, and what significance does edit count even mean towards administrative duties. why not require a percentage of the entire collection of admins and/or mandatory voting? why are special priviliges like admin rights only given to registered users? other than the reason of ip spoofing/changing68.161.183.243 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that only 10 will vote, and if it does happen it is up to the beaureaucrat to decide. Edit count is often taken into account, because it shows the person has been around a while and will be familiar with Wikipedia. Registered users can get the "mop" because they are seen as more reliable than an anonymous user. Hope this helps. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think the reason is more to do with the fact that anonymous IP accounts are by definition unsafe (they can't be protected with a password, many are shared etc.). Like with registered users, I have encountered some fantastic anonymous users and I have encountered some real jerks - being registerd is neither here nor there. Mandatory voting would be nearly impossible to enact as there is no way to enforce it. Only allowing the admin pool would be divisive, giving the impression that administrators are some form of over-class and are vetter qualified to make judgements than everyone else. Rje 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

but administrators are otherwise all users would be allowed to delete restore protect etc. normal average users are less likely able to judge the abilities of a would be administrator as well as administrative peers would be. mandatory voting as in the case will not proceed until a certain number of users and/or admins have voted. out of almost a thousand users granted administrative rights and thousands more users, a hundred votes is practically negligable. that said, how many of the thousand administrators do you believe is qualified to have admin rights? edit counts can also be easily falsified and the numbers themselves say very little other than how many times a person has decided to change anything, simply by themselves they say little on how well they know the guidelines and policies administrators have to watch over. i am also wondering if there has ever or will be a global administrative review? i know at a thousand admins it would be a hassle but if they were periodic, say every three years since a user has been granted admin rights, they would have to go up for a review if they wish to keep the rights. but then that would also fall under the same problem i see in various places, a lack of significant number of votes. 68.161.183.243 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The software running the site has no capacity to grant privledges to individual IP accounts. Dragons flight 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With IPs changing now and then, that would be a problem. Michael 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan for admin! (Archive 68)

A typical wikipedia admin

As you can see, she already has the mop :-) Kim Bruning 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe! Can we put this into {{User admin}}? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, if she cleans up my userpage, which is a mess! ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind, the current admin logo is derived from the copyrighted Wikipedia logo, and we generaly tell people they can't use that kind of things on userpages, even with permission. Then again not everyone like anime... --Sherool (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe adding Wikipe-tan to the {{RfA-nom}} notice is better for creating a less stressing moment :-) -- ReyBrujo 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the CVU people will be too happy if you co opt thier logo for adminship.Geni 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not CVU only, CVU already coopted it from something else, I believe it was created as a generic Wikipedia logo.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was originally for WP:ANIME, actually; but then became used in a more generic way (WP:TAN). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

this version was requested for the CVU logo see this.Geni 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Won't matter unless the CVU decides to use the raw image, which I highly doubt will be the case; all their logos so far have been defined by the background crossed-circle design moreso than by what happens to be in the middle. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

5 September (Archive 68)

Sorry to clutter an over-long page with a personal comment, but I'm off to bed and I had to say: this is easily the saddest day I've had on the Wiki. I had one notable success editing an article today, and at the same time watched a worse-than-usual shitstorm here for hours and three editors leave. It's just awful what we come up with sometimes—the "good editors", as much as anyone else. This isn't a yea or nay on the above debate, just an observation. Marskell 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit luckier. I managed to write Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) and Svensky Monastery before I was blocked for three hours for thoughts expressed above and, what is even more amusing, blocked by an editor whom I dared to criticise. Several letters I received today describe the current situation in English Wikipedia as "sinister" and "totalitarian". At least I don't remember a day when some of the most productive members of the community (Giano, ALoan, etc) were told as clearly as today that they are not needed in this project, as long as they don't support the "party line" and its favourites like Carnildo. In such days, our old Russian Wikipedia seems like a paradise... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sclerosis (Archive 68)

Like, everyone else, I've been reading the debate on RfA promotions. Here are some thoughts:

• Taxman considers every debate he closes carefully. He even looked closely into my RfA, which was not a close result, and explained his reasoning, just as he has been in this more complex case
• I found Danny (busy as he is) happy to discuss another matter in detail. He was clear and consistent. Danny has the interests of the project at heart. To suggest otherwise is uninformed
• People will enjoy life here if they relax a little more. This is a wiki, and an expeiment, and things can be be fixed if need be
• For good or bad, RfA can sometimes turn into a witch hunt. This should not unquestioningly be the final arbiter of anything
• Always sticking rigidly to past practice without the possibility of experimenation is a long term recipe for stagnation and sclerosis
• Forgive but don't forget. The novel result of a probationary period shows that people high up in the organisation are not content with revenge and spite as their motivating ideas. As a member of this community, I find this is good to know.

Stephen B Streater 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree wholeheartedly with that! The last point I think is important, can we forgive past actions? yes of course, does that mean we should pretend they didnt happen, no? People who disrupt WP shouldnt be pushed away but accepted, shown 'the light' and then kept an eye on over time.. As to the third point I think this is a very enlightened view and one I personally have never considered, I suppose it could be likened to IAR in a way. WP is still an experiment - an ongoing one.

As to the RFA turning ot a witch hunt, unfortunately thats true. But its something that happens across all the Wikis in different places (not just RFA) and probably unavoidable. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should people who disrupt Wikipedia be accepted? They should be banned, period. You're living under the misconception that most people can be rehabilitated. Our track record with problem users shows otherwise. These people are often here for ulterior motives that always take first priority over anything the community wants, and since it's just an online website and they are protected by anonymity, none of the usual social forces that keep someone from being a jackass come into play. --Cyde Weys 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But sometimes, for jack-ass hunters, everyone starts looking like a jack ass. Also, jack-ass hunters attract jack-asses. Period. --Ligulem 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doy your really believe that Cyde? Thats the reason so many editors resort to vandalism and outragous behaviour. Everyone has an agenda - you do, I do they do and if we cant find a way to work with each other this whole project is going to start failing. As a relatively new user I know how hard it can be, foryunately I have made no 'mistakes' but I see some poor souls frightenend away by liberal use of warnings, in-speak and general contempt. I have seen good editors driuven to anger, threats and even vandalism by so called experienced editors. People are expected to learn fast and be perfect from the off - I real life that just doesnt work so why does it apply here? The whole community suffers from a lack of respect for each other and itself.

I also find myself cutting through more and more 'paperwork' all the time and am just fed up with editing here - I just seem unable to get anything done without it being reverted discussed, reverted again and the mediated! (ok so thats an overstatment but you see my point).

And then there is all of the accepted policy and processby which we must abide. Well alot of it doesnt work at all. Take polls are evil - completely out of date (and very badly reasoned if you read it!), RFA, Deletion processes. They could all do with reforms - both major and minor but nothing ever gets decided due to the constant bickering and discussion. I am becoming disenamoured with this place - which is a shame because I have so much to give but no-one appreciates it! Now I am working more on Wikinews which is just like 'wikipedia was' - back when it really was experimental.

In truth I think that for WP to progress even further and to even succeed beyond a few more years there needs to be a serious revolution. I will fight for WP (no thats not a threat!) and try my best to make it better (make it not SUCK) but if I have to fight other Wikipedians whats the point, I have other things to do with myy time --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I watch a few hundred articles and fix vandalism I come across. My experience is not the same as Cyde's. Most vandals are casual and bored. I find simply redirecting them to some policy page usually keeps them busy and interested - and who knows, they might get hooked on working within the system :-) Stephen B Streater 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. But this is not the problem. The problem are edits like this one. It is a problem of mistrust from the community. A thick feel bad. But I must say I'm pleased of this message of Taxman (despite me being an opposer in Carnildo's RfA). I just hope this wasn't just an exception for Carnildo. I want to see more of this. For now, I assume good faith. --Ligulem 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the messages asking Carnildo to step down should be regarded as in any way representative of any part of the Wikipedia community. That campaign was instigated by a person who has repeatedly engaged in bad faith attacks on Carnildo and one of his bots. --Tony Sidaway 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I think it is a valid request to ask Carnildo to step down just as someone earlier suggested that the bureaucrats should have given Carnildo a chance to refuse adminship given the lack of consensus. Carnildo's response to the request to step down shows that he probably wouldn't have refused adminship if the bureaucrats had asked him in advance. I think it would be a gracious and dignified move on Carnildo's part to step down and pass an RFA based on a real consensus.

Nota bene: Please do not infer that I am trying to undo the action of the bureaucrats. I am willing to accept their decision. I think Carnildo will do fine as an admin even after the probationary period. I'm just saying that the way in which the decision was made has negative impacts on the process and the community and that Carnildo has an opportunity to help ameliorate them by stepping down and redoing the RFA. Hell, that action alone would make me vote in support.

His response to the request was "No, there's too much work to do" is also understandable. It's a question of weighing his valuable image work vs. trust in the RFA process. Me personally, I would have voted for honoring the RFA process. Obviously, Carnildo and the bureaucrats have different priorities. It's a legitimate difference of opinion. --Richard 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

C'est le ton qui fait la musique. --Ligulem 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So let's add some harmony. Stephen B Streater 09:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

probationary admin? Oh dear.Geni 10:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is vital to forgive one's past actions but not necessary forget them. Everyone makes mistakes here and people learn from mistakes more efficiently most of the time. Mistakes made are what defines us as editors on this project. If we fail to forgive this ex-admin, then for eternity, he would not be able to regain his admin status and this would most probably make him leave this project. Other admins too would be fearful of making mistakes if most users here are not tolerant of the errors admins make. This would indeed lead to a very stressful time here for our users with mops. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] As I said somewhere else it would be better if ArbCom simply had in place a process to review its desysoppings. If that had happened here, Carnildo would have been able to get his adminship back with a lot less sense of surprise to us and all and controversy on the boards. What went in his favour was that the very ArbCom members who'd desysopped him now wanted him back. Well, since ArbCom made the decision in the first place, I think we could have trusted it to review the decision. But when a seemingly standard RfA went ahead, allowing each of us to vote express a view, I had to say in honesty that I was not personally prepared to give him my trust. It never occurred to me that a lower threshold of what counts as consensus would be applied retrospectively, or that my view and other opposing views would carry less weight than normally; nor would it have occurred to those people who were opposed to it but either didn't think it was necessary to take part or didn't want to pile on. So we all knew where we stood, it really should have been announced in advance that normal expectations would not govern this RfA, not revealed or decided after the RfA had finished.

I accept the outcome, but the clean solution for the future is for all desysoppings to be reviewable at any time by ArbCom (with a routine review after about six months). Metamagician3000 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point for me to pursue what is already done. They have put all their trust on the one editor; In the event should probation fail or de-sysop occurs ever again, I think resignation from the crats' responsible should be forthcoming to protect the integrity of consensus on Wikipedia (if there is any in the first place). - Mailer Diablo 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/nominate (Archive 68)

Just to let people know, I've added a new comment there. Please reply on that page. Petros471 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Other languages (Archive 68)

There seem to be some people discontented about RFA. I haven't looked into the particulars (yet?) but I figured it might be interesting to see how the other Wikipedias handle the issue. As such, I have attempted to compile and translate a bunch of admin facts, and listed them at Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. I'm not sure if this is useful or just trivial data, but there are some interesting differences that people may want to read about. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter (Archive 71)

Sorry to spam this page with something not strictly related to RfA. The above is an idea to have people sign on to create Featured articles with an informal deadline in place. Maybe of interest to those who use FAs as criteria here. Marskell 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if we paid administrators this could be a requirement. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it would still be a bad requirement. Administrators must have the goals of the encyclopedia at heart, but that does not mean they need to be churning out featured articles on a regular basis. —Centrx→talk • 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aargh! Whilst a worthy goal, I hope this is kept well away from RfA; WP:1FA was bad enough (I haven't seen it around recently). --ais523 15:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no--I was not personally suggesting a requirement at all. I just think of this place as an unofficial village pump. The more eyes the better and all that. For those that do informally think of it as a requirement it might be a page to watch. Marskell 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what FA:s and adminship has anything in common. _→AzaToth 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's part of a larger opinion that work in the mainspace should be held in high regard when evaluating a candidate. FA creation is an obvious example of that. Marskell 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that to get an article to FA status means having a good understanding of the MoS as well as indicating an ability to collaborate and more importantly reach consensus. All these are good experiences that are desirable in an admin. My only problem is that editors can gain these experiences without ever bring an article to FA status. Nevertheless, there is a valid connection between 1FA and being an admin. David D. (Talk) 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some kind of Featured Article Drive is always a good idea. It is, however, unrelated to adminship. I think people who write lots of FAs deserve a reward, but the only meaningful reward we have here is the Barnstar and some related sparklies. >Radiant< 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A non-admin's point-of-view The whole 1FA idea is quite frankly, ridiculous. While it sounds great on paper, someone could have joined 3-4 years ago, made 10000+ edits, know Wikipedia policy inside and out, and not create or significantly help make a featured article. That's just unfair. Luckily, this idea and criteria is not taken as seriously (or seriously at all). --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just want to be clear: I did not raise this as a possible RfA criterion. I just wanted people to look at the page and figured people here might be interested given the volume on this talk and that FAs have been raised previously. That's all. (And that's a non-admin's point-of view as well, for whatever that matters). Marskell 22:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The talk page for RFA isn't really the place for advertizing FA efforts. That said, I do plan to try to work more on getting more FAs under my belt, and generally support the FA cause, as I feel more editors should. Best wishes in your efforts to promote FA creation. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think the fact that this was presented at all, exposes the "Featured Article Cabal's" most glaring defect: neither the front page, nor the FA have anything to do with building a solid Encyclopedia. And certainly nothing to do with normal administrator functions such as vandal patrolling, article deletion, or backlog clearing. Page protection of FAs requires as many as one sysop. It is nice that a certain 'clique' can work together effectively, but any influence they exert beyond their FAs should be violently curtailed. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I have officially been accused of being a member of a cabal (*pumps fist*)! Marskell 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This brightened my day (Archive 71)

Wikipedi-tan using her admin bit, mucking out the wiki - David Gerard 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wot, no Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan?

commons:Category:Wikipe-tan is slightly disturbing. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing (Archive 71)

This thread, related to CAT:CSD was relocated to Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Absolutely_amazing

those pesky rfa opposers (Archive 71)

The names of the RfA regulars have changed quite a bit over the last six months, but the process and the reasoning behind the votes seems the same to me. Those who don't give lengthy rationales are too opaque. Those who do are being argumentative or beating up on the nom.

The complaints about how broken the system is look familiar, but it's different people saying so now. Sometimes I don't how anyone could possibly oppose/support a given candidate, depending on how I happen to be voting. I also see plenty of successful RfA's among those who are unquestionably ready. Then as now, I think the system works etter than some of us think. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary page? (Archive 72)

What happened to the little bot-updates summary page? I found it quite usefull in deciding which RfA's were close enough to take the time to consider "voting" in. Even if there is consensus to remove it from the front matter it would be nice to link it from the See Also section. Eluchil404 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BN. Borisblue 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It was me who removed it from the frontmatter [24] It is an useful tool, but it does not belong in the lead paragraph describing what adminship is about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Increasing vandalism? (Archive 73)

How can we deal with the increasing vandalism? Having more Admins I guess. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More RC patrollers will also help; you don't need to be an admin to revert most ordinary vandalism (see Help:Revert if you don't know how). --ais523 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When I was a gung-ho RCPatroller, I thought the answer was more admins blocking more quickly for longer periods. I now see that most vandals stop after a few warnings and that most stop before an admin can block them. Some stop before we get around to reporting to AIV. Yes, it's annoying to revert 25 renditions of, "Oh, cool. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia any moron can make a mess of." But I haven't seen those vandals to be in the majority. Some of us forget that blocks are to be protective, not punitive. Blocking the vandal after he's stopped is rather like an old cliche about cows and barn doors. The only real point to blocking vandals is to stop them long enough to catch up on reverting the vandalism. One not be an admin to quickly revert or roll back vandalism. I use VandalProof-- it's a lot better than doing it all by hand. So again, the need is for more Patrollers with tools already available.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also important that you post warnings to the users' talk pages. I'm often doing RC patrol and now, as an admin, if I see vandalism I try to always make a point of viewing the vandal's talk page; if the appropriate warnings have already been posted, I can issue a block right then and there without any need to go through the WP:AIV process. And yes, I've often found that:

• Some brand-new vandals experimenters knock it off the moment they discover they can be "caught" by the rest of us, and

• Short blocks can be effective if only because the school class period ends and the vandals are forced away from the computer until later; meanwhile, the short block prevents further damage from that vandal until the period ends.

Atlant 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point... from the IP traces that have been done on repeat IP vandals, it seems that almost all of them are posting from schools (and therefore are most likely bored students).--Caliga10 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just have to say this... (Archive 74)

We've had so many good candidates lately! And all the candidates up right now are exemplary. We've got it so good right now. :) riana_dzasta 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope it stays this way. A constant supply of good candidates being promoted is not only good (by getting more admins) but it gives others confidence who would pass but are "afraid" of the stringent oppose votes (leading to exponentially more and more admins:)). James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... this Christianity article (Archive 75)

Why is this article in the middle of the RfA page? I checked the history, but somehow, I can't figure out who put it there, and why nobody has reverted it. I would myself, but I feel like there must be some reason it hasn't happened yet that would keep me from doing so. Still... what? -- Kicking222 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looked like some prankster edited this... :P --Majorly 23:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a genuine mistake to me. I've reverted it.-gadfium 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh. --Majorly 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Major edit glitch. Looks like WP namespace had some problems today. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least there's some good reasoning. I'm not even sure why I couldn't find that diff in the history- maybe I just passed over it accidentally. But anyway, that was really weird, as are the other edits shown at the Village Pump. -- Kicking222 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Main Page, interesting diff there, and Bugzilla:7071. Though I doubt this is related to what happened above, it's just interesting that it has the same result. ;) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming (Archive 75)

This seems to be a more visited page: can people please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recently created admins#Rename? and Wikipedia talk:Recently created bureaucrats#Rename? Thanks. --Majorly 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Joke RFA's (Archive 77)

Should we salt these, or just delete them straight-out?? --SunStar Net^talk 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete them, keep the history as a record of what the "joker" did. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant for joke RFA's that get deleted, and constantly re-created. However, what you said above is true. --SunStar Net^talk 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that they inherently have any more historical value than random vandalism new articles in the main namespace. Some though, like the Boothy one, I guess are interesting to keep around. --W.marsh 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe put them in WP:BJAODN?? --SunStar Net^talk 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably some form of WP:DENY (although replace "vandals" with these joke candidates) comes into play, we shouldn't be glorifying it. – Chacor 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)