Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 82

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.

Please read and contribute to this page, the purpose of which is to tell people not to make the various kinds of !votes that are often complained about on this talk page. >Radiant< 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If readers of this are not already aware of the

WP:QAV discussion, I advise reading it. QAV was a proposal to limit which votes would be allowed in an RfA; one problem was that it would just encourage people using false reasons, or no reason at all, to prevent their votes being discounted. Although this essay is not nearly as bad (because it doesn't affect whether the vote is counted or not), it may still lead to people not giving their resons, or to giving dishonest reasons, to avoid using a an 'argument to avoid' they happen to believe in. Maybe it should be something like 'Things to consider before voting in an RfA' and discuss why various expectations are unrealistic or inappropriate. --ais523 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC

)

I think that it's perfectly fine as an opinion essay, until people start trying to use it to discount votes that they disagree with. Then we have a problem. -Amarkov moo! 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but the current 'crats haven't shown any indication of doing that, for better or worse. Grandmasterska's RfB was trending no consensus on just that point.--

T

14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking of bureaucrats, I was thinking of editors saying "Excuse me, but you are not entitled to that opinion". We get enough people saying that certain criteria may not be used already. -Amarkov moo! 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than its author. >Radiant< 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it will likely be interpreted.

WP:SNOW as case in point. -Amarkov moo!

15:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, I suggest you nominate about three-quarters of the contents of

CAT:E for deletion. >Radiant<

15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to Radiant for not saying "

SNOW isn't an essay." (^^) Dekimasuが...

17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is listened to not because it's a policy, which it's not, or because people think it's a policy, but because it's sensible and people agree with it. Kyle Barbour 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

People are entitled to an opinion, but there is no reason why they should be entitled to have their opinions, especially when contrary to the facts or founded on poor judgment, stand unchallenged. The idea that people have a right to apply whatever insipid criteria they like, to the detriment of the project, is damaging to this process. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... why? It's not the fault of the essay, it's the fault of the people who think essays are equivalent to guidelines. -Amarkov moo! 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• So you are saying that if I would write Wikipedia:Delete all articles that contain the letter Z and tag it as essay, people would consider it a guideline? >Radiant< 15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Stop taking my opinions out of context and using them to reach absurd conclusions. I'm saying that this essay might. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm simply looking for evidence for the statement that essays are used as guidelines, especially since the essay tag clearly states that the page is not a guideline. >Radiant< 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a debate over whether a day-old essay may be interpreted wrongly really worth having? Trebor 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW, WP:DENY. Pretty much every use in a debate/discussion, ever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A wild allegation is not evidence. >Radiant< 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wild about it. I don't see the fear in this essay being cited improperly, but it's a very valid complaint. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) People did cite WP:SNOW widely as justification for their actions/arguments, even while it was an essay. Their argument was that they just agreed with the logic behind the essay. --W.marsh 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• So if people agree with the logic that editcountitis should be avoided, how is that a bad thing? >Radiant< 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying this is definitely a good or a bad thing, just mentioning how people cite essays. There's just something disturbing about people saying "your vote doesn't count because this essay says so". Although that's not exactly what happens with
    WP:ILIKEIT. I'm just thinking aloud here, excuse me. --W.marsh
    16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this might be doomed to failure though [1]. If there really were arguments we all agreed were to be avoided, people wouldn't have been making those arguments in the first place. No one wants their pet reasons for opposing/supporting to be on this list. --W.marsh 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course any controversial entries would need to be discussed. But it might be good to make clear to people that their pet reasons are their pet reasons, and are rejected by most of the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I do not look forward to the day that this essay is cited in an RfA discussion. Frankly, I think it's unnecessary, because people are entitled to their opinions. Being opinion, it's pretty difficult to say that the opinion is right or wrong. One can challenge the underlying facts that are used to support the opinion, but that's part of the discussion. If a commentator can present a rational reason why he or she thinks certain criteria are relevant or important to the formulation of the opinion, I don't think it's fair to disregard the opinion out of hand because it falls under one of the so-called arguments to avoid. To have some global argument (because, after all, this essay is as much an argument as anything) discounting what might be valid opinions would hinder discussion and "codifies" the opinion of just one side. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Agent 86 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the day where every editor is supposed to give diffs of why the candidate deserves adminship in his support, I think this is ridiculous. This only encourages

Mailer Diablo

12:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the reasons people list for oppose are not too bad as reason not to support, but insufficient as reasons to cancel out four support votes. If people don't want to support somebody because they don't use edit summaries for their Category talk edits, I don't see a problem. The problem is that oppose votes weigh a lot more than support votes, which is perhaps an explanation why people ask for explanations for those and not for expolanations of support votes. Kusma (討論) 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that

The edit summary usage (out of last 150 edits) is by no means the whole story, of course. However, mathbot's tool calculates the edit summary only based on the last 150 edits to give people a chance to learn from their mistakes and move on. That tool is not designed to give a foolproof answer. Its primary purpose in my view is to attract attention to the fact that edit summaries matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, I haven't been with Wikipedia very long, and I don't always follow RfAs, but I've noticed that there are quite a few well-intentioned but very inexperienced users who put themselves up for adminship, only to be rejected. The RfA process is harsh, and I think unavoidably so, because candidates have to undergo such scrutiny and face criticism by people they've never met. Perhaps with some changes to the RfA explanatory text, lesser-experienced Wikipedians will be better able to understand the process and judge whether or not to proceed, and hopefully spare themselves from undue stress.

I came up with the following text, in hopes of adding/integrating it with the existing text on the main RfA page:

"Because the position of administrator is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the community to users it trusts, candidates for administrator should be advised that their record of contributions will undergo intense scrutiny. Such candidates should be prepared to receive criticism. Likewise, all participants in the requests for adminship process should adhere to

WP:CIVIL

regardless of their choice to support, oppose, or remain neutral."

I still think the text could use some modification, especially in making clear the need for experience, but at the same time, I don't want to turn this into "gaming the system". Above all, I hope that this text, or something along its lines, will help users to better "self select" whether or not to consider adminship. I invite you to share your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --Kyoko 08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "privilege" bit. Really the only reason everyone isn't an admin is because of the chaos they could cause. Jimbo said "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." [2]. The rest of it seems ok. James086^Talk 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about the word "privilege". I know that adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I was trying to get across that it is also something that people aren't automatically entitled to either. Alternative wording suggestions are welcome. --Kyoko 15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• To be blunt, it will have no effect. I'm sorry. All prior efforts at getting people who are not ready to not put up an RfA have had no effect on the numbers of people going up who are not ready. The simple fact is, people don't read. People read even less when it comes to web based reading. --Durin 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• That reminds me of an idea I've had for a while, see User:NoSeptember/Intent to file RfA which would address the WP:SNOW RfA situations. NoSeptember 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• If my proposed text were on the page, it might still have no effect, but at least unsuccessful RfA candidates wouldn't be able to say that they weren't warned without also admitting that they didn't carefully read the RfA page. --Kyoko 15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  While that is true, has it ever actually been a problem? -Amarkov moo! 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  No, but I was primarily thinking about 1) helping very inexperienced admin hopefuls who are unfamiliar with the RfA process to avoid hurt feelings of rejection; and 2) saving the time of the community. Ultimately, it is however the choice of the individual whether or not to run, and whether or not to share their opinion. --Kyoko 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, wow. I just realized that our current introduction says in effect that there are no prerequisites. That definitely needs fixing. -Amarkov moo! 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. What needs fixing is the ever increasing standards being applied to candidates. Every time that some prerequisite has been suggested as a bar for people to exceed before applying, it's been shot down. Count on it to be shot down again if it is proposed. --Durin 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're using an interpretation based on being here for a decent amount of time. A newcomer will read that to say "Okay then, since I haven't done anything bad, I'm going to nominate myself after half a month of editing." -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I read a lot, more than many people, but I still put myself up for RfA in December, when I had few talk page or Wikipedia space edits. I do think something's amiss in the process. We need a bigger warning, for starters. Xiner (talk, email) 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• If we want to change the prerequisites text then I suggest saying something along the lines of "Individuals have their own standards and you may wish to check the objections to some current candidates on this page before nominating." Though again, the problem is people not reading it. James086^Talk 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I really think that's too mild a warning for newer users, who have no idea how many processes oil the wheels on Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The wheels of wikipedia are oiled by the blood of admins, of course. . --Kim Bruning 12:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we used soylent green for that. NoSeptember 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are a administrator in a wikipedia. Then are you a Administrator in other wikipeadias also or not? —The preceding

No. Every Wikipedia has its own system for appointing administrators. There are a few Stewards who have certain powers on all Wikipedias (mainly promoting and demoting people), but regular admins have to be made admins separately on each site they use. --Tango 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It does count as somewhat of a plus on RFAs though. bibliomaniac15 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To some it does, others don't care. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It also makes a big difference where you are an admin, and where you're applying. Being an admin on en will probably (but not always) be a big help in becoming an admin on a very small language version, but not vice versa. --Tango 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• No. There is no actual link between the user databases of Wikimedia wikis yet, and they're completely separate projects, both technically and politically. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but it never hurts to look at how RfA differs on different projects. NoSeptember 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I created a userfied banner for RfA candidates at

Yes I agree, if others care as well. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I can see somebody putting that banner on their talk page and then going around and handing out a bunch of barnstars and smileys to generate talk page traffic and get a bunch of me-too voters on their RfA. I just think it starts down a slippery slope to campaigning, so I'd have to say no. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that people you are having a disagreement with are just as likely to visit your user pages as are your friends. I wouldn't classify non-obnoxious banners as campaigning, and there is a tradition of such notices that goes back years. The simple informative banner of ShadowHalo looks fine to me. NoSeptember 11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But you can hand out random smileys by the dozens and just like sending out spam email, you don't need to get that high of a response rate. And sheesh, anyone who can't stay out of a disagreement for a week, well...I guess this won't work for them. I just think it's a bad idea, or perhaps OK on the user page but not on the talk page. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone starts doing atypical things such as handing out awards that looks like campaigning, then we should call them on it at that time. Should we ask that the

like to nominate box be removed too?, I see those more than I see banners, tipping me off to the fact that someone is running for RfA. NoSeptember

11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that box is OK. I don't like the idea of people putting up campaign banners. YMMV. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an informational banner to me, I didn't see any "Please Vote for ME" appeals ;). NoSeptember 12:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if people are going around handing out barnstars, that'll attract attention from the RfA !voters whether there's a banner or not. And am I supposed to remove the template from my talk page, or do you mean that other people should remove it if they end up using the new banner? If I'm supposed to remove it, someone should probably add that step to

ShadowHalo

13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, leave the template alone as part of normal talk page discussion. That was a rhetorical question, intended to point out that even without a banner, there will be obvious clues that a user is going through RfA on their user pages. NoSeptember 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I wasn't sure what you meant by that.

ShadowHalo

23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the template to

ShadowHalo

02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think this is perfectly fine; publicizing in your own userspace isn't quite the same as actively canvassing for !votes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion strikes me as superfluous, since {{

rfa-notice}} has existed since October 2005 (based on commentary here) with no obvious complaints or criticisms. I would prefer to see one title redirected to the other, so we don't have to keep two templates up-to-date... -- nae'blis

19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, awesome! I was looking for a template like this earlier but couldn't seem to find it. It's edit-protected, so would someone mind adding <noinclude>[[Category:Requests for adminship]]</noinclude>? That should make it a bit easier to find.

ShadowHalo

05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 32#Another slight modification
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 75#Template for candidates user pages
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 76#Canvassing and Good Points Raised

—Doug Bell ^talk 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Archive seventy-six? Wow, the mailflow on this talk page is incredible. And yet the RFA system hasn't really been changed at all in the past year-and-a-half. Interesting that there is apparently so much dissent and so little agreement on how to improve. >Radiant< 11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, nice observation. I agree. (Hmmm, not much dissent in this reply...oh well.) —Doug Bell ^talk 11:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  The large noise-to-achievement ratio occurs because it is the nature of this page to find every little flaw in a new proposal, shoot down said new proposal, and act oblivious towards further developments. (Note how I shift blame from us denizens of the page to the page itself - why blame ourselves when we can point fingers at an inanimate object instead?) Picaroon 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you handle people yelling at you all day? Do you enjoy untangeling complex disputes? Do you have a shiny admin bit and want to make a difference? (Even if you don't have an admin bit, that's good too). The

In general, little previous mediation experience is required. We believe in learning by participating. Many mediation cabal cases are typically entry level, and somewhat easier than those handled by mediation committee or arbitration committee cases. (though not always, so be careful. Even so,if you do get in trouble, no worries, ask one of the helpful cabal coordinators to help. After a little while, if you know your dispute resolution paths, you can probably even neatly hand off to the next stage of dispute resolution without help at all)

If you would like to help, just visit the mediation cabal page, and look up a case you think might be interesting, and dive in. If it looks too hard, but you're willing to try anyway, you can also ask for more people to come join you on the medcab talk page. If you can't do it alone, maybe you could still be effective in a team! :-)

--Kim Bruning 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Somehow something in your comment reminds me of the

Yuser31415

23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just make sure 1/3rd of your towel is soaked in antidepressants. You'll spend most of your time sucking on it :) --Durin 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim - why don't you just ask to be sysopped again, or how about nominating some of the non admins already quite active within MedCab --

Heligoland

14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't really need more admins in MedCabal, we just need more mediators, admin or no. --Ideogram 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While I did say earlier that I'm seeing a lack of newly minted admins with mediation skills, I can still at least try to recruit here, right? Come prove me wrong!

What's there to lose? Worst case I get proven right, best case we get new mediators. :-)

Mediation cabal requests are at an all time high, we need more mediators.

With community enforced mediation round the corner, we need more meditors.

The admin bit is an added bonus. We need more mediators!

Will you come and help too?

--Kim Bruning 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, you recruited at least one. I think my bit is still shiny after 3 months. Anyway, I've been thinking about getting involved in this, so this was the push I needed.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the record for the most at a given time. I think 18's pretty close to it.--Wizardman 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. NoSeptember will probably know :D --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How about 21? I'm not sure that's the maximum, though. Kusma (討論) 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's 27 RFAs. It may have gone one or two higher at some point, but this is near the limit. Dragons flight 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It could easily go higher in the next couple of days. Only 4 RfAs dropping off in the next two days...at the rate of new RfAs, there could easily be more new ones than that over the same period. And most are passing...so of course all the hand-wringing discussions about what to do about the harsh process and lack of candidates have died down once again. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well most of the discussion above relating to admin inactivity or the need for more sysops may have spurred the community to act upon them. Or maybe its merely numerical coincidence, I like to be optimistic and hope its the first possibility...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It ebbs and flows... there have been like only 2-3 open RfAs (last summer I think) and people got all worried. But it just varies. December 2005 was the all-time leader for most admins promoted in a month though. --W.marsh 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think the discussions on here and elsewhere have definitely led to a few more RFAs running, and I also think a few people are reducing their restrictive standards, which is a good thing. I tried to get someone to go for RFA like we were challenged to, and someone else already has dibs on nominating them. Bah. So I'm still hunting for someone to nominate.

►

11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think the increase is due to the recent discussion about a shortage of admins. Especially with a ratio of 1 self nom to 17 noms by others. James086^Talk 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt, but how sustainable is this extra recruiting effort going to be? Probably not very. NoSeptember 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in a self-nomination request. How long do I have to wait before it appears on WP:RFA? HyperSonicBoom 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no automatic process. There should be instructions on how to list it; did you see them? -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Since you're supposed to add yourself to the

RfA page, it all depends on you. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯

// 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict as well] You have to add it yourself. And I hate to say this, but if you didn't know that, you would probably be better off waiting a few more months before trying, because you'd get shot down quite bad. – Chacor 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

...too late. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to start a discussion on adminship and editing. All admins edit to a greater or lesser degree, and some people insist on admin candidates meeting certain editing criteria (experience and quality), as well as the civility and trust criteria. To what extent do admins find their editing decreasing after they become admins? Conversely, do some find their editing increasing? Do some editors go through RfA simply to acquire tools they need for their editing (housecleaning such as deletions, history merges and moving over existing pages), and show no interest (or only a perfunctory interest) in the blocking and protecting tools?

Also, there has been a lot of discussion about needing more admins to clear admin backlogs. What about needing more editors to clear editing backlogs? It seems fairly easy (from the above) to clear admin backlogs. But how easy is it to clear editing backlogs? Which are more detrimental to the project? Editing backlogs or admin backlogs? And which needs more effort thrown at it? "Both" is the obvious answer, but are they both being tackled?

Is there any way to get a handle on the amount of useful editing being done? And, even harder, is it possible to work out whether we have the same rate of solid content being added, as opposed to wikignome tidying (which is also essential)? Carcharoth 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While those are an interesting set of questions, I'm not sure answering them really provides helpful information.

• To what extent do admins find their editing decreasing after they become admins? Certainly some admins shift their time to admin stuff, from editing; probably most do. Let's say, for sake of discussion, that 80% reduce their editing of articles by (say) an average of 30%. So what?
• Do some editors go through RfA simply to acquire tools they need for their editing (housecleaning such as deletions, history merges and moving over existing pages), and show no interest (or only a perfunctory interest) in the blocking and protecting tools?. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that 20% do this. So what? They're still more effective as editors than before. Moreover, interests change - can we conclude that if someone does little blocking and protecting for the 12 months after adminship, that he/she will not ever decide to help in those areas, or in other areas (image deletion, CSD cleanup, whatever)?
• What about needing more editors to clear editing backlogs? Getting more editors is a completely different subject than getting more admins, unless you're suggesting that more admins equals less editors. (If the latter, those with the bit are clearly more valuable doing admin stuff than editing stuff, all other things being equal.)
• It seems fairly easy (from the above) to clear admin backlogs. No, it's not.
  WP:AN/I
  are full of gnarly cases. Doing a thorough job on page protection probably would entail cleaning out talk pages and posting warnings on user pages, not just dropping in to block a page and ask folks to work things out. (I'm not denying the usefulness of the latter; I'm just saying that when edit wars get to the point that pages need full protection, then laying about with a stick - appropriately - almost certainly will help transition to a more peaceful setting when the page protection comes off, but that takes time.)
• Is there any way to get a handle on the amount of useful editing being done? There are statistics out there on article length, and the number of FA and GA and A-level articles keeps increasing (I think). Suppose you were able to somehow define the "amount" of useful editing, and it was increasing at a rate of (say) 20% per year. What would that mean - that it's too low? High enough?
• is it possible to work out whether we have the same rate of solid content being added, as opposed to wikignome tidying (which is also essential)? Is it possible to determine if apple growers in Northern California are as productive as road builders in Southern California? Even if it were, how exactly would that be useful? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some good points. Especially about the questions being interesting but maybe not that useful! :-) Thanks for those comments. I guess what I am asking is if a lack of road builders is more visible than a lack of apple growers? I'm asking whether people pointing at admin backlogs are missing the editing backlogs? Which is it more important to drive resources towards? Carcharoth 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've always figured that any editor can work on the backlog, but only admins can fix certain problems, often problems that should be fixed quickly to save resources (e.g., vandalism; it seems virtually every candidate promises to help at

WP:AIV

, though my experience is that noticeboard never has any backlog). And I've figured that since admins have special tools (e.g., revert every edit), revert vandalizing moves which users can't), that they are faster and/or can deal with problems with less process steps than regular users.

What's also interesting, of course, is that a new admin is free to do anything he/she wants to do, such as continuing to edit articles. For such users, Wikipedia gets a "super-user", able to fix problems without asking an admin to do so (except disputes in wars in which he/she is involved, of course), which saves the time of other admins, at the relatively minor cost of having to do an RfA to get the user to the "super-user status". That seems a bargain.

Finally, I'd argue that the backlogs here aren't the result of too few editors - they're the result of too few registered users who actually do any significant amount of editing. I've heard the figure of 3+ million registered users (but never seen an authoritative source); my own calculations, looking at Special:Log/newusers, is that we're getting on the order of 7-10,000 newly registered users per day. Yet in October 2006 (last month that data is available for), out of all those registered users, how many did 5 or more edits that month? Answer: only 43,000. In other words, Wikipedia fails to interest, or fails to keep interested, at least 95% of the people who go through the trouble of registering a new account. In short, if we want to deal with editing backlogs, the place to look (I think) is not with people who are already here and busy and constructive; it's with all the possible editors out there, particularly those registered, who aren't helping out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say here. I guess this is another way of saying that admin backlogs are relatively small, and that editing backlogs are (and have been for some time) so completely ginormous that the relatively small (1000+) group of users involved in (or interested in being involved in) administrative actions would make very little dent in those editing backlogs. The only way to deal with editing backlogs is to harness the power of the tens of thousands who help out with a little bit here and a little bit there, and that involves streamlining the experience so that it is easier (and it mostly is at the moment) for tens of thousands people to help out here and there, a bit at a time. And gradually, the whole thing judders its way forward to a more palatable state at some indeterminate point in the future. Bots do help with some of the editing tasks, but the most important editing tasks need humans.

I also find it rather strange that people sometimes nominate someone and say "Look! This person has made over 20,000 edits!!" (or in one recent case, something like 40,000+ edits). When you put this in the context of the literally millions of edits being made a day (and the tens of thousands of edits being made every few minutes), then it seems a bit silly to wave an editcountitis flag around like that. Even the most prolific editor around here is nothing more than a rather small drop in a very large ocean being assaulted by a continous thunderstorm of rain, and with world-spanning cataracts of water flowing off the edges of the world (that's the removal of vandalism, in case this metaphor is getting a bit strained). Carcharoth 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out here that the 'editing backlogs' you see are largely illusory, and the true backlogs are hard to see. What appear as editing backlogs (number of articles tagged for cleanup, and so forth) are to a large extent created by people running through and slapping tags on articles they haven't read. It's not uncommon to find articles in Wikipedia:Dead-end pages that are obvious nonsense, but have five tags for cleanup, wikifying, referencing, categorizing, and so forth, when any one of the taggers could have just read the thing, used speedy or prod, and been done with it. In short, we're not doing a good job quantifying the editing backlogs, so it's nearly impossible to form a judgment on 'which set of backlogs needs more work'. Opabinia regalis 01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth in that edit count is just a drop in the bucket. Also, I would like to point out that edit count should not be the main reason for supporting the potential admin. (I voted against the 40,000+ editor, Everyking) And as for the question about admins only wanting to get tools to improve their editing rights, it is only logical that some would do that. If I had enough experience to be an admin, I would want to be one for the purpose of greater editing rights. The posibility of becoming a "super-user" is quite lucrative. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe my overall editing has gone down (as I increasingly spend more time on destructive improvements and kicking asses), while the scope of my editing has expanded greatly (such as posting on user talk pages a lot more, plus even more involvement in the Wikipedia namespace than before, when I was primarily just !voting in XfDs). As for which is more important to the project... that is an impossible question to answer, as both (hard-core editors and hard-core admins) are needed, and are not mutually exclusive concepts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see eight people on the RFA listing that have 100% support. Nice! (now nobody make any

• Truly proof there is a Cabal. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There were 8 in a row earlier, then I think 10 out of 11. See, we can pick good candidates :P--Wizardman 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• From June 2005 through now, the record for consecutive 100% successful nominations is 5. Right now, we've got 8 listed, but just 4 in a row. --Durin 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this was delayed. It takes a lot of work, and I didn't get around to it until a couple of weeks ago to bring the data up to date.

1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful. This is the smallest subset of RfAs, typically comprising less than 20% of all RfAs.

Some observations from my chair:

• I was astonished at the very rapid increase in the average number of edits for successful nominations. Compare to Image:AverageEditCountatRfA.png which covers the period of August '05 to March of '06. The more current chart above shows a much steeper rise in standards, and shows a non-flat line now of increasing average number of edit counts for failing RfAs. There's a number of different ways to look at this data, and this is but one way. Nevertheless, the trend was startling to me.
• I was fairly amazed at the reduction in average number of votes per RfA showing a pretty steady decline for the last three quarters of 2006. I was expecting an increase.
• 3000 edits still seems to be the cutoff beyond which editcountitis seems to have less of an effect.
• Self-nominations are still showing a roughly 20% less chance of success.
• I often hear the complaint that nominees with high edit counts routinely fail. The data above does not support this conclusion. Success rates plateau after 3000 edits and show not much motion thereafter. If anything, they increase slightly.

Enjoy. --Durin 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How hard would it be to get the numbers of sucess with more than one nominator? I.E. co-noms, or having multiple co-noms? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Impossible (for me to do anyways). I do keep track of who nominates, but I only take the first nominator, not all co-nominators, or even if there was a co-nominator. --Durin 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, ok. I was just wondering, what it looks like with a co-nom. I hear people say they dont want too many co-noms but cause it is bad. I have seen one with many co-noms that made
  WP:100. Another intersting, but probably impossible statistic to calculcate, what are your chances if you are nominated by another administartor vs a non adminstrator editor.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
  20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't keep track of that either. --Durin 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I seem to remember last time you did this the plateau was after 2000 edits. It would appear people are right - requirements are increasing... --Tango 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work Durin. Perhaps we should work together on these things, we don't want duplicate work wasted... --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. It appears that there is a correlation between the number of "votes" per RfA and the success rate. Whether this means anything or is coincidental, I don't know. I am also curious as to the total number of RfAs that ran the full course. Would that number be achieved by subtracting the number of "Early withdrawn RfAs" from the total of "New RfAs posted"? If so, that means about 498 RfAs ran to conclusion, suggesting that 69% of RfAs that run to their conclusion are successful. I certainly stand to be corrected - if I was gooder at math, I'd be much further ahead in life! Agent 86 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reduction in opinions per RfA may be due to more RfA's being closed before the 7 day time. If the early snowball closes or withdrawals were taken into account, I bet a large portion of the observed effect would go away. For the record there has been very little controversy about more snowball early closings and I do think it's a good thing for the overall process. But great data, thanks for the work. - Taxman ^Talk 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the chart for all complete RfAs (those that ran the full 7 day course). Note that there is still a reduction pattern, but the graph is less chaotic.

Since nobody else has commented on it, I was surprised that more than 1 in 5 RfA nominees has less than 1,000 edits—this seemed like a lot. It would have been nice to include in the chart so I didn't have to calculate that no nominee with less than 1,000 edits was successful. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Line 6 of the table at the beginning of this section shows 191 RfAs, or 21.6%, were for nominees with <1000 edits. I didn't include that all failed; I sorta thought it was common knowledge. We haven't had one <1000 that passed since 2005. --Durin 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are probably as many views on how to reform RfA as there are people commenting on this talk page. Well, as we all know, virtually all of the non-trivial ones die of terrible death, and nothing gets ever done.

So, what is broken I think is not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, but rather, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Well, I propose to borrow from what is working to fix what is not working.

That is to say, each reform proposal on this talk page should get its own subpage, and after a period of discussion, people vote on whether to adopt it or not. 75% support means a proposal gets adopted. Does the system look familiar?

I understand the irony, but seriously, how's that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea only 74%, but only because I feel like being a dick. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I think there's no reform because it is hard to get everyone to agree on one thing; "who do you trust" is vastly more difficult than, say, "

Is foo a notable subject for an article

".

Not to sound like I'm giving up on discussion, but I truly think that we can only lead by example. "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." (Tolstoy) If we could use our comments to actually make an argument for or against an editor, I think we'd have a better chance of effecting some sort of change (since some people who randomly pop into an RfA don't bother reading any of this, and couldn't care less what we all think would be a good change). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur: I don't really think Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship is broken; rather, I think there is simply no consensus at all about what should be done to reform RfA since we don't seem to agree on what RfA should be. That it needs fixing seems to be a widespread sentiment, but there's little agreement on how to do it. I don't think moving reform proposals to subpages and voting would help: even ignoring whether polls are evil, I doubt any of these proposals would reach 75%. Heimstern Läufer 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is not that all reform proposals are failing. It is just that most proposals discussed here propose radical changes, which often meets enough opposition to be shot down. At the risk of violating

WP:BEANS, if RfA were to be changed, it would be done in incremental steps, changing a small detail here and there, eventually fine-tuning the process over a period of time. --²¹⁰physicq (c

) 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• For those of you who missed it, there has been a good discussion at WP:BN. NoSeptember 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes there has. Relevant to the above, there's a very interesting essay that closely relates to why RfA reform has strong difficulty in moving forward. It's a long essay, but very worth the read; http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html. Also, have a look at Dunbar's number. Many thanks to Kim Bruning for bringing these to my attention. --Durin 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason most of these reform ideas never receive consensus support is because only the most vocal proponents for reform are usually involved in creating these ideas. However, once they come to the floor, the vast majority of users who don't see the need for major reform speak up, dooming the reform effort. I agree that only incremental changes will happen here--for there very good reason that a lot of editors (myself included) don't see the need for drastic reform. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a thought: Maybe nothing ever gets done because nothing needs to be done. Maybe the discussion forum here on the talk page is working perfectly by not adopting changes to a system that works. Food for thought... —Doug Bell ^talk 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While that's possible, I find it incredibly hard to believe that our system from three years ago is still the best way to handle adminship. -Amarkov moo! 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you propose anything here, no matter how trivial, someone will object to it. Even if it's not changing RFA, but for example generating some kind of statistic related to RFA, someone will object to it. Someone will object to this comment and it's not even a suggestion for changing RfA. The net change to RfA after god knows many archives of this page has been moving the questions to the top of the RfA template, and changing the word "vote" to "comment" and various other awkward words. And both of those changes were just made, then discussed (and objected to) on WT:RFA but they stuck.

My point is that yeah, the surest fire way to avoid a proposed change to RfA ever actually happening seems to be to discuss it here first. People who object mean well, but I'm just saying that WT:RFA is a place where stuff is discussed and always objected to, and if you believe we have to have everyone agree to a change before we make it, that is just never going to happen on WT:RFA. I'm not really sure what change to WT:RFA this could call for though. --W.marsh 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting fact. The only substantial change in the past three years, adding mandatory questions onto RfAs, was never discussed here. -Amarkov moo! 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason nothing ever gets done is that you have the "he doesn't need the tools" and the "he doesn't write enough articles" crowds. The ONLY question is whether the nominee is trusted. Nobody needs the tools, but if they can be trusted with them, why oppose? Changing percentages isn't going to matter - we have to challenge the notion that opposing for peripheral reasons makes sense. --BigDT 12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I found this via an invitation for participation by the requestor on an administrator's talk page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Norkus007
It seems not to have made it to the primary RfA page, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship because of some sort of failed action.
It's not of much consequence as the requestor is clearly not even close to obtaining any support--but this ought to be cleaned up. -- Yellowdesk 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit sad seeing users with 65 edits attempting to pass RfA. I suggest you let the

Yuser31415

06:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't anything to do really. It's not been transcluded to WP:RFA. Until it has been, it's not an official RfA. The user can choose to not post it until six months from now if they so choose. No action is needed here. If it's posted to RfA, then action would be appropriate. --Durin 13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What are the goals of RfA? I'm intentionally leaving this open ended. Just indicate what you think are the goals of RfA. Note; this is not asking what are good criteria for voting, or what criteria a candidate should meet to succeed at RfA, only what the goals of RfA are (or, if you like, should be). --Durin 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The goal should be to give the admin tools to any somewhat-experienced user who requests them, unless the user's past and present behavior indicates that user would misuse or abuse the tools. Speculation over what the user might do at some point is not useful. >Radiant< 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say it is fairly simple, it is: 1) to scrutinise candidates for adminship: screening out those whom the community feel are, on balance, likely to abuse the tools, or where the community feels, at this juncture, we have too little evidence on which to make that judgement call 2) to balance the benefit of approving as many admins as possible, with the risk of sysopping the wrong people.--
  Doc
  ^g 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally: To give extra tools to anyone we can trust to have them

Realistically: At this point in time, there seem to be many different goals, including but not limited to things such as a reward for good editing, and for political maneuvering. --Kim Bruning 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Related discussion

• Without directly answering your question, I think one of the core dimensions to consider is whether the goal is affirmative or negative. Specifically, is the goal to "promote the best candidates" or to "exclude the worse candidates". Without trying to qualify "best" and "worse", I think it is fairly obvious that if one emphasizes promotion then some bad apples will get through, and similarly, if your process emphasizes exclusion then some potentially very effective admins will also get blocked. Finding a good balance is tricky. Dragons flight 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Which rather raises the key question - is Wikipedia better off with a lot more admins, with the inevitable downside of the very small proportion of bad eggs becoming perhaps a lightly larger very small proportion? Or is Wikipedia better off minimising the proportion of bad eggs, with the inevitable downside of having less admins? --

Doc

^g 14:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The former, since we cannot a priori know which candidates become the bad eggs. So in being overly cautious in avoiding bad eggs, we are (1) hurting ourselves by creating less admins, and (2) not actually preventing bad eggage. >Radiant< 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. Unfortunately, we are often moving in the direction of over cautiousness - partly I suspect due to the perceived drama involved in desysopping failing admins.--
  Doc
  ^g 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, but unfortunately nobody has yet been able to come up with a deopping process that actually works, other than the arbcom of course but that does tend to be rather lengthy and dramatical. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is an excellent discussion point. I'm refactoring it into a discussion section to hopefully keep comments on the goals and the discussion of those goals each on track. --Durin 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominated myself for adminship, but my nomination won't come up. Why? Here is a link: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy. - Patricknoddy 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't transclude it onto the RfA page. I've done it for you.--

Doc

^g 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He did [3], it just got reverted two minutes later [4]. -- Gogo Dodo 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was reverted because Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy did not exist yet at that time. Garion96 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I read the time stamps backwards. I think I need to go back to sleep... -- Gogo Dodo 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The sub-page did exist at the time, but the questions were not answered. It was later speedy deleted[5]. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started a

• Note a survey that covered some of the same ground concluded in September of 2006. That survey is at Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. --Durin 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of that.
    Mailer Diablo
    15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly. I wasn't meaning to imply "we already did this so what's the point". I just wanted people to be aware of the other survey, as I think it's relevant. --Durin 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. :) -
        Mailer Diablo
        15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That survey was more like a year ago, so it will be interesting to see what has changed, if anything, in that time. We can then see how that compares to the data you just presented for the intervening year. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hi, i voted on one of the elections, being its my first vote, am i allowed to vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KendrixTV (talk • contribs)

• Any registered user may 'vote' on an RfA. However brand new users, especially ones whose first edit is to an RfA, are often viewed as
  meatpuppets and their comments may not be considered. Regardless, in the RfA you edited, it is failing so it is of no effect in this case. --Durin
  19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "A trivial thing" to "Not a big deal". Trivial implies not necessary, or not hard. That's not the case with adminship, it can be very difficult (we deal with all sorts of hard to get along with people in as reasonable fashion as we can). It is, however, not a big deal. It may seem the same, but it's subtly different. Enough for me to change the title anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't ever recall seeing the ratio of support to oppose this high across all of the currently listed RfAs. Must be close to a record. —Doug Bell ^talk 14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a good thing; people are finally realizing that we need more administrators, and we shouldn't be putting people through gauntlets. I'm seeing a point where RfA criteria pages will become "look back and laugh" moments. — Deckiller 14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I sure do hope so. Perhaps it's time for me to RfA again. ST47Talk 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Always a good thing. - Anas ^Talk? 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• First off, don't jinx us by mentioning it ;). Perhaps all this discussion on this page has had an effect, getting through to enough regulars about the need for admins and the imporatnce of not opposing on the basis of arbitrary metrics. All of you who stood for adminship in 2006 but failed, may want to consider giving it a try now, before the trend changes again. NoSeptember 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who failed their RfA back in 2006, please get your coupons, free samples and pamphlets ready. It is sales promotional period. Good luck to everybody. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

May I remove that spam :P?

Yuser31415

22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - offering free stuff, I like it :):):) ST47Talk 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's kinda hard to track this sort of record. But, on August of 2005, the average support % of the prior 20 RfAs reached 95.5%. See related chart at Image:AverageSupportCompleteRfAs.png. Right now, we're at 423 supports and 31 oppose, for 93.2% on the currently active RfAs. --Durin 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, but the moment in time I remarked on to start this thread was 96.8% support—so, the record high point.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Three months is a trend. One month (or week or day or hour) is an aberration until borne out by a trend. Marskell 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference...still talking about the high water mark. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• And we have absolutely no idea if 96.8% is the high water mark. None. What you are looking at is the instantaneous percentages. There's no record of that anywhere that is easy to discern, without looking at every single edit done to every single RfA that has ever been done. :) It's good to see RfAs doing well now though. --Durin 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered this rogue rfa - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quinlanfan2 (which is guaranteed to fail by the way). No idea who the editor is but he/she left a message asking me how to process the rfa. Don't know why they picked on me. Could someone act accordingly?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not been linked yet. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, what should be done with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrianRFSU? One Night In Hackney 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. In both cases, if the nominees want to start the process, they need to update the ending date and transclude their nominations into the main page. If not, they just sit there forever. If the nominees want to ask for them to be deleted, I know that those requests have been accomodated - as long as the nomination was never transcluded there's no reason not to. --BigDT 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen, point the nominee in the direction of

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. It gives explicit instructions for what they should do to complete the process. --BigDT

15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed they have a support vote from a user whose only contribution was that vote. Should I leave them a note about the sockpuppetry policy, or is that too bitey? —Dgies^t c 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strike it and leave an explanitive note.
    Yuser31415
    20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Done and done. —Dgies^t c 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just wondering. Have there been any nominations with close to 100 oppose votes or over? Simply south 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But we're not going to list them for you.

WP:100 has a list of people who got 100 or more support votes which is a much nicer and more pleasant topic, don't you think? Newyorkbrad

23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about

Yuser31415

06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there has. Highest is 71 iirc, on Carnildo's 3rd rfa, which passed with the lowest ever percentage. Not sure about failed requests though. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about as close as you're gonna get I think.--Wizardman 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IF they would just be oppose votes than it would be closed per

WP:SNOW so I doubt there would ever be a 100 oppose votes on an RFA. Unless there are alot of users supporting to even it out. ~ Arjun

00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wizardman got it right, 89 is the highest, you can find the others on these lists. Tracking only support vote levels (as on WP:100) reveals only part of the story. NoSeptember 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought there were some with over 100 opposes, but I was probably thinking of the ArbCom elections, which unlike here aren't subject to WP:SNOW. Newyorkbrad 11:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another interesting case study:

T

12:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's an interesting record NoSeptember. - Anas ^Talk? 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting quote from that: This editor has only 1184 edits. Normally, this would not be a problem -- Werdna (I've skipped the oppose reason given). How times have changed in just over a year! --ais523 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglius is still around, but I suspect with this on his user page, a further RfA would be similarly futile: I am a helluo librorum who detests atheism, "political correctness," and immorality. (The latin means "bookworm".) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could i ask the same again on neutral? Simply south 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• The largest number of neutral votes was 26, on Karmafist's second RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2. Second was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me with 21. No others had more than 20. --Durin 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)