Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2: Difference between revisions

Who can and who can't comment

What is the rational for the no admin voting request? Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On the same point: not that I'm particularly interested (at present) in indicating my views in any section of the discussion, but why does Herostratus assume that admins, if not "prevented" from doing so by him, would support him? And is this request to admins to stay clear of the discussion any more valid than a request to non-admins to steer clear would be, e.g. on the grounds that non-admins can't understand what it's like? If the request is valid and enforceable, it would have the intriguing result that those who wish to read the BLP AFD for themselves cannot participate, and those who can participate cannot read the material for themselves... Bencherlite^Talk 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As we've seen in the past, recall is a voluntary, and ultimately unenforceable, process that the admin being recalled can direct at their whim. By the same token, the candidate's request for admins to recuse from the page is probably unenforceable as well. FYI, though I added the pagenotice, that doesn't mean I endorse the request or even endorse this process in-and-of-itself (nor do I intend to close it). Just facilitating. –xeno^talk 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [comments not made in a bureaucratic capacity]

It is enforceable. It's a wiki. I or any editor can remove comments. As to the rest...well, I want to evenhanded and fair. I don't know if admins would be tempted to prevent the setting a precedent here ("There but for the grace of God go I"), but isn't it possible? Given human nature and all? How about if said "Admins may vote/comment, but only in the Oppose section"? Would that be OK? Should I do that? It would seem an odd thing to do, though. As for the BLP AfD, allowing some commentors to read it and some not seems even worse; at least now everyone's on the same level. And I did provide an abstract, granted this is my version. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The request from Hero that Administrators not be able to vote on the assumption that they will all vote for him is just imo another example of bad judgment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, thats a bit like the reasoning used in Inquisitions: if the accused confessed to heresy then they were burnt at the stake, and if the accused refused to confess their heresy they were also burned at the stake. Not to say this is a kangaroo court or anything, but please don't mistake possibly misguided attempts to prevent bias with deliberate bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see things differently. There is brought up, from time to time, a perception that admins join together to defend each other. I think it comes up often enough that, whether or not it is true, there may well be a desire by admins to prove it's not true by doing just the opposite in a case like this. The fact that he's willing to stand for reconfirmation is amazing; asking only a few hundred out of many thousands of users not to participate appears to be part of his right to set the rules for the reconfirmation. Perhaps if you would prefer admins not have the right to set their own rules, we should find another way, such as the automatic reconfirmations that everyone seems to think would be impossible to achieve.--~TPW 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be only a few hundred active users, but admins form a high proportion of those who generally participate in RfAs. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This page is listed as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Has there been a recent change to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship which prohibits a certain class of user from participating at RFAs? -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a recall RFA so the candidate can presumably set the rules. But I share your concern: it's rather unwiki and the presumption is probably at least somewhat misguided. I've just deleted the pagenotice because I do not want to give the impression that I endorse the request that admins recuse. Candidate may, of course, recreate it themselves, I've left the code in a hidden comment. –xeno^talk 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [comments not made in a bureaucratic capacity]

I do not think it would be appropriate for that to be added as a page notice. Page notices can only be edited by admins, and it implies an endorsement of a unwiki action which flies against WP:RFA process. -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. –xeno^talk 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [comments not made in a bureaucratic capacity]

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll run for adminship and request that no one who would oppose me can participate. (of course we all know I'd be likely to unanimously pass anyway  :) ) Keepscases (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nod, Keepscases has a very astute comment here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous, although out of deference I have not commented on the "RFA" pending some resolution of this thread. As I just stated elsewhere, shall we ask anyone who has +rollback to abstain from discussing a rollback removal at ANI? By logical extension how about anyone with edit rights should not be allowed to discuss blocks? Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As I see it anyone can and should vote comment. Administrators have now vote commented in both positions.Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept that the initiator of a recall RfA gets to set the rules. At the extreme, one could write that only those in support are allowed to contribute, which would obviously be a mockery of the process. I see two acceptable possibilities and one action that should be undertaken:

1. One could put forth an argument why sysop votes might be inappropriate, and let each individual sysop weigh the argument and act accordingly
2. One could put forth an argument why sysop votes might be inappropriate, and urge the closing 'crat to give no weight to sysop contributions, at which time the 'crat can decide whether the argument is valid

My second point leads to a question - it is a 'crat function to close traditional Rfas; has there been any discussion about whether this process is just another RfA, or whether they ought to have a little chat to think though whatever issues might occur to them, as this will set a precedent.--SPhilbrickT 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I can see both sides of this discussion. It's very unconventional and arguably very undesirable for a candidate to decide who can and cannot !vote at RFA. But, the counterargument is that this isn't an RFA, even though RFA is hosting it. This is a reconfirmation process to which Herostratus has voluntarily submitted and according to our current rules, he's allowed to control the terms on which this discussion is conducted. After all, the purpose of the process is to determine whether Herostratus should voluntarily resign, and we should see that this is ultimately a decision for him that he makes of his own free will on the basis of his own principles. That's not to say that I agree with Herostratus—I don't, and I think admins should be permitted to !vote. I'm saying that I think Herostratus might be wrong, but I will argue for his right to be wrong about this.—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• The entire premise of voluntary recall only seems to exist because those admins can write their own rules. I guess it's the best we can deal with until we get consensus for a more consistent process.--~TPW 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A thought

If I pop over to meta, get a desysop, comment here, pop over to BN and get resysopped does my vote count? Hero seems to think that admins might club together to protect one of their own (and I can think of many editors who might agree with that assertion to be fair). Unfortunately it is misguided in the extreme to think *all* admins club together. I personally find Hero's breathtaking arrogance/ignorance/hubris in this matter worthy of an oppose - the actual reasons behind all of this whole process being somewhat secondary (although no less important). Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Worked for me. – iridescent 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zackly so, Pedro. The more I see of this, the more I dislike it. To my knowledge, I have had no contact with Herostratus, but the idea that admins should be excluded from voting on a reconfirmation, perhaps on the basis that they might support him, seems to me to be a breathtaking and offensive misjudgement. It's not about a cabal of admins, it's about basic confidence in abilities and judgement, and I can see the way this is going already. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at it a different way. He is under no obligation to go through this process. The finding could be 100-0 against him and he would be perfectly free to ignore it. If he is not interested in the input of admins for an optional process, then that is his prerogative. --B (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Two levels here; there is no obligation even to have recall criteria, and I personally don't have any, because I could easily game the system to set up those criteria such that they would be impossible to satisfy, and so I regard that as a broken process, and I think I made that plain during my own RfA. However, once you set up a recall process, and it is satisfied, however weak the criteria, you voluntarily submit to a new RfA, in my view. That's the honourable thing to do. Second level is that once a reconfirmation RfA goes against you, it is also honourable to resign the mop, although there is no superior mechanism for doing so. In any case, it should be implicit in a reconfirmation RfA that you should perhaps resign the mop and are re-seek it; that, to me, seems to be the appropriate process, otherwise it's "back me or sack me, but if you do neither, nothing will happen". That's an utter waste of time, and should be castigated as such. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

other issues

The joke - I will post links later but basically User:Herostratus posted a comment on his talkpage allegedly from his parents that he was not going to be allowed to edit wikipedia anymore. The joke resulted in another Admin blocking his account which Herostratus then unblocked himself, (I was only joking) the issue went to Arbcom and he was reprimanded. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the Arbitration Committee as an entity did not block Herostratus, nor did it recommend, request or advocate to any administrator or arbitrator that Herostratus be blocked, for that joke, or for any other issue. Risker (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: The wording by ArbCom was: "For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. The Arbitration Committee also admonished the blocking administrator. Risker (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they were both admonished, but the issue would never have even arisen if it wasn't for the creation of the situation by User:Herostratus. User is attracting drama and such users do not imo make good administrators and we would not be here if it wasn't for some dubious decisions from this user. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The userfication of articles without request from users

There was also another recent issues (diff to come) where Herostratus userfyed an article that was tagged as a copy vio, there was no request from the user to userfy and Herostratus removed the copy vio thinking if it was in user talk space the copy vio did not matter. This created a small edit war after other experienced users replaced the copy vio template and the creator of the article removed it again, the article has since been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for diffs (it has been deleted) for this specific issue, but the userfication without request is demonstrated as in diffs like this , user Herostratus userfyed this imo speedy delete issues , I can not see any request to do it and the new user who used his only four edits to create the stub didn't ask for it userfied and has not edited the stub and now it sits there apparently unrequested and appearing to be unwanted, userfyed by user Herostratus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your vendetta against Herostratus is becoming slightly tedious, and to be honest you're starting to look obsessive and desparate. There's nothing wrong with userfying an article without a direct request. BigDom 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stay civil User:BigDom, your accusation that my actions and comments here are representative of any alleged vendetta is imo a blockable offence as a personal attack, additionally you continue with the attack by claiming I am desperate and obsessive, both of which are also uncivil and you should attempt to present your case a bit more politely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think you're looking for User:Mg1200/My Hustle, with relevant entries in the history being (for the benefit of non-admins):

06:00, 15 June 2010 Herostratus (talk | contribs | block) moved My Hustle to User:Mg1200/My Hustle [without redirect] ‎ (Userfuy copyvio material)
06:03, 15 June 2010 Herostratus (talk | contribs | block) (4,493 bytes) (since its in userspace, it ok to remove copyvio tag. right? i hope so)

I found this fairly quickly through looking at Herostratus's log for moves. Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from admins

Since I guess we're not supposed to !vote, I'll say my bit here. As I said in the recall petition, if Herostratus had at any point in time realized he was wrong and said so, I would be his strongest supporter. People make mistakes. We're people - not bots. But his comments about the BLP subject really were not appropriate and on this, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect. I find this proposal to be frankly rather scary as it would roll back one of the strides we have made to try and reduce the amount of libel on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse

As far as I see it, RFA was not made as a vehicle for admin removal. Granted, it's Herostratus' recall procedure, but I foresee a very, very bad precedent in allowing this to continue. bibliomaniac15 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The page, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, leads to what it refers to as "a default procedure and set of criteria", which states, "The venue for re-confirmation is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Following a successful recall petition, the admin submits a new RfA, making clear that if it fails, they will resign. (At the admin's discretion, they can resign first and submit a new RfA at their own convenience.) The standard for the RfA, just as for any RfA, is community consensus: if the user has consensus to remain an admin, the RfA is successful; if they lack such consensus, it is unsuccessful. Admins who resign during or as the result of a recall process are considered to have done so "under a cloud" and should re-apply at RfA to regain adminship." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very much in agreement with Bibliomaniac. I have been trying to make this point at WP:BN#Herostratus' "recall" RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole process is, for better or worse, described as being "entirely voluntary" — even to the extent that "Administrators are free to change their recall criteria at any time, to decline participation in the process despite having previously agreed to be open to recall, or to disregard the outcome of any recall proceedings." I believe we would be far better served by some uniform, mandatory procedure, established in advance by consensus, and applying to all admins, past and future, and without any right to opt out.

However, at the same time, I do not like the idea of taking the mop away from someone who fails to continuously maintain the same extremely high level of support (what is it now? 75%? 80%?) that they needed on their original RfA. Admins are sometimes going to make unpopular (even if correct, or at least arguably justifiable) decisions and will inevitably antagonize some users — just by the nature of the position. I would not favour a mandatory recall process unless the rule were that there would have to be a broad consensus to take away the mop (i.e., the subject of a recall would keep the sysop bit unless a large majority, well over 50%, were opposed). Richwales (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Richwales: In this case, at present, over 50% are opposed. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)