Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 186

The discussion on pros and cons of "admin-lite" was considerably better than previous discussions, on all sides; we're confused on a much higher plane now :) I think it's safe to say that there's no consensus on a single proposal to proceed with at this time, but there hasn't been significant objection to the idea of unbundling one or more admin tools (yet). OTOH, I've got an objection: if you unbundle some buttons, many editors will see those buttons as desirable and divert time into getting them, leaving less time for critical tasks like deletion tagging. If any other buttons get unbundled, my guess is it will be a net negative if we don't unbundle the delete button, too. Two immediate problems there: User:MGodwin and others don't want non-admins to see deleted pages, and that's one of the most dangerous tools to unbundle. I initially thought those were stoppers, but I've asked some CSD people for advice and I'm getting good feedback. I don't want to divert attention from the recruitment drive above, so I'll start writing up what I'm finding out on my talk page if anyone (including Hammer, and anyone in opposition) wants to put their two cents in. There are some technical problems that might turn out to be stoppers, and I don't want to waste people's time if that's the case. - Dank (push to talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Technical question: Is it possible to unbundle the "delete" button without giving the ability to see deleted pages, or vice versa? Would it be possible (for example) to create a class of XfD-closers who can delete pages if there's a consensus, but not see the deleted material; or a class of DRV-reviewers who can see deleted material, but not perform deletions themselves?

  Unbundling the ability to block strikes me as essential for any such sub-admin janitorial position.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally we would expect someone to be able to undo what they did, so someone with delete, should be able to undelete, or restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If necessary, can the rest of the tools be given out without the deletion stuff? If it came down to being able to coach people who just want to work at AIV, or page protection, can we unbundle those? I haven't read the perennial proposals in a while so there might be good reasons why this hasn't been done already. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Graeme. Update: User:SoWhy has given me some good reasons it would probably be too difficult to train people who couldn't otherwise pass RFA how to handle a deletion button; unless I get some new data, I'm not going to pursue that. The usual reasons for not unbundling are variations on the reason I gave, namely: either you're unbundling the userrights that don't account for a lot of admin work, but then people will spend time trying to get those buttons and be diverted from the stuff that admins actually need help with, or else you're unbundling the hard stuff ... deletion, blocking, protection ... which go together to some extent, and by the time the community is ready to trust someone with those, they're ready to trust them at RFA. I still like the idea of trying to find out some way to significantly help admins with their workload, and hand that out as some kind of userright, that has a lot of other benefits. Another idea, don't yell at me if this is dumb because I just thought of it: how about if we take away the right of all editors to tag any page for CSD, and make that a special userright that we hand out at PERM? It wouldn't "disenfranchise" anyone from being able to nominate pages for deletion; they could do that under any of the 7-day deletion processes. It would just be a way of saying that CSD tagging is hard, and it wastes a lot of admin time when we have to stop and explain why something isn't CSD, and it alienates good contributors to have their pages mistagged. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely see the appeal of that at times *grin*, but unfortunately the well-tagged pages will just get pushed into the prod/AfD system. I don't think that's as serious a problem as some people claim, but my fear is it will encourage people to create pages like "Jenny is pretty and I hope she notices me" or "Our band will be a big hit once we learn an instrument" because those will be less likely to be speedily tagged. Although if it was handed out and taken away as easily as rollbacker, that might work... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're saying that people would create pages that fall just outside the CSD criteria in the hopes of surviving AfD? I don't see pages like that a lot. Also, the usual objection to turning anything into a userright is that you reduce the pool of people who can do the work, so less work gets done ... but I'm pretty sure more CSD tagging would get done, because this button would be seen as a useful step on the road to RFA (and rightly so, this is one of the main things that trips people up at RFA, it would be so much better to deal with these issues in a less unpleasant forum, before the RFA). In particular, we'd have "licensed" CSD taggers trolling PROD and AfD looking for pages that qualify for CSD so they could tag them. But I don't want to go too much in depth into the CSD issues until this moves to

WT:CSD, because I think a lot of people who watchlist CSD would get a little grumpy if this CSD issue were in effect "decided" at WT:RFA before they have a chance to rake it over the coals. How about the issues of reducing admin work and providing a more pleasant, intermediate step on the way to RFA? A confession: half the reason I enjoy doing userspace CSD work is that almost all of the tagging is done by experienced taggers. For most CSD work, half my time is spent on the 10% of the pages that were mistagged, making sure everyone understood what was going on and why, and more time is spent responding to comments left on article talk pages that get deleted. "Licensing" CSD taggers (making it a userright) would be a huge timesaving for me. - Dank (push to talk

) 17:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I asked FT about this by email, she says that was what she was saying and she does see it. I'm hoping that people with the CSD button will patrol AfD and catch these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood your email -- I don't think they'll create pages that might survive AfD, just create them that will survive the 7 days until an AfD closes. But as I said in the email, if Licensed Taggers(tm) doesn't wind up decreasing the good tags very much, I don't think this will be a problem for the 'pedia.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tagging for speedy is merely a case of adding a template, and I don't see how ordinary editors could be prevented from using a template. Nor do I see a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia in doing so. I like the fact that any idiot can tag for speedy; it puts an onus on the deleting admin to pay attention.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I can't agree with any of those points, S Marshall (which surprises me because I usually agree with you). Ordinary editors could be prevented by a filter triggered when someone tries to add a CSD tag. The benefit would be in saving 50% of the time that admins are currently spending on CSD work, which is a major part of the admin workload. What would put a bigger onus (giggle) on deleting admins would be if the taggers were competent and bold enough to challenge the admins. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Tagging can be prevented if Deletion Queue is implemented. Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something Dank, how does that make sense? If we say only 50% of CSDs are correct, then 50% of the time sysops press "delete" and 50% of the time they press "undo" and write a quick summary. If we needed
  WP:PERM to get CSD "rights," then alllll the crap that needs to be deleted but isn't found by a CSDer will get AfDed or PRODed, right? In which case the result will be the same (sysop pressed delete) or worse (sysop removes tag after 7 days of discussion). AfD doesn't need an additional 200 "Call 867-5309 for a good time" or "Talk:Why are some ants red but some are balck" entries. Not to mention that a large portion of current CSD tags will go unnoticed for longer (I'm thinking of libelous attack and copyvio pages in particular). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs
  ) 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who tends to specialize in the CSD areas that get a lot of bad tags, it's not a case of just pressing undo and writing a quick summary. At least, it isn't with me. With any CSD, bad tag or not, I read the entire article, talk page, and edit summaries. I also do any relevant gsearches to see if the issues can be easily solved through editing. Then if I decline the speedy I remove the tag, write an edit summary that reflects why, and add any maintenance tags needed. Most of the time I then pop over to the taggers page and write (or template, if it's simple enough) the tagger an explanation of why I disagreed with them, along with what their options are if they disagree with me and links to relevant policies. Also about half the time I pop over to the article creator's page and tell them what the article is up against and generally what improvements are needed, such as better sources. I absolutely agree that AfD doesn't need to get flooded with crap, but bad tags scare away new editors AND waste a lot of admin time. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, and it's the same with me, although it's hard to match FT's diligence at CSD. The bad tags take much longer to make right than the good tags take to process, so drastically reducing the bad tags would be an enormous time savings. I find, for instance, that tags by IP's are valid CSDs less than 5% of the time. Also, many admins are hesitant to work in an area where everyone has a different theory of exactly what you should do, and getting presented with questionable tags day in and day out makes some uncomfortable ... including me, I confess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And it does not have to take an Admin to save an article from speedy delete tagging, any editor including anons can edit and remove and improve. Perhaps we have to encourage the

WP:Article incubator team to rescue more stuff. Anyway if there was no request for speedy delete tagging option open, there would have to be some other venue to ask for deletes, which would still have to be patrolled. Graeme Bartlett (talk

) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can remove? Do you mean remove the CSD tag? I understood it that editors were supposed to add hangon, discuss on talkpage and improve the article, before an administrator makes a decision. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone but the author can decline a speedy by removing the CSD tag, only the author needs to go through the {{Hangon}} route. In practice I get the impression that usually only admins and authors remove speedy tags, perhaps some of those potential admins who are following this page would care to try their hands at such article rescue? ϢereSpielChequers 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I did some of that during the period between my two RFAs. Searching through speedy tags and removing the improper ones is a great thing for a potential admin to do. It helps you understand what admin work is like, in that you seen how many users fundamentally misunderstand CSD and you can also get a sneak preview of the amount of crap you have to put up with once you are an admin. Also, it helps reduce the workload for actual admins if the obvious bad taggings are removed.
  talk
  ) 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Backslash Forwardslash beat me to it. It was set for the year 29 instead of 2009, which the bot equated with 2029. [2] Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Y2K anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What a fortuitous error. 7311 days for an RFA could be the solution, perhaps with tools handed out on a temporary basis to anyone who survives the first 72 hours and removed at the end of the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

7311 days from now, we won't need RfAs. People will just buy adminship by the hour using

whuffie. rspεεr (talk

) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In the end the most important indicator is that the encyclopedia is alive and well, the admin queue moves briskly and the backlogs are as backlogged as they ever were. Wikipedia is busy and growing, and there is no shortage of labor nor will there be anytime soon. Andre (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave RfA alone because it merely represents the will of the community. If you truly believe this, you clearly did not read this talk page.

type! snype?

06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOMORE? I can certainly believe that the subset of people who read this page could come to a different conclusion from that of the community as a whole. Presumably, as has been mentioned, any possible changes here will be headed to the village pump. Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Andre, self regulating systems most certainly dont work out in the end! Nature is cruel and prodigious beyond measure and countless species have become exstinct. Switching to human systems, the great crash of the 20th century occurred at time when the "leave it alone" or lazzie fair attitude was dominant, and economic chaos dragged on for a decade, ending only with WWII. The 2008 crash was reversed quickly because of massive government intervention and use of Keynesian stimulus – a managed response undertook as leaders understood they couldnt expect the market to fix itself. Crucially , the response had been prepared in advance before the need for it became obvious to all. If it hadn’t, the current recession would have been considerably more severe. Getting back to RFA, the current design reflects the communities will as it was some years back – things have changed since then, and we’re find out if the community wants the rules governing RFA updated when we take this to the Village pump. That is if the current recruitment campaign doesnt turn out to be enough to turn things around. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

By saying that it reflects the "will of the community a few years back" you would be implying intelligent design :-P . For some reason a combination of inertia and unwillingness has resulted in a system that sort of grew and that really doesn't work according to any design whatsoever. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is "no big deal"? (Andre 06:32, 18 September 2009) - only an admin could say that! I've seen outrageous blocks, and incivility from an admin that would get a non-admin an immediate block. From a non-admin's point of view, the first question at RfA is "Am I absolutely sure I can trust this person?" - if not absolutely sure, oppose. There problem is that there is no effective way for non-"officials" to get admins suspended or de-sysopped. Sure, the case can be taken to ArbCom, but that takes too long. The remedy must be as quick and severe as the harm done by the admin who is at fault - e.g if an admin makes bad block, the admin should be suspended within a day and remain suspended until the case is resolved. You may not like it, but until that happens "voters" at RfA will want to pick over candidates' histories to see if there's anything that causes them concern. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have that one on the agenda for the day after the Cubs win the World Series. Or is it when we return from Harold Stassen's Inaugural Ball?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Dougstech was right after all. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We're making some basic mistakes with RfA ... that is, we're actively throwing up barriers that hinder good RfA candidates: we don't recruit, we don't train, and we don't give them feedback they can use.

• In all seriousness, the day will come when RfA is put up for MfD, or something similar will happen to it. RfA reform can't and won't happen. Since it can't heal itself and change with the changing times, it's doomed to fail. It's just a matter of time. I don't think that time is yet, but it's coming. A little (revolution), now and then, is a good thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA is perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it apart from the community's standards atm. All this fuss about us not getting enough admins will heal itself. It willc ontinue to get worse for a while from now, then people will start to think we need more admins and go easier on RFA. This will make more candidates pass and in turn attract more candidates. Eventually after a high year or two (2010-2011?) we'll end up back like this again with apprent low numers of admins. It's a cycle. It's like Peak Oil, except never ending. It's Peak Admin.--Patton123 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well the problem there is that we haven't discovered any new reserves of editors since we began Wikipedia. The only reserve we have is the human population. We need to start recruiting martians! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Patton, I admire your optimism but sadly don't share it. We are now 18 months into the drought with no prospect of change, and nothing in the history of RFA to indicate that such a prolonged drought will ultimately correct itself. I fear we are more likely to get into a negative feedback loop.

1. Fewer admins spending more of their time doing admin stuff and correspondingly less of their time doing general editing stuff as ordinary members of the community.
2. More and more of the speedy deletions being done by those who can flick through and clear the whole backlog in the time others might spend declining and saving a couple of speedy nominations.
3. Non-admins getting more and more pissed off with admins as a different separate caste who don't do enough non-admin stuff to be part of the wider community.
4. Adminship becoming a less and less attractive chore both for the existing admins who we want to retain and the prospective admins who we want to recruit.

I remain convinced that whilst RFA is broken Wikipedia isn't, and so as long as we keep demolishing arguments against change, eventually the community will agree to fix the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that people keep focusing on solutions that are ultimately not very helpful.

• Trial adminship is too easily gamed, making it of questionable usefulness, and more likely a waste of time.
• De-adminship processes are bound to be far too drama-laden, as people would most likely divide into camps and make increasingly ridiculous accusations.
• Reconfirmation proposals are often just a rewording of de-admin proposals, setting up for the same drama.

In general, this community has generally become extremely resistant to change to begin with, and the recurring flawed proposals are just too easily shot down. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason it supposedly "doesn't work" is because we're so bad at picking admins, opposing great candidates becaase they said to delete and article we thought should have been kept and stuff like that. It's not like that would effect their admin ability because they'd still have to take part in the AfD rather than jsut delete the article. The only good way to choose admins where that won't happen is to have someone pick new admins with absolutely no input fromt he comminity. Barring that this works well.--Patton123 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Random thought (probably suggested and rejected before, but prompted by comments above): what about making RFA more of a two-step procedure? The first step would be a friendlier "qualification" stage, the gist of which would be answering in a friendly way the question "am I ready? what else do I have to do/learn?" Only if the answer at the first step is "OK, probably ready" proceed to full RFA. As with anything there would be advantages and disadvantages; the key difficulty would be designing the first step so it works as intended and doesn't turn into the second. I'm totally open on what the design would be, but the first passing idea is needing a certain number of support votes to proceed (neutral/opposes would be ignored though obviously the candidate might choose to withdraw). Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That has been proposed and rejected before... which is why my variation is a little different. It may fail, but I think it is a variation that has some merit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• All (well almost all) proposals have some merit. The problem is none of them have enough merit. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• By some merit, I mean that I think it is enough of a different take on an old theme, that it is worth exploring. If somebody were to propose a two part approval process "Apply now, reapply in 3 months" it would be too similar to what has gone before. I think, and I KNOW I'm biased, that my proposal has some new twists that make it worth exploring.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just answered Q11 (c) which was added some time after I had answered all the other questions. Would it not be a good idea if there was a general understanding that a candidate should be notified that an additional question had been posed after the initial flurry of questions had been answered? Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be courteous to notify the candidate, although it's not entirely necessary. Keeping an eye on your request shows more competence than assuming it's finished and leaving it be for the rest of the week. Since I didn't want to clog up my watchlist, I've been watching my own request like a hawk with the help of an RSS feed. Go to the history page and subscribe to the feed there. You should be updated every time that page is modified. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that nervous paranoia is the generally assumed behavior, so it usually gets taken care off on its own. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, the nervousness was my first reaction, but after about the first four supports I realized I stood a good enough chance I had no reason to be nervous. Now I've been reading the results as they come in simply because they make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I note that another two questions have sneaked in overnight on my RfA. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would've notified after a short time normally, but I looked at your contribs and saw you'd been editing since it was posted, so I didn't, assuming you'd got your own RfA on your watchlist! Sorry if it was a problem, it wasn't meant to be :) Black Kite 00:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't, but it is now! <g> Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't most admin candidates, especially in ones which are not 110-1-1, fairly compulsively watch their RfA anyway? Don't see this as a problem. Possibly as a reason to oppose, if a candidate is not keeping an eye ...--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Having the RfA on the watchlist does tend to clutter up the changes page. I generally keep a select few articles on my watchlist and keep an eye on articles I've contributed to via the "articles created or worked upon" section on my user page. Each line has a separate function (click them to see). Mjroots (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas why rfatally isn't working and why soxbot isn't picking up Abecedare's RfA? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All the bots were broken with the last software update, but I see Soxbot has been run since then. Is it possible someone manually pushed the bot? --SPhilbrickT 15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's now working - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

An update has occurred, but unless Soap transmogrified into a bot, I'm guessing that Soxbot is still not working properly.--SPhilbrickT 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 5,600 images in Category:Wikipedia media renaming requests that have been flagged for renaming and MediaWiki lets only admins perform a rename, so I'm sure our vast admin corp will quickly respond to the backlog, now that image renaming is enabled. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and that is also the list of images for which the person requesting rename did not provide a suggested new name, so no, a bot cannot be used. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So is there a bot that handles images that do have a suggested new name?↔NMajdan•talk 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That... is a very large number. Why exactly IS this admin only?--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential for abuse, perhaps?

The clock is ticking....

23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, potential for bugs looking at r45197. FunPika 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is because image redirects are less-clean then file redirects, for example, a double redirect on an article hurts nothing, but a double redirect on an image after moving can break NFCC and end up getting a non-free image bot deleted. Also, there are various

WP:BEANS aspects of the image system that makes it less robust than the paging system (suffice it to say I have managed to obliterate images by moving them too quickly last time it was enabled). MBisanz ^talk

23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I get temporary adminship for this? There should really be a flag for it instead of only administrators doing the job.

ZooFari

00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained here, an editor does not need to be an admin to work on this category.--Rockfang (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just announce it to the wide admin audience that file renaming was re-enabled. I think most, like me, are willing to help but did not know this. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also: Non-admins can assist by checking the requests and proposing better file names using {{rename media|newname.jpg}}. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins who don't want to chance breaking something can also do that. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just moved an image to File:Skylark front cover.jpg, and now it seems to be broken... :( Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And now it's OK. Weirdness. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the cache, sometimes it needs a few minutes to catch up. Don't worry. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy, just be on the look out for errors, last time they enabled it I managed to break a file about once ever sixty moves. I haven't had a chance to stress test it, but hope to be able to later this week. MBisanz ^talk 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just did about 25, and everything seems to be working properly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: When renaming images, remember to check that the target filename isn't already being used by a file in Commons. In such a case, it doesn't even give you a warning when overwriting the file, and all the file links pointing to the Commons file will now point to the image you moved instead. It took me a while to realize why there were already file links to the image I just moved, with no entry in the upload log and no warning when I moved the image. Jafeluv (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, good catch. Perhaps we could file a bug to implement such a warning feature? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that has all sorts of unfortunate implications. (the overwriting, not the feature request) --Tznkai (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such a bug should be filed, should not be too hard to implement I think and it would really avoid such bad situations. Regards SoWhy 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy on how to handle specific cases where an image was uploaded only to be overwritten with a completely different image by another user? See File:100 1492.jpg for an example.↔NMajdan•talk 12:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say revert to the old version. If someone uploads a different image on the some name, it's their fault and they should be reverted. If the new image is used somewhere, you can reupload it with a better name and the old file information. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So is there a bot that handles images that do have a suggested new name?↔NMajdan•talk 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually writing one right now, but it'll take a while before it's operational. I'll let you know then, unless someone beats me to it. Jafeluv (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaelen S. 2 is an obvious case where Snow applies, but before pushing for that, I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something. User:Gaelen S. received Rollback rights from User:Acalamari days into his tenure here (started editing 8/26/09). The next day he lost those rights for misusing the tool (User:Cenarium revoked them) before they were given back a few days later by User:Decltype. Since these are admins for whom I have a great deal of respect, it makes me wonder if I don't have the full story. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that he was not quite familiar with the use of the tool yet see: [3]. I would say this user is clearly not ready yet. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The rollback issue was blown a little bit out of proportion, in my opinion. Gaelen was under the impression that adding information without properly citing sources could be rollbacked. I saw one of Gaelen's bad reverts on my watchlist, and notified Gaelen [4] as well as Acalamari

WP:RFP/R, I consulted Cenarium, who had no objections to the right being reinstated.[5] That pretty much summarizes it, I think. Regards, decltype (talk

) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, my issue was with the ACC tool request so quickly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please have some encouragement rather than flooding the nominations of newbies with opposes. I would like to ask RFA to moral support or don't vote at all. We all know the nominations are going to fail so it is better to just let the nominators know that now is not the time and that some day he/se will be a good administrator. I just got an email saying that one of the nominees no longer wants to contribute.

I'll vote whatever I feel like voting. I'm not going to "moral suppport" someone and say "someday you'll be a good admin" unless I actually mean it. Anything different would be disingenious insincere. While I don't think it's neccessary to be excessively blunt or discouraging to a nominee, I'm not going to vote contrary to what I want just so I don't hurt their precious feelings.--Atlan (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I can understand the demoralizing factor involved, and the lure of wanting to jump the gun when it comes to opposing. I don't feel people should refrain from commenting. The best course of action, obviously, is to say something (oppose or not) but have it be constructive. The nominee needs to learn. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Atlan, that isn't the best attitude to have. It may be "disingenuous", but simply voting "no" or "oppose" without adequate explanation quickly gets tedious. We've all done it, including myself. I do take exception with the whole vote moral support thing. I find it incredibly condescending. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say empty oppose votes are alright. I'd rather not vote all.--Atlan (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Wisdom. If I support someone, it's because I support them; I'm not going to give them a patronising "support but I don't really" just to soothe their hurt feelings. And I completely disagree with "tell the candidate that some day he/se will be a good administrator" - that's patronising beyond belief. Wikipedia admin is a thankless job, requiring equal parts of copy-editor, social worker, security guard and filing clerk; some people will never be right for it, and there's no point encouraging people to devote their energy to this particular blind alley where there are more productive things they could be doing instead. – 

iridescent

17:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

...Wow. That does pretty much sum it up...

 GARDEN 

18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's about it. I'd say an RFA candidate should be prepared for some semi-brutal comments when they put themselves forward for scrutiny. I examined my past RFA participation, and out of 311 RFAs, I've "morally supported" twice. I will give my honest opinion on the matter, and I expect other RFA partipants to do the same, while obviously being civil about it. But if the candidate is going to get up-in-arms solely because someone typed out their opinion, well...Useight (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

←I agree with Wisdom and Iridescent. There is nothing wrong with opposing a candiate who is obviously unqualified. Certainly we shouldn't

Yes. Frankly if you put yourself up for RfA you should be aware that there is an oppose section and it is there to be used.

 GARDEN 

18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One recent candidate took moral support but not now neutral notvotes as evidence that the Nos were not the majority, and that the yeses (including moral support ut not nows) were almost there. (Something like 14 / 22). It took many nos to persuade them that actully they should close early. They did have many ind plite suggestions to close early too. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. I think

WP:BITE covers all of this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk

) 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I read ZooFari's post more as a request to try to cut down on some of the aggression on the RfAs of users who are newcomers and, as such, don't understand the process, rather than trying to get a dig in at opposition votes. We don't have to support newcomers just to make them "feel good" or give false praise to them, but at the same time, we don't have to bully these candidates simply because we can, and feel safe in the knowledge that those types of candidates can't defend themselves against any bullying. Let's be honest, if a newcomer's RfA is at 0/10/0, is it really necessary to add a "per above", a "Super strong oppose", or an "Oppose - WP:NOTNOW" (an incredibly condescending type of vote if you ask me and a misuse of the essay) vote to the pile on? What does adding another oppose to a clearly sunk candidacy achieve, especially if you're not going to give any constructive advice to the candidate? Is it really necessary to edit-war to keep a snowball-oppose candidacy open? As I said, I don't advocate giving false praise or false support votes to obvious snow candidates, but I don't see any reason to be unnecessarily mean either. Acalamari 19:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  Forgive me but that's

  WP:BITE right? The Rambling Man (talk

  ) 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to edit-war to keep a snowball-oppose candidacy open? - when has this happened? I see many no-chance editors being told to think about early closing, and I see a few of them saying they want the RfA left open. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My first RfA had some moral support and a lot of opposes. I found it to be helpful as even the opposes gave useful advice. My next RfA went far better, and I don't know if that would have been the case if my first RfA was sugar coated. I agree that if you are going to oppose you should give some helpful information.

Chillum

19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never found "moral support" to be even remotely condescending or patronizing, rather I took it at face value as encouragement to try again later. As a signal they had confidence in my eventual suitability.

Chillum

19:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not demanding you to stop voting either, or moral support everything. It looks simple to us but in reality the opposes repeating the same assertion is hurtful to a newbie's point of view. Per this. Per that. We do not need none of that when it comes to a newbie's nomination. More feedback is welcomed but I think the whole repetition is stupid. If we all know that it is obviously going to fail, why continue it? Newbie's leaving Wikipedia is the number 1 thing I hate the most (I was one of them) and I'm willing to fight for that.

ZooFari

19:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is a newbie then of course someone should go to their talk page and explain things to them and the RfA should likely be closed early. Most people trying to run for adminship are not new users though.

Chillum

20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, however, we do receive quite a few requests for adminship from new users - unfortunately, it's usually viewed as a sense of status-ship at that stage (at least that's the sense I get). I feel that

WP:NOTNOW does a splendid job of explaining all of what we've been discussing. It's primary purpose was to eschew hurt feelings. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)