Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 143

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi all, I would like to be an a administrator. I am well informed with almost everything, and if I don't know it I will research it. I use my knoledge to create or edit accurate articles. I also will fight vandalism and delete inappropriate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Articleer (talk • contribs) 09:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact, that you posted this here, makes a strong point against your claims. You should try and read

WP:NOTNOW even if you request it correctly. SoWhy

09:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied in some detail at your talk page. Glad you've joined us and looking forward to supporting your request for adminship in a few months. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was on vacation when the above was discussed, but since people have questioned my motivations. First, the post is entirely neutral and I didn't do it in covert, thus it is not a case of CANVASS. Second, IF the reason why Majorly started the RfC was not a response to Jenneveccia's threatened RfA. Then it was in direct response to activity of events that occurred here in the RfA process. The RfA community consitutes an involved party. And per RfC guideliens,

I've been mulling over the concept of recall/reconfirmation for a while now, and wanted to set down an idea for discussion. The general subtext of those wishing such a process (especially a compulsory one) seems to be that there should be some requirement to maintain "community confidence" - that, were an administrator to act in such a way that confidence in their judgment is lost, they should have the tools removed even without evidence of the sort of misconduct that ArbCom would look for before forcibly removing them. I wanted to float a pretty general question: is there any sort of consensus as to whether we should require an administrator to maintain "community confidence"? Perhaps we could phrase this as: if it could be shown that less than half of the community still supported an administrator, should they lose the tools? Instead of requiring recall to show RfA levels of support - felt by many to be onerous and difficult to maintain once doing potentially unpopular but beneficial admin tasks - a simple majority is needed.

I don't propose at this stage to get into the question of what triggers an assessment of whether this majority support still exists, just to ask that conceptual question: do we think that an administrator is (or should be) required to maintain community confidence if they are to continue having admin rights? WJBscribe (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At the low end, I'd say an admin who cannot maintain at least 25% support should certainly be desysopped, at the other end of the range, someone who can get at least 50% support, probably should remain an admin, where in between those two numbers is a good line to draw (and of course a discretionary range to set), is a difficult question. MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's why I've been unsure about confirmation RfAs after drama: A lot of people mad at one administrator could cool down. For example, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 3. After being desysopped, there are still over 150 votes to keep him as an administrator. In addition, desysopping can have the effect of kicking someone off the project. Instead of losing a valuble editor, there are other alternatives. X

clamation point 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If being an admin is what motivates them to be on the project, then good riddance!! VasileGaburici (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything numeric is problematic. Look at our known base of problem admins- many of them have had large crowds of supporters. All you have to do is make friends in a chat room, and the numbers game is rendered nearly useless. (Unless those who make chat room friends make a corresponding number of chat room enemies, which, come to think of it, may sometimes be the case.) I'd rather see crats apply their own personal judgement than count noses, here. If you see repeated behavior from an admin that in your judgement would cause a reasonable person to lose confidence, you should consider that confidence lost. I like the "how would a reasonable person see this?" standard more than I like any form of voting, because too many voters don't vote reasonably.

The biggest downside I can see to increased crat discretion is the reactions of "zOMG, power grab!" but somebody has to solve this problem. For all the community's discussion and complaints, I don't see that we're getting any closer to solving the problem of poorly behaved admins. The community is by itself not well equipped to fix this. Maybe the time is ripe for the crats to step in. We already don't have a problem with admins judging XFD by the strength of the arguments instead of by counting votes. So, why should anyone have a problem with crats using similar judgement in helping decide who gets and keeps the bit? It seems pretty obvious to me. Friday (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be "the community", why not (continue) to base it on proven sustained poor use of the tools, violation of policy, etc,? Then only one person need collect the evidence and present it in an RfC/RfAR to get the appropriate response. If the ArbCom were a little more inclined to make judgements on the evidence provided (and I have to say, ignore all but the most extreme of extenuating circumstances - "this person stomps trolls all day long, so blanking and protecting in a content dispute once in a while is surely allowable" is not a defence) and respond more quickly: if five Arbs vote for acceptance then the admin is desysopped and the only discussion is the terms by which they can get the bits back (and after how long?). Something must be done to reduce the number of abusive admins, but I am disinclined to think that the community has the impartiality or experience to be the judge of what is systematic abuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has had the power and ability to do this all along. For whatever reasons, they haven't done it. So it's natural for people to look elsewhere for solutions. Friday (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Sorry for the long-windedness above. My direct answer to the direct question is yes community confidence is important. My hand-waving caveat is that when I say "community" I really mean "the reasonable members of the community". Friday (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If crats simply remove the bit of an admin just by his judgment with little input (or perceived as) from the community, it is going to be seen as either arbitrary, cabalistic or some sort of backdoor decision which is just going to cause a lot more problems that it is meant to solve. Some of our crats are "grandfathered in" before the Carnildo discretion, which is the turning point on the standards of RfB scrutiny. And remember, our crats are !voted in for life. -

Mailer Diablo

16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Community confidence is paramount, but measuring that confidence is all but impossible. Who's confidence? Under what circumstances? What about "block voting" from political factions (let's not kid ourselves, there are factions warring over Wikipedia all the time). Make a move anywhere in Israel-Palestine and you'll get dozens of sworn enemies regardless of what, exactly, you did... So what to do?

I'd say the only reasonable way to community-remove an admin bit would be by reverse RfA: same percentage to take away as to give. But even allowing such a reverse RfA would be begging for drama. Perhaps only allow one at the issue of an RfC? — Coren ^(talk) 17:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this exact question yesterday. Admins are powered by community trust. The more trust they have, the more they can do without creating disruption. If an admin's trust is called into question, a reconfirmation RFA is a way to restore their effectiveness (hopefully). I agree that the threshold should be lower, perhaps 65pct support is enough, subject to 'crat judgment. I also think the community would support 'crats ordering a reconfirmation RFA if a structured community discussion, such as

WP:RFC, reveals a possible lack of community trust. We want our admins to be effective, and cautious. To Coren, I think our crats are smart enough to spot, and de-weight, a single-issue voting block. Jehochman ^Talk

17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of distrusted admins is already handled by natural forces. As Jehochman says above, admins with more trust will be able to get more done. Admins who lose community trust will find themselves less and less effective, until they either change their behavior, leave the project, or upset enough people to be de-sysoped by ArbCom. I don't see the need to add another bureaucratic procedure for formalizing a process that already occurs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What he said.

talk

) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The current adminship process is equivalent to gaining (academic)

tenure. One is !voted by peers, but can only be discharged for gross misconduct by ArbCom. In the real world, tenure is given for scientific achievements and certainly does not encompass administrative positions. Would you like your mayor to be voted in for life? Granting administrative powers indefinitely is recipe for trouble. Most of the really bad press about Wikipedia has been caused by the actions of a handful of admins. More community oversight is necessary to prevent these from recurring in the future. VasileGaburici (talk

) 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of mandatory processes to seek/ensure this confidence exists, but I think the notion of hysteresis in determining this has some merit... 75% to promote, 50%+1 vote to keep strikes me as a good way to combat the problem of admins making enemies due to righteous actions... that's why in my voluntary recall process, if a recall is certified, I'm signalling I'm most likely to go for a modified RfC with a straight vote... I just wanted to point that out in support of this "different margins" idea WJBScribe put forth, regardless of what transpires with the rest of it. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that admins should maintain the confidence of the community in order to remain admins. While "natural forces" may come into play, I've seen a few bad admins whose actions remain unchecked. I'd support a straight up simple majority vote of community confidence, provided that there is some sort of initial recall step which must be satisified. Lar's recall process would would satisfy my concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to shoot

WP:CON to death with a stick, can we at least make it a 2/3 majority?--KojiDude ^(C)

15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I support

Wikipedia:Removing_administrator_rights - and am suggesting that an RfA type discussion which results in a consensus to 'de-sysop' (measured in the same way we measure a consensus to 'admin') can result in the action being performed - this is materially setting around a 25% requirement of confidence, and is 'nice 'n easy' to understand / follow / adopt. If you like this idea - pop over and take a look :-) Privatemusings (talk

) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A setting of 25% minimum confidence is a bit low. During World War II, more than 25% of Americans wanted to intervene on the side of Germany.^[citation needed] In any large community, there is a significant faction of people who are mistaken. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The person who fact tagged Jehochman's post needs to go re-read their WWII history. FDR had a hell of a time trying to get the public on board with the idea of aiding the allied forces. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He placed the fact tag himself.

^T

16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any process outside of the existing ArbCom methodology. The project has grown to the point where there are sufficiently large groups of like-minded editors who can band together to "take down" an admin. What we need is a streamlined process for ArbCom to hear sysop-abuse cases, which may include the creation of an ArbCom-sanctioned tribunal. -- Avi (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While I think there should be an easier means to getting admins out, I am concerned about renewed RfA's. First, there are already too many RfA's for people to do a fair assessment on every candidate. I'm sorry, I do my best to stay on top of RfA's and can't. I don't believe anybody can do every RfA a fair job as is.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not vote on desysoping, let us instead base it off of evidence as applied to policy. That is far more reliable than the swaying of public opinion. I don't see a long list of admins who need desysoping that arbcom is failing to handle anyways.

Chillum

17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people are mostly wrong; ill-defined consensus leads to chaos. "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people [administrators] who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught." There are far too many poorly performing administrators. --

I wouldn't say "most" in this context. Probably 80% of administrative actions are unquestionably right, and another 10% at least reasonably justifiable. Unfortunately, I would put the numbers about the same in bureaucrat and arb com decisions, leading to the question of who is to be the judges if not the community. What is probably needed is more choices between no desysop/sysop, such as a much wider use of limiting spheres of activity, at least for a period -- eg. no speedy deletions for those who don't follow the rules, without prejudice to their general competence. The community might be willing to say this in some manner--but so might arbcom, and the bar to bringing things to arb com for limited remedies should probably be lower. We might as well use the judges we have--we certainly have enough trouble selecting them, but adjust t he rules a little. (Alternatively, it might just take braver admin prepared to revert and defend themselves against wheel-warring, by making reversal of an arbitrary decision a sufficient defense, like BRD.) I am not sure how brave I am this way, personally. :) DGG (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that most people are mostly right. See

WP:AGF and democracy. Bearian (talk

) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah,

WP:AGF says that most people are wrong, but that their wrongness should be attributed to ignorance rather than malice. :) The wisdom of the people as manifest in their democratically elected representatives has had a bit of an iffy spell as well... MastCell ^Talk

22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, we are not a bunch of crazy pigs [1]. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This user believes that Wikipedia is not a crazy den of pigs.

lolwut? –

talk

) 23:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In case crats want to have the option of stepping in, in cases where an admin has lost community confidence, I've made a proposal that they can ask a steward to pull the bit, at their discretion. See Wikipedia:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal. Friday (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that we had some way of picking admins based on how they used their tools instead of a popular vote. It is a compromise that we vote for RfA based on trust, because we have no data on how they will use the tools. I think that removal of access should be based on the use of the tools and the policies related, not a measure of "community confidence" which is more often a measure of popularity. The fact is that any active admin will upset several people by simply enforcing policy, that does not mean they should be deadmined.

Chillum

15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter. RfA is a manner of gauging the community's trust in a particular editor prior to granting them the admin bit - the essential question being "Do we trust So-and-So to perform administrative duties without making a horrible mess of things?" Once we have decided that, yes, we have that level of confidence in them not to royally screw things up, we give them the bit and hope that our confidence was not misplaced. One of two things will then happen - either they go on to be a "successful" admin in the sense that they go about their duties without causing undue issues, or they wind up going "sideways with the mop" to steal a phrase. Admins who go wayward are dealt with for violating policy; those who stay within the bounds are left alone. There is no reason to revisit the question of whether a current admin will behave appropriately, because either they have up until that point (and likely will continue to do so), or they have not and likely have been dealt with. The logistics of any kind of reconfirmation of this community "confidence" is unrealistic - if we required, say, a yearly reconfirmation we'd be talking 5 re-RfA's per day, not including new ones. Granted, there ought to be a more efficient way of dealing with "bad" administrators. The current method of going via Arbcom, while on the right track, has issues. A better method could probably be devised, and probably should be. But the question we should be asking when considering the revocation of the sysop bit should not be "Do we have confidence in this admin" but "Has this admin abused the bit?" Shereth 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We make our major decisions based on

WP:CONSENSUS, that being an ad hoc discussion with consensus generally having a threshold of 75 - 80% support. De-admning could work the same way, though I would suggest that it follow an RFC to reduce the likelihood of disruption, pointy requests for de-admining, and vengeance requests. Once the RfD had been started, it would require the same level of consensus as anything else. It could proceed for the same period of time as an RFA and would be closed by the 'crats. This would provide an alternate route to ArbCom proceedings that would involve the community as a whole. it might actually reduce drama through the broader scrutiny of the whole community. Cheers, Dlohcierekim

14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to answer any questions that my decision may provoke. — Dan | talk 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a fair closure and a candid explanation. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't an easy close, well done and thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to commend you for your close. bibliomaniac15 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are extreme doubts about the validity of a significant enough portion of the opposition to throw it back into the discretion range (if nothing else, into the discretion range as redefined by /Danny). I would like to see a bureaucrat discussion. --Random832 (contribs) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Having traded a couple of onsite posts with Everyking and Acalamari, I think I can safely say that we'd be glad to try again in about half a year, just like anybody else. Our RFA process functions much better with relatively new candidates of four or five thousand edits than with someone as senior as Everyking. It's very difficult to run this type of a candidacy without spawning gratuitous drama. Speaking only for myself, that's what I aimed to do: it's the difference between following one's conscience with dignity, and stirring the pot to make things "interesting" or seeking a desired end at any price. Thanks to all who participated on both sides, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to start an argument on the subject here, but I think it would be unwise to cite the Danny decision as precedent for new decisions. The outcry at the time was enough to convince me that that decision did not successfully change the accepted discretionary range. Also, as a matter of tradition, we do not reconsider decisions already made. Maybe we'll be forced to do it if something goes terribly wrong in the future, but I don't think this RFA is so disastrous, or that my decision is so far from the norm, as to justify breaking a yet-unbroken tradition. — Dan | talk 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While I think a lot of the opposing votes were unfair and baseless, and I think a lot of canvassing probably occurred, I could not expect promotion at 66% as a matter of standard procedure. Ideally, the ArbCom would look at that figure, reflect on what it did two years ago and the role of its own current and former members in defeating the nom, and simply restore my adminship, perhaps requiring that I pass a confirmation RfA a few months down the line. Everyking (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

EK, you are certainly free to petition arbcom if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On this admittedly tougher than usual RFA, I agree with Dan. Despite the concerns regarding many of the opposes, I feel this RFA still fell slightly short of consensus. I encourage Everyking to work on concerns and then accept another RFA in the future, which may well then achieve consensus. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I was unable to close it due to my standing semi-wikibreak, I still followed it just the same. I would have closed it the same way; there simply wasn't consensus to promote. The only way it could kick into "discretionary range" would be if we picked apart every single opposing editor and their argument(s); given that we have no evidence on-hand to suggest that such a dissection is needed, there was nothing warranting a 'crat chat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What they said. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am back from my trip. Since part of the issue revolved around the canvassing email I received, I have made a statement on

Regardless of the merits of this case, I would like to see our 'crats use more discretion in throwing out baseless !votes, it would make the whole thing less votey.

Chillum

15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case then they'd need to look more carefully at support !votes too, which often have even flimsier reasoning than the opposes. That could change the way RfAs work, which might even be a good thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The presumption is, and should be, to support. Oppose only if there is a reason to do so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, not sure that I can support that view. I do not see me too supports or opposes as being helpful. This is especially true in the case of an editor with previous problems like ArbCom sanctions or someone that involuntarily desysop. Surely, prior to giving support an user needs to take the time to understand the problems that lead to the sanctions and the desysop. I have no problem with users giving support after they inform themselves of the situation. Wikipedia English has a tradition of being welcoming and forgiving so seeing many users want to give second chances is no surprise to me. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that that is what he meant. Of course you should oppose candidates, if there are reasons to do so, but I think Balloonman is correct to say that if there aren't, then the lack of enough support votes cannot be a reason to fail a candidate. At least that's how I understood it and if I understood it correctly, then I support it. SoWhy 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in the context of Will's comment that I made my response. My understanding of Will Beback's comment is that he is saying that uninformed supports should be ignored. This is a valid point of view. Deciding who is making an uninformed support or oppose is difficult to do in many cases. I think the 'crats do the best job possible in these situations. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The principle of AGF dictates that the default position is support. A person who supports doesn't have to validate his/her position. The support simply declares, "I've looked at the candidate and see no reason to oppose." People who oppose, however, are going against AGF and have to validate their reason to oppose. I say this as a person who opposes almost as often as I support. (Of course, I generally only participate in RfAs that aren't obvious or where I am among the first 20 participants.) AGF also assumes that people who supported did so from an informed position. Personally, I believe this not to be true (There are some people who are auto-supports---EG Support almost as predictably as Kurt opposes---but you still have to AGF, you can't discard their !vote because you believe them to be auto-supports.) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a correct application of AGF. An RFA request is quite a different thing from an ordinary editorial contribution to WP and I believe that the default position for RFA is "neutral". "Support" means that you have looked at the candidate's contribution record and found sufficient reasons to support there (in terms of sufficient contribution record in sufficiently many different areas, or whatever one's RFA standards are). "Oppose" means that you have looked at the candidate's record and found sufficient reasons to oppose there. Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that AGF is the proper assumption for candidates for trust positions on Wikipedia English today. When an user accepts a nomination for administrator on one of the most popular websites in the English speaking world, then I expect that the candidate will understand that their past contributions to the Project will be closely examined. Users making a RFA nomination need to have done some research to make sure that they understand the past editing history of the candidate. And people doing the nominations should never do nominations to make a point, and people voicing opinions should not do point !votes, either. Our volunteers that seek adminship almost always have given hundreds of hours of work to this Project and care about it's mission. They need to be treated with respect in every case. But that does not mean that we should AGF about a candidates editing history. We need to look and state our opinions when we see a problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF says absolutely nothing to suggest that the "default position at RfA is support". AGF says that if you disagree with someone, you should proceed from the assumption that you're both trying to help the encyclopedia rather than assuming that the other party is out to destroy it. AGF does not mean we assume that any candidate can fulfill the administrative role. We can, and should, ask for positive evidence that someone will be a good admin before supporting them. That's not "assuming bad faith" or violating AGF. AGF does enjoin us to respect candidates, even if we don't think they're right for adminship, and assume that they're here because they want to help. MastCell ^Talk

16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But of course. However agreeing with the nomination or someone else is just fine if supporting or opposing, no need for original content from each poster.

Chillum

17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now hold on, what is someone says "me to" in response to a well crafted nomination that makes all the points needed? An oppose that refers to a valid oppose argument is just as valid. We don't each need original content, we need only make clear what our opinion is, and "per nom" or "per Bill" does that just fine.

Chillum

14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines errata as "An added page in a printed work where errors which are discovered after printing and their corrections are listed; corrigenda." This has nothing to do with what is in the template box. A new name for the section, perhaps? Keegan^talk 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, errata makes no sense there. What was wrong with the old one?

(5:15) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice America (talk • contribs

)

I've changed it to "nominate." I personally liked the old table format, but perhaps that was just a matter of habit. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominate works, though I don't care for the repetition of the word :) I miss the old table too. Keegan^talk 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Me three, the new one is so...I just miss the old one, OK!? :) --Cameron* 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(←)Was there ever a discussion over changing the box? Justice America (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of technical aspects of how no-indexing of RfA pages cna be improved (e.g., what commands are needed to exclude these pages from search engines besides Google) would be welcome at

Ok, I think we need to come up with a minimum guideline wherein we close RfA's on sight... something such as "If the user has fewer than 1000 edits AND 3 months of experience, the RfA will be closed automatically." I think we should also support a notion wherein we would suggest deleting the RfA from newbies. I don't think that having a premature RfA should be used against a candidate down the road---I suspect that some people request adminship without realizing that there are certain criteria we expect from candidates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just let the RfA run for a few hours to make the newbie feel special? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because if you do so, people who come later might

bite him and that will not benefit us if he gets bitten. Balloonman is right but I think lower criteria are in order, maybe everyone with less than 500 edits and 6 weeks experience... SoWhy

23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I 100% support Balloonman's minimum requirment. There are too many idiots wasting their time setting up an RfA when they have less than a hundred edits. There is never going to be an RfA that passes with less than 1000 edits and < 3 months experience. Honestly, we shouldn't kid ourselves by not having a guideline, and should save people the

WP:NOTNOW going on their permanent wiki-record forever. "But Koji, what if he's a really good editor and it's always possible and you're being too bitey and deh di deh di deh deh di deh diiiiiii--" Oh, shut up, look up impossible on wiktionary and you'll see a little picture of a succesful RfA with 70 edits and 4 weeks experience.--KojiDude ^(C)

23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well...if they were 35 perfect complicated Non-Admin-AfD-closes, 10 GAs written and 25 perfect talk page entries which convinced several dozen people completely... Yeah, okay, it is highly unlikely - but not impossible ;-) SoWhy 23:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd recommend

RfA.  :-O — Coren ^(talk)

17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea as long as there is an extra-kind message left on the applicants talk page encouraging them to apply again in a few months providing they've obtained some more experience. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 23:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Balloonman's proposal. Just be certain that a personal and none customized message is left on the talk page explaining the situation in detail. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be a de facto change to the RfA policy, in other words: now there would be a minimum standard for an RfA whereas now there are "no official" minimums. I support such a modification and the deletion of the premature RfA is it would clarify the process for newcomers. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Balloonman's proposal. It's a good idea. In such closures, perhaps a standard talk page template could be used to inform users of the minimum requirements and encourage them to reapply later. The template could also include a couple tips, like getting experience in admin areas like XfDs and AIV. Oh, and links to

WP:PREP. Okiefromokla ^questions?

00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Laz is probably right though, while those of us who are regulars/semi-regulars know that a nom without 1000 edits AND 3 months experience will never pass, it would technically be a change in policy.... currently, there is no official requirement. But the reality is otherwise. I think 1000 edits AND 3 months is so low of a criteria, that nobody would object to it. But there is the second half of the proposal that I would like to get some feedback on: Deleting premature RfA's. For example, User:Dendodge in the section above mentions that someday he would be interested in becoming an admin. Den has been around for about 7 months and has about 7K edits. If he were to go up for an RfA, people would evaluate him on his edits/credentials. Unfortunately, Den made an RfA during his first month on wikipedia when he had about 100 total edits. Because of that edit, when he first came to wikipedia, people will judge him differently. It changes the way people will evaluate his edits and the way they evaluate him today. This is a shame. Thus, the second half of my proposal, that we delete (or at least allow new users to request such RfA's) to be deleted. I don't think failed RfA's should be deleted, but this is a special circumstance with the intention of preventing biting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I would support the proposal: it essentially clarifies what is already a policy. The advantage of this would be that we would then be able to more actively discourage newbies from being bitten/opposed/etc. The disadvantage is that it would no longer mean that "everyone" is eligible to apply for the position. I think the advantage outweighs the disadvantage. Additionally, we would be moving toward a more standardized schema in the RfA process. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we were to create a minimum requirement, one of the possibilities is a talk page template to give to users whose RFAs are prematurely closed, as I said above. I realize this idea probably wouldn't gain much ground, but I've just created an example of what this would look like here. Any opinions? Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I do not like this sentence: However, the community has established a set of minimum requirements before users can be considered to become administrators: In general, editors must have at least 1,000 edits and over 3 months of experience. Upon thinking about it more, I think it should be worded more to the effect of: While the community has not established a minimum set of requirements, admins are expected to have experience and familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. To this end, candidates with fewer than 1,000 edits and 3 months experience are automatically removed. I prefer this wording because it clearly states that there is no minimum. If we leave the wording about 3 months and 1000 edits, people will start to argue that 3 months and 1000 edits is the accepted minimum. It isn't. It is simply a level that is so low that the candidacy has a zero percent chance of passing. I'd also rather see something added to the page about nominating somebody as a preventive rather than a response to something that was already done.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) EDIT: OR "This is not a minimum guideline to pass an RfA, but rather to apply for an RfA."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I rather like Balloonman's proposal. Yes, a change of policy would be required but it should be doable. I would actually go further and introduce a rule that very new users should not vote in RFAs (say with a minimum of 3 weeks of having a WP named account at least 250 edits required). Regarding removing very premature RFAs, it will probably not be necessary if the 1000edits/3months requirement is introduced. However, there is another approach that can be used in parallel or maybe instead of a mandatory 1000edits/3months requirement: a mandatory pre-RfA consultation with a crat (not a pre-approval but a consultation). One of the real problems with the current RfA system is that sometimes good editors are so turned off by their negative RfA experience that they leave the project altogether as a result. In my observations this usually happens with relatively new editors (around 6-7 months or so) who did not quite know what the RfA expectations are and were unprepared for the kind of scrutiny that an RfA could bring. If a crat were to take a look at the candidate's record before an RfA and offer some basic advice in terms of the basic strengths/weaknesses of the case (which are usually easy to spot since the general con arguments in RfAs are fairly standard), this would probably significantly cut down on the number of unsuccessful RfA attempts. I think that something like that would even be useful for RfA candidates who are not self-noms. Sometimes if one gets nominated by their good friend, that friend may have a bit of a blind spot in relation to the candidate and not see a potential problem. So an equivalent of a pre-RFA

WP:3O would be useful. Nsk92 (talk

) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will the change of policy be retrospective, so any admins who passed without meeting the current requirements will have to be reconfirmed? George The Dragon (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a policy... it would be more of a guideline. Plus, anybody who passed previously, even if it was a policy would still qualify under IAR and community consensus.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be easier (and I'm really thinking aloud here) to change the system so candidates can't transclude their own RFAs? Make it so they have to approach an admin, who can at that stage "NOTNOW" the request? Of course, they would be entitled to seek a second opinion. While this would create some more work for admins, it could potentially lessen the work at the main RFA area George The Dragon (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That idea has been proposed and rejected...repeatedly.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see where you're coming from, George. The difficulty I envision with that point, is that it is restricting admin nominations to admins. Although I doubt this would be harmful to the project, I do see objections to that notion. I like Ballonman's proposal because it codifies an existing (if not written) guideline and allows premature RfA's to be removed quickly and painlessly with the least amount of undue damage to a fragile newcomer. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I didn't really like the sentence you pointed out either. Yours is better. It's certainly not a final draft. If we were to consider using a template, I encourage anyone who can improve it to do so. See User:Okiefromokla/Rejected RFA template. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we start doing this, should we tag the NOTNOW RfA's with {{

No. I think notnow RfA's should be deletable upon the users request. Kind of like a user talk page... but only notnow RfA's. If a person fails an RfA, they can't get rid of that history. The idea is to prevent future complications for somebody who in their eagerness to help the project applied for adminship early on. I don't think we should ever unilaterally delete an RfA. Also, this would need to be accepted by the community as a whole---in the past people's RfA history's had to be shown. I just think that it is not right to do so. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if we do this, you'll see people nominating on their 1,000th edit or their 3 month anniversary, and they'll think they're entitled to adminship then. When they don't receive it, they won't understand why not. Ral315 (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I think it is important to get the wording right. How about, While the community has not established a minimum set of requirements, admins are expected to have experience and familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. To this end, candidates with fewer than 1,000 edits and 3 months experience are automatically removed. Before running for adminship, one should be familiar with current expectations which are much higher than the 1000 edit/3 month guideline to apply.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Too restrictive imho. How about: While the community has not established a minimum set of requirements, admins are expected to have experience and familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. With this in mind, requests of users with fewer than 1,000 edits and 3 months experience will almost ever always be closed as

WP:NOTNOW and thus should be avoided. Before running for adminship, one should be familiar with current expectations, which are generally much higher than the 1000 edit/3 month threshold.? SoWhy

07:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed ever to always in your above statement... I think that's what you meant.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Thanks for the correction :-) SoWhy 07:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Added "generally" up there as there may people who have 1000/3month criteria... rare, but possible. Gernally, also reiterates that the criteria is not firm.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the concept of creating a guideline and like the way it's developing. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Minimum guideline? 1000 edits? I wonder what the minimum will be in One year? Three years? Five years? Creep creep creep creep. "All we're doing is raising the minimum slightly!". Plus, edit counts are the worst way to evaluate someone. Everyone knows a snow when they see one. You don't need to codify this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The goal isn't to prevent snow, but rather to prevent BITE.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The way to prevent BITE is to not make uncivil nasty comments on newbies' RfAs. Majorly ^talk 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree in theory, the problem is reality shows, that just as you've made rude comments in the past at newbie RfA, and I probably have made some as well, there is always somebody who seems to make them. Even if nobody makes rude comments, that are over the edge, getting 10 opposes can seem bity. I say head these SNOW's off at the pass.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon

part 2

Ok, I live the wording provided by SOWHY above, so the question then falls to the second half of the proposal: That we allow NOTNOW RFA's to be deleted upon the users request? Any comments or thoughts on this before taking it to Village Pump?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if we presented the option to the candidate as part of the notnow template? Lazulilasher (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

At village pump

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfA_wording_change---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor idea

This is a dreadful idea. The only reason good candidates fail with fewer than 1000 edits/3 months is because people like Balloonman insist on opposing them for that very reason! 1000 good edits and 3 months is plenty of experience. The way to solve this "problem" is to start evaluating editors on their edits, not their edit counts. We do not need a guideline. Thank you. Majorly ^talk 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice ad hominid attack majorly... I had more respect for you than that... The goal is to prevent SNOW candidates that end up getting BITEN by going for premature RfA. A person with 1000 edits and fewer than 3 months has no chance of passing due to lack of experience.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree 1000 edits and 3 months is "lack of experience". Just because you are tough on candidates doesn't mean everyone else is. Majorly ^talk 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last 200 or so RfAs, how many candidates passed/stood a chance with less than 1000 edits? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty, until the likes of certain individuals turned up and turned them down. Majorly ^talk 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny the reality Majorly - whether it's because of "editors like Balloonman" or even myself. That's just the way RfA is. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't "just the way RfA is". It's the voters that make it the way it is. RfA can change, if the voters change. It's the voters' fault RfA is getting tougher. Majorly ^talk 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Years ago, editors passed with fewer than 1000 edits. As time has gone on, the "typical standard" has steadily increased. Have any recent candidates passed with sub-1000 edits? No. Have there been any recent candidates with sub-1000 who would have made good admins? I'm sure there have. Useight (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If I read above proposals correctly, then Balloonman is proposing it exactly because everyone else is so tough on candidates (and as Wisdom89 points out, that exactly is what happens) and he wants to prevent them to get bitten. You cannot change the way people think and vote by policy, but you can propose to minimize the risks for newbies which stems from the way those people will react with 100% certainty. SoWhy 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then he's taking the wrong way about it. We shouldn't confuse an experienced (come on, after 1K edits you have some idea of what the heck's going on) editor by telling him he's still a clueless noob. We should vote differently. Majorly is 110% correct. —Giggy 01:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Majorly. After 1000 edits, I still only knew about half of the stuff I knew at my passing RfA. Also, even though users passed RfA a while ago with less than 1000 edits, as Wikipedia improves, the standards get higher. It's the natural way of things.

(blag)

01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, if you had been given the bit at 1000 edits, would you have misused it? Or would you have carefully learned what you needed to know to use it well? Started slow, picked one area to learn at a time, and worked your way into it? Darkspots (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Darkspots! If someone is clearly stupid, don't support them, but if they show they have a brain and 1000 edits, do we think they're going to suddenly become a moron if we sysop them? —Giggy 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Darkspots: Even after 1000 edits, I still made some big mistakes, is what I'm saying. Mistakes that get fixed with experience.

(blag)

01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we cannot set any guideline or requirement for

(talk)

10:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

People are going to make mistakes before and after adminship. A higher edit count won't make a difference. There are editors with over 50000 edits who would make (and make) terrible admins. It's a very poor indicator of experience after about 1000 edits. Fewer than about 1000 edits, perhaps you have a point, but I disagree with setting a hard rule, as there are always some exceptions. Someone with 1000 edits isn't really much different than someone with 3000, and we have recently promoted people with fewer than 3000 edits. Majorly ^talk 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. Edit count is an easy way to get a very vague impression of a user's experience, but we shouldn't endorse the idea that it's really a valuable tool for gauging a user's worth by enshrining it in a rule. As I always say to proposals to make more rules at RfA, we should be changing the culture rather than creating more rules; if people are biting newbies, we need to bring this up with those people, not letting them get away with it. We don't need to impose arbitrary limits, we need to be able to trust people's ability to judge each case; if we can't we have bigger problems anyway. I imagine a newbie might be alienated by rules based on a bunch of arbitrary numbers, too. delldot talk 05:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, This comment from Ultraexactzz shows that the fewest number of edits from any successful candidate is 2,974. Also, I am intrigued to know how you conclude "Someone with 1000 edits isn't really much different than someone with 3000". Axl (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He was wrong, see below. I seriously don't think a couple of hours on Huggle will give me any better experience. Majorly ^talk 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about you. You have 27949 edits, and that's excluding your socks. You didn't mention Huggle previously. So I ask again: why do you conclude "someone with 1000 edits isn't much different than someone with 3000"? Axl (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "me" I mean "people in general". I just showed you how it's easy to get 2000 edits. I can go from 1000 to 3000 edits in a couple of hours, without learning anything new. So, there isn't much difference apart from a higher number. Majorly ^talk 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right 1000 er 4000 er 10,000 100,000 edits doesn't demonstrate that somebody is qualified. A large number of edits proves nothing. A low number of edits, however, says a different thing. 10,000 edits is not a sign of somebody who has had significant experience, but rather a person who MIGHT have had signficant experience. A person with 10,000 automated edits may not have the experience as somebody with 1,000 edits.... but the person with 1000 edits still only has 1000 edits. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, you have taken one scenario (an editor using Huggle) and inappropriately generalized it to all. Axl (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit counts for successful RFAs

Can someone create a list of successful candidacies in (say) the last one year by the number of edits and duration of contributions that they had at the time of candidacy? Axl (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do that in a few hours when I get off work (or at work if there aren't too many supervisors hanging around). If someone beats me to it, though, go right ahead. Useight (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did find some info about this here and here. Useight (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask: what is the fewest number of edits from a successful RFA candidate? What is the shortest duration of contribution of a successful RFA candidate? So the answers are: "2974 edits" and "five months". On that basis, it highly unlikely that any candidate with fewer than (say) 2,500 edits or less than four months experience would pass RFA. Therefore there should be blanket prevention of any such candidates reaching RFA. Of course there should be a clear message that surpassing these "minimum requirements" does not guarantee success. Axl (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've only looked through one month worth of data (September 2007), and this successful RFA candidate had only 2083 edits. I'll keep looking through the remaining successful RFAs within the last year. Useight (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So maybe 1,500 edits is a reasonable minimum? On further review of Hex's RFA, he gives brief answers without any specific reason for seeking adminship. No one has asked any "optional" questions, which seems to have become a popular pastime. I very much doubt that a similar candidacy would pass now. Axl (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SirFozzie passing with 1777 edits, though that RfA took place in June 2007. Acalamari 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Long ago, RfAs passed with a tiny amount of edits. Examples: here and here. A more recent one is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango. Angela, a bureaucrat and former board member passed with 83 edits. Majorly ^talk 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but community standards (as well as RfA participation rates) have increased since then.--KojiDude ^(C) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to go back 2 years to find your "more recent" example? The reality is as you pointed out a year ago, when you were opposing a candidate,I don't think anyone has been promoted with less than 1500 edits for over a year. Majorly, you've !voted Oppose in about 15-20 RfA's due to lack of experience... while you indicate that this has changed, the principle behind this proposal is to prevent pile on opposes/bite.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's off the top of my head. Acalamari lists a more recent request, above. The only reason people haven't been promoted is because people have opposed them. The way to prevent people being opposed/BIT is to stop opposing them. Majorly ^talk 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't vote in newbie RfA's. I think they should be closed on arrival or never started in the first place.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, and I also agree they should be closed. However, I think a rule is a bit too far, as there's always going to be some exceptions. Majorly ^talk 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Then we are making headway. As I mentioned above, this has been taken to Village Pump. Take a look at the latest wording that I am proposing. It makes it a strong advisement with a note that they will likely be closed per notnow. It doesn't make it a firm rule.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article that I created this morning: Operation Assured Delivery. It is little more than a stub, but I made 23 edits to create it. If I had just kept two IE windows open to help me track down sources, templates, and links, then I could have created this in 1 edit, thus demonstrating the meaningless data that is The Sacred Edit Count. If a perfectly competent editor prefers to create or edit articles by making one large edit, rather than a couple dozen small edits, they kill their edit count, but add exactly the same amount of information to the 'Pedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Coming late to the discussion) As a tool for deciding whether a candidate would make a good admin, a rule based on length of editing history and/or number of contribs is, I agree, a bad idea. However, this concept is useful, using much lower thresholds, as a means of making sure that editors who are very new to Wikipedia, and have no idea of the standards expected of an RfA candidate, don't make a fool of themselves. There is no harm in saying that, below a certain experience level, a candidate has no chance of passing RfA. Hopefully the data referred to above will provide an idea of what that level might be. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Another late arrival) I don't like the idea of having any set criteria for number of edits/time spent. The decision to support or oppose is supposed to be based on a lot more than that. I do like the idea of allowing deletion on a case-by-case basis for failed RFAs by newbies. It is an innocent mistake, a newbie may not realize how seriously adminship is taken at Wikipedia and they shouldn't have to take a beating for it for the rest of their lives. If say, a bureaucrat or two feels the nom was a good faith mistake and the nominee wants it deleted I don't see any problem with that at all, and I think it solves what is not that huge of a problem without creating more "rules". That is the whole problem here, there are so many rules or guidelines or policies or whatever that newbies are missing important information and I don't think an arbitrary minimum standard for RFA is the answer.

talk

) 20:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of edits is an even more meaningless metric than the SLOC count is for a programmer's contributions. As it has already been pointed out, edits can be arbitrarily small or large. Anything that is measured will be gamed. VasileGaburici (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I miss User:Durin's stats on RFA. That guy used to come up with every conceivable useless statistic that used to interest us day in and day out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to adminship, I've requested some feedback here. I welcome commentary. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I see only one, unsuccessful, RFA? Were you an admin under a different name? I could not help but notice that as a concern in your May RFA. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He used to be User:Mercury IIRC. I could have sworn he had more than one RFA under this name, though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. naerii

15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See also: 1, 2, 3. - jc37 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I barely remember a discussion about re-admining. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, he used to be Mercury? How come I never get wind of these, even when I have CHU watchlisted? bibliomaniac15 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a new account, not a rename. naerii 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Think I'm gonna have to change my !vote on Biblo for not knowing... ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Balloonman:

Whap! —Animum (talk

) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, didn't act fast enuf... he passed already...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't want to overload all you guys' talk pages, I'll just use this section for my thanks. I'm just deeply humbled by the trust the community has set to me, and I promise I will not put it to waste. As the community has trusted in me and put their confidence in the community, so I return my trust and confidence to the community. I admit I was pretty nervous for the first few days. It was a decision that took steely balls of resolve, and seeing the atmosphere of RFA these days, I was afraid the giant nutcracker of !voters would be powerful enough to pulverize my vulnerable nuts...er, RFB. Apparently my fears were ill-founded. So once again, I thank everyone that participated in my RFA, even those people who left me a crapload of questions to answer. :) bibliomaniac15 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Nousernamesleft, Mariss Jansons rocks my socks.

PPS: Maxim, thanks for the...erm...wrenches. I always thought that bureaucrats get a big stash of

PPPS: Coffee, Bart133, wifecakes FTW.

PPPPS: Avi, maybe someday I'll purposely nominate a dozen admins for RFB so that you can blend into the herd.

PPPPPS: NYB, I require exactly a pint of 2% milk in glass bottles every day at 6 in the morning. Failing that, chocolate soy does the trick. There's a tip waiting in the wings... :)

PPPPPPS: Ecoleetage, the line for Tila Tequila is this way (→).

PPPPPPPS: Move along, y'all. There's nothing left to see here.

I wanted RFB thank space. It's refreshing in the midst of all of the RFA thank yous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thought that was funny? Synergy 11:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom's talk page is like fiddy percent RfA thanks. Impressive, W. Darkspots (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to spend more time in article space -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The crat "symbol" has the WP logo with two wrenches intersecting on it. Maxim (☎) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think goodie bags are better. bibliomaniac15 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Darkspots and Avi are now on my list. Watch out : ) It does make me wonder though, do people care more about some RfA comments than my edits in the mainspace? I thought my actions definitely ruffled some feathers there too. It's kind of scary. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been on your list for a while now, Wisdom :-P -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling all controversial candidates or people with skeletons in their closet. With most of the community tied up in knots about Sarah Palin, now is the perfect time to sneak through an RfA without any pesky questions about why you have 14,000 edits to AN/I and 3 in articlespace. MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. I'll start working on my request now. Thanks for the heads up. Synergy 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maxim #19: "The Administrators' Noticeboards, RFC, RFArb, and occasionally RFA, are like galleries of spectacular freeway crashes, slowing traffic in both directions as everyone cranes their head around for a better view. Contributions to the encyclopedia decline every time there is a new wreck." bibliomaniac15 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's only 2 nominations up right now, and one is a bureaucratship request. I reckon if someone requested now it would get more attention than usual.

how do you turn this on

23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I dare an admin to make the number of current RfBs double the number of current RfAs. :p Maxim (☎) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Maxim. I need someone to share the pain with... bibliomaniac15 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should submit one just for fun, even though I know it won't pass. B-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when nobody submits to either process. That's the only thing that will force the wikifossils to accept there may be another, less bruising, way. --

Here's a time that actually happened [3], a time that Bibliomaniac may recall. I certainly do. Useight (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My wounds are still recovering. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Useight, give it some time, history has a way of repeating itself. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo! I will nominate a random user every day but I will not let that happen! Think about it, what could happen, if those people like us who stalk RfAs are forced to really go out and do something!!! History, dare not to repeat yourself on me! :-D SoWhy 11:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone living across the pond, I am really failing to see what all the fuss is about. Some people take things far, far to seriously. Gazimoff 09:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean in this thread here? I don't think anybody is seriously disconcerted or alarmed that there are few RfAs at the moment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He means the Sarah Palin stuff I think. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, makes sense now. With that, I agree. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Was I the only one who thought Synergy was joking? ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. A silent "LOL" at this thread from me. :D

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

11:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually. Originally I was just joking. All I was doing at the time was writing up answers to common questions when I seen the post here. About half way through I decided that it might in fact be time to go ahead, since I've been more busy than usual at work. I hope this doesn't put a bad spin on my comedic edits. :/ Synergy 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope... of course I knew that he was interested and thinking about it and that it had been over 3 months since his last one.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's bored and needs something to vote on, I'll nom myself again :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(I kid.) Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I gathered that. :). Reyk _YO! 05:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good candidate?

I know this sections was started for fun, but seriously:

Although I am an admin I don't know that much about the RfA process. (I became an admin since I do work with protected templates.) But I know we need more admins, since there is always more work that needs to be done. Lately I have been in contact with

editprotected

}} requests all the time.) So if anyone feels in the mood to take a closer look at him and see if he is admin worthy and nominate him that would be a good thing. (I don't feel I have the skills to do a nomination.) Oh, and I have not asked him about this.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I have wondered about why

boldly do it. Just write up why you think he should be made an admin, it'd be much more authentic than if one of us looks at him without having dealt with him that much before. After all, what can go wrong? We judge candidates not nominators ;-) SoWhy

12:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<fun>Me hides in a corner afraid of being de-sysoped for doing a bad nomination.

I think the dark secret might be that we don't want skilled bot owners to become admins. Since that might result either in that they do less bot work (due to admining instead) or that (dreadful thought) they run bots and scripts from their admin account.</fun>

Nah, seriously: I have not been enough in contact with R'n'B yet to be absolutely sure without further checks. And I haven't the time to check him up. And I am not a native English speaker so it is hard for me to write up a good nomination. And I happen to know (think I know) that some people in here enjoy checking up on and nominating people. Just that it isn't that easy to find good candidates to check up on. I am of course willing to co-nominate him if/when he is nominated.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should set up a recruitment committee. It would spend some time each week reviewing editors and discussing their merits, then approaching, vetting, nomming, etc. If the committee members were considered trustworthy by the community, it would increase the likelihood of successful RFA's, reduce drama, and avoid bruising of those not quite ready. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim: Well, if there are people that want to do such work, then sure. But it would be less bureaucratic to simply encourage people to report possible candidates to this talk page, just like I did today and have done before. (I have reported one obvious candidate before, he is now an admin).

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Like "I want YOU to become an Admin!"-Uncle-Sam-style-recruitment? :-D

But seriously, I don't think anyone ever passed or failed RfA just because his nominator did a good/bad job with the nomination. And to be honest, setting up a committee to do it just creates more work for everyone involved. Why can't people interested do it themselves? Nominators need to introduce a candidate - not do a full-checkup, that's why we have RfA. If you want nomination, I'd say go to

WP:HOPEFUL

and pick some on that list, have a look at them and nominate those you deem worthy.

But I think I rather prefer it if the nominator nominates someone because he sees him/her around doing good work and not because the nominator is part of a group which only exists to nominate. SoWhy 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)