Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

[[:|WT:RFA]]

Failure of Rf Adminship

This way of creating admins is failing. It is dominated by geeks who love to vote, and the main criterion for adminship is the number of edits the particular user has. This discriminates people who

work 8 and more hours a day
prefer sports to sitting in front of a computer
prefer doing anything to sitting in front of a computer
have kids
are not school pupils
are not high school students
are not lame university students

I think that the RfA should be considered by a special comittee, that would also take other characteristics into account. ackoz 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An elitist proposal? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(this comment is to be taken less-than-seriously) LOL! I needed a good laugh, thanks! And I'm not against discriminating against those who like sports. Such people need to be shot :P. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. We elected a bureaucrat (Redux, see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3) who in two years got only 5,400 edits. This shows that the complaint at the top of this section is baseless. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that admins need to be around the project a lot, and people who are not around the project a lot tend to edit rather than vandal fight or other sysop chores, to describe this as discrimination seems unreasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oleg, what are you doing rounding down almost a hundred of my edits?? But seriously, and in actuality, apart for one or two exceptions, all of them more recent promotions, Bureaucrats don't usually have amazingly high number of edits at the time of their promotions (and for the "older" Bcrats, that's not even easy to assess, since we didn't use to count edits and post the numbers at the time of their RfBs).
In general, both in RfA and RfB, we do tend to place more importance on the experience that the user's history suggests than on the sheer number of edits (recently, a couple of candidates with + 12 thousand edits received a lot of opposition because they had little experience in project space). Many users also feel that enthusiasm doesn't necessarily prepares for Adminship (users with five-digit number of edits, but who did it in only a handful of months, often receive opposition justified as "lack of experience"). Redux 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. ok for the elders, but now the numbers matter right? There are always people who only look at the numbers. Personally, I think that having 50 edits per day or more for one year is a significant health risk. ackoz

22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that RfA can be flawed at times, but in the long run, it's the lesser of evils. Having a 'committee' would simply be creating a cabal, and it would severely restrict the potential evaluation of a candidate.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About having 50 edits a day being unhealthy. Well, it probably is, but on two occasions I managed to get 500 in one day and I didn't suffer any health problems, so I think were safe. — The King of Kings 12:59 July 02 '06

Related to the first comment: Is there a profile of a typical sysop? I know that most work 8 hours a day, so the first assumption isn't true, but the 2nd and 3rd... I hope they aren't true either, but I'm not too sure. :P As for assumption 4, we're all dedicated Wikiholics aren't we? Kimchi.sg 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can debunk assumption number two, as I am a sportsaholic, both in the sense of playing and watching sports, and I know that there are several other admins of whom this is also true. However, many of us live in constant fear of Celestianpower's vigilante group. :oP EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/BJAODN

This somehow managed to alert me to the existence of this. Offhand I forget what the procedure is for this kind of thing, and as I'm connected to the net agonizingly slowly and expensively right now I'm not in a mood to investigate. -- Hoary 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm connected cheaply and quickly, but busy-ness means I'm still not in a mood to investigate. I'm inclined to leave an avuncular message about the reality of administration on this person's talk page, and then just to zap his extremely botched attempt at a self-nom. Any objection? -- Hoary 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Jkelly 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I notice that Konstable has already left a splendidly avuncular message. I'll let the RfA attempt live for a few more hours (while still not transcluding it, of course). -- Hoary 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we made you an admin, we expected that you would willingly dig into your pocket and pay those expensive connection fees if necessary as a condition of the job ;-). NoSeptember 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So you did, so you did. I sit corrected! -- Hoary 07:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small tweak to the nomination process page

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/nominate, there have been several cases now of people getting an RfA subpage (nomination page) made for them when they didn't necessarily want that, and it perhaps put them in a bit of an awkward spot, so I tweaked the page to suggest that one should ask first before creating the RfA subpage if there is any doubt... I am mindful of instruction creep as always so maybe the wording could be tightened a bit but I do think it's caused some people needless stress lately. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should also make it clear that it is ok to delete RfA subpages that are never used (not accepted and transcluded), and when the candidate is ready, they can start the page again (without restoring the deleted edits). NoSeptember 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a very good idea. Of course the candidate will have to ask someone else to do it for them in almost all cases (reconfirmations excepted) as they're not an admin. :) Please enhance the text if you think it proper, and thanks for catching that. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dab linkage

"WP:RFA" could be confused with a request for article... so perhaps a dablink at the top for WP:AFC and WP:RA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.11.138 (talk • contribs)

So go ahead and do it. Be bold!--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to make an account and then wait a week for it to cure. When it's no longer green, then I could do it, as the page is edit restricted. 70.51.10.208 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I forgot that RfA is semi-protected. I'll go do that now, if it hasn't been done already.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just yet.

Not yet, but I should be one by doing 100,000 edits. --RCT Locomotion Wikipedia 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do I have to do to be an admin?

What do I have to do to be an admin?I want to be one.I have a good attitude and always contribute to wikipedia.I am in the wecoming committe.Well,I guest I can wait. --Cute 1 4 u 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regarding Adminship, I would suggest you see this as a consequence of good activity in WP rather than the aim.

Make good contributions in the article namespace (i.e. edit articles, create new articles, help fix articles, etc., categorizing articles. See Special:Uncategorizedpages, etc.)
contribute to the community in the Wikipedia namespace (i.e. contribute to WP:AFD for example or to any articles that start with Wikipedia:)
Fight vandalism of wikipedia by monitoring Special:Recentchanges

Once you have proved to the community that you care, then it will be very likely someone will nominate you for adminship. You will do fine, Just be useful, be always civil and help others. And most of all, be patient and DO NOT give up hope! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do good work
Get recognition for your work
Be nice to fellow editors
Stick around for at least 3 6 months --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) That's more accurate.[reply]
Discuss issues in wikipedia-related workspaces
Contribute to editing articles
Show an inclination for janitorial work

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to apply only when you "need" it. Adminship is not a reward for work on Wikipedia. Most of the work on Wikipedia does not need Admin powers. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to have many friends on wikipedia as well. rfa is a beauty pagent of the like, so regardless if you are a valued contributor, your fellow editors will still oppose if they don't like you. -Zero^Talk 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to somewhat disagree with this comment, having "name recognition" doesn't warrant you an automatic admin. Look at Terrence Ong's latest one. Alot of people whom seem to be "big names," sometimes get shot down. Having a successful RfA, from what I have seen, comes down to: A) Will you use the tools for the benefit to Wikipedia, B) Have you shown habits that will indicate that the use of tools could be malacious and C) Have you contributed positivlevy (more specifically uniquely) towards Wikipedia? Yank sox 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's often helpful to have someone respected nominate you. If it is too early, they are likely to say so, and if they support you, their voice can carry weight. Most of the failed nominations are rejected because of lack of experience, and this could have been spotted at the start by an experienced admin. OTOH, there are some people with lots of edits who don't need admin powers or who people don't trust to stick to policy. Stephen B Streater 15:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall using the term of name recognition. I commented that adminship certainly doesn't rest upon the qualities of our editors as it did previously. I will not cite names, but there are many successful nominees who passsed on anything but their quality as editors and their devotion to the encyclopedia. Its a popularity contest in my view. -Zero^Talk 15:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like when editors who are going through RfA are rejected because they don't need the tools. My best friend has a key to my home; he's never been here when I wasn't. I doubt he ever will be. If he ever does need them, he'll have them. RfA should be asking, if I give this person the keys to my house, will he be throwing raucous parties when I'm not home? Will he come in while I'm sleeping and eat all my food? Will he break or steal my valuables? If those answers are "no," give him the keys. If any of the answers is "I don't know" or "yes," then hold off. If an editor can identify what a vandal is and isn't, participated in enough processes that you're sure he knows how they work, give him the admin flag. The strain on resources is negligible (nothing?—the database space required to have a flag on is the same as it is to have it off), and since you've decided you trust this editor, the cost to integrity of Wikipedia is also negligible. —D-Rock 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA process

Megaman re your post above; if I may add my $0.02, without splitting hairs in actuality any democratic one user:one vote system by definition is based on the nominee's popularity - hence the term popular vote. But I understand what you meant. If you aren't attacking the individual personally then I see no reason why you could not name an example or two. Personally as that is a rather bold statement and I see no reason for you to make it without thought. Even if only to myself (and others who may ask perhaps) in the knowledge it would go no further. Thanks in advance, - Glen 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make a template for this: RFA is NOT a vote! It is certainly not "one user:one vote", so the entire rest of your comment is null and void. I have faith in our crats to know that one "Oppose because of these acts of vandalism" is worth more than one "Support - he's my friend". --Tango 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about the term vote is not necessary. Come up with a short term (4 letters or less) that clearly defines the process and we can use that instead. Otherwise, vote is a perfectly valid shorthand here. After all, the bureaucrats know what is going on. NoSeptember 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps calling the RfA a request for comment much like AfD? - Glen 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of "one user:one vote", it's clearly not a shorthand, it's a misunderstanding of how RfA works (or at least, is meant to work - whether it actually works that way isn't so certain, I personally trust the crats) --Tango 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Popularity" is a poorly defined term in this case. I consider a person who I think will be a good admin to be personally popular to me, even if I have never interacted with them. And of course I feel no obligation to vote for a friend if I think they are not suited for the job. NoSeptember 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is popularity. The problem, GIen, as I see, is that adminship is really but a set of tools to allow editors to assist wikipedia to a higher level. This shouldn't be considered anything close to a nomination for a politicial posistion. I don't wish to use external examples, as I feel such could be construed as a personal attack or the like. Its essentially the growth of wikipedia, perhaps. The more editors we recieve, the less the nominations have been dependant upon the skill and devotion of our editors. Its about who likes who best. I rarely see nominations that pass without sufficient support on a person's charisma. Its cool to be a person everyone likes, but that's not what wikipedia should base upon. We're seeking reasonable, skillfull, experienced editors who aren't afraid to sometimes place their fat in the community fire to uphold the values of the encyclopedia, rather than that of the select populist's ticket.

And it is a vote. Plain and simple. People vote for stupid reasons, assume bad faith and the numbers are counted at the end of the day. This is a firm reminder of my high school gavel club. Despite being skilled speakers, the best lads were tossed to the side because they didn't meet the standards of perfection or they didn't have the spanking new blazers. And the school suffers becasue of that. Popularity is great. But it doesn't help the encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the way the system works, and has always done so throughout society (Look at the Gov of california, Jesus Bush is still president for God's sake - because of knowledge or skill? - nor popularity either though I might add! hmmm) Anyway, I digress... I think yes popular members get more votes, however - why are they popular? You mentioned your gavel club. Perhaps the speakers you cited were not suitable as they should have been aware to keep their blazers "spanking". Popular members are just that because of their social skills. If I may name names, take Tony Sidaway, great admin, but, most would agree that he could possibly improve the way he interacts with (new, but also older) users. Some have taken breaks or gotten upset because of this. However, naming names again, we also have the likes of Sam Blanning, Bookofjude, NoSeptember (3 chosen at random) and the rapore they have... I have enormous respect for Tony, and I certainly mean no disrespect here but if all admins were as cut to the chase by the book and, well, efficient in handling other users then wikipedia would be a much less enjoyable experience (and I think Tony would agree). Those users voted in because others like them are to my mind worthy for that reason alone. Thoughts? - Glen 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell you how people are considered popular, GI. I've never been a popular person in my life in or out of the wiki. What I can say is that I'm generally a hated wikipedian and it doesn't bother me much provided I get to assist the encyclopedia to the best of my abilities. Many editors complain that I'm cold, I don't regard other feelings, I'm "too bold" and that I generally don't think about anything else other than the encyclopedia. This isn't entirely true, but I see how my objective way of thinking makes it seem that way.

In addition to my failings, I am a very experienced wikipedian. I took a personal mentorship under Tony Sidaway to learn what is proper, I've reviewed many policies, I make and greatly expand articles commonly, and I have a long and respected editting history of around 15,000 edits which are distributed evenly across every namespace. My general editting habbits are that of a consistent user [1], which on occasion has made me very depressed and stressful. Popularity is suitible in common society because everyday people aren't elected senator. This is wikipedia, a volunteer project. -Zero^Talk 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, I have long had an idea for nomenclature here: rather than v-te, why not the "post which cannot be named"? For instance, "in my post which cannot be named (PWCBN) I supported his adminship." Marskell 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<cliche>Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.</cliche> Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you start doing that, you won't mind if I refactor your comments, will you? ;-) NoSeptember 17:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone call me? Oh wait, nevermind. --HWSNBN ^{(Dark Mark)}

I quite like the !vote term that was suggested a while back somewhere. It's short and to the point :) Petros471 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have invented and repeatedly used the non-word "notvote" in this context. So far, no-one has laughed :/ -- grm_wnr Esc 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: people should calm down and not all panic-attack anyone who uses the word vote. I understand perfectly well why what we do isn't voting, but language itself is indifferent - 'vote' is a synonym of 'opinion' (fight with Mr. Theausaurus, not me). If someone does the correct thing (makes well reasoned arguments or discussion), and just happens to say the word vote, they really don't need 10 people yelling at them for it. Just having used the word does not mean they "don't know AfD/whatever is not a vote". If someone truly doesn't understand (all they do is go Support or Delete with no rationale), then it should be explained to them. But if someone is voicing their opinions just fine, and accidentally slips out a "vote", their only mistake is not realizing they're about to get beat up for using a dirty word. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but the first message of this section talks about democracy and "one user:one vote", which is very clearly a misunderstanding of how it works. Just because "vote" can be a synonym of "opinion" doesn't mean it always is, the usage of it in that message was not talking about opinions. --Tango 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in this case. I just meant in general, there's a lot of paranoia over the word, rather than seeing what people actually are doing. Maybe this wasn't the place to say so, though, since as you say, "vote" is being used the non-wiki way in this case. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion

Why not make a Table for future nominations - so that we can see a visual charter of the votes (Support, Oppose and Neutral)? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because RFA is not a vote, but consensus. Making a table would make it appear as if we only care what the user vote, not the rationale he had used. There are autogenerated tables for RFAs around, like Tangotango's one. -- ReyBrujo 13:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a table like Wikipedia:RFA summary, or something else? If the former, then it already exists, if the latter, please explain more. --Tango 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I was trying to find the link to the summary, but couldn't for my life find it :) -- ReyBrujo 13:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia first..

What should we do about this? Apparently, an current admin candidate has just died. [2] — 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. joturn e r 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. [3] — 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. joturn e r 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. joturn e r 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

+ concurrence. joturn e r 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. joturn e r 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. joturn e r 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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,[4] 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

[5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Either:

HRE is dead
HRE's account is compromised
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Something's got to be done.[6]. Options seem to be "close" or "protect" with a note not to edit? Tyrenius 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just to point out that your original protection of the page violated WP:PP

2. Do not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute (Category:Conflicts).

NSLE 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives