Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 58

message: My apologies if this has been brought up before, or already exists, but what about an administrator review? Within six months, a new admin is brought under review by a pre-selected group of experienced admins/bureaucrats, and they discuss what this user has done since they were sysopped, and whether that user should continue being an admin. They will be reviewed again in six months, and all active admins will be reviewed once a year after that. Emergency reviews can be held as well. I think this would help keep the number of rouge admins to a minimum. Thoughts? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a solution looking for a problem. Show me evidence that we need to spend our volunteer's time on this proposal. FloNight talk 12:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have a look at admin disputes at Rfc and ArbCom, I think you'll see where I'm coming from. Plus there have been concerns over Admin actions in the Userbox debate as well. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 12:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sure, and handled by ArbCom for the most part. Also, such a body would have to review >900 admins per year. That's a huge body of work for little gain. I agree; this is a solution looking for a problem. --Durin 12:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this review have prevented such disputes? We're letting the wedge cases define how we deal with the vast majority of admins whose actions are uncontroversial. In any case, unofficial reviews of individual actions often go on at AN or ANI; I see no need to bureaucratise this. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We didn't elect bureaucrats to be ArbCom members (except those few who we actually did elect to both positions). Keep bureaucrats for the front end job of creating admins, and leave it to ArbCom or Jimbo to uncreate them. NoSeptember talk 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...I don't think D-Day suggested 'crats would be in charge of desysoping. Anyway, I'd favour giving them such powers for emergency disputes, but as Essjay and Raul have noted above, it seems it'd be easier to attract Jimbo's, a steward's, or a dev's attention. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the more people who have emergency desysop powers, the more problematic it will be. Even Danny and Jimbo did not perfectly coordinate the Eloquence situation. There is always someone around as it is now. NoSeptember talk 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the complaint is that the arbcom doesn't get a case till long over it's gone over the edge and it takes a blatant act of insanity or massive violation of policies and guidelines before the arbcom or anyone else for that matter acts. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 15:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people have a problem with that, why don't they bring cases to ArbCom sooner?  Are ArbCom actually refusing to hear the cases, or are they not being told about them? --Tango 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a little of both, for good reasons the arbcom is afraid of accepting cases too early when there are better solutions possible and instead it seems like they're accepting some of them only after the damage has been done. On the other hand people are also reluctant to bring up arbcom cases until all else has failed so the arbcom either doesn't know about it or they more likely know about it due to discussions on AN, AN/I, or any number of another places but can't do anything about it until it's brought up officially as a case. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While there's certainly a perception that that is the case, I think reality is very different. Name me one blatant mop abuser who hasn't been hauled in front of the arbcom. Also, the arbcom can (and often does) issue temporary injunctions during the period of the case which prevent further action(s) being taken, so if a case is accepted, the accused admin will typically be placed on admin action parole or something of the sort for the duration of the case. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the prospect of reviewing the nearly 1,000 admins on Wikipedia every 6 months would be a full-time job.  Beyond that, is there really a need?  Do you feel there are a sizable amount of inept admins that are running around blocking and deleting out of control?  Furthermore, this would start to encourage further encourage people to play politics, which there is enough of already. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, this proposal is to scrap tenure for admins and up- a system which has both considerable benefits and drawbacks (much as in the academic world). I haven't seen a persuasive toting up of the pros and cons in favor of making the switch. --maru   (talk)  contribs 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end, this (and most proposeals like it) are probably all created with the same very small set of admin in mind.  As much as I call for volountary admin reform, three cases (or five, or pick your own small number) almost certainly isn't enough reason to re-wash every other good, average, or null admin.  Working the existing system combined with ArbCom being slightly more willing to slap down is probably all that is required. - brenneman{L}  11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Some users have dynamic IPs which would mean it's all too easy to vote more than once. Thus no anon IPs should be allowed to vote. Admins have checks and balances, that's what arbitration is for. Most do not abuse their power, for example, Gurubrahma, Nichalp and the numerous other Indian admins have not blocked you for your violation of NPA. Self-noms are good because a user can pick the correct time to become an admin, for example, if they are nominated at a time where they don't think they want to become an admin, they can always self-nom at a more appropriate time. Lastly, there is no policy stating that WP:Admins cannot have a life outside Wiki, so if they want to take a break, they should be allowed to, it's not as if they are going to be abusing their powers while on break. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator Review 

message: You know, I am still waiting for my own Adminship!
All the sweet and good edits I have been doing!
I need a adminship, when I have one, I can be get the respect I need!
:>x<ino 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're really serious about that, then simply follow the instructions.  Given your past and on-going conflicts with other users, I personally doubt that an attempt would be successful though. -- g026r 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh. These 4 lines scream to me "Do not make me an admin, I'm immature." Period. You don't become an admin to "get respect", you have to be respected before you become one. Kimchi.sg 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I feel somewhat the same way, but I don't feel the need for more respect from other users. Whatever they give me (if they do...) is fine with me. Also, "be get the respect" is awful grammar. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Several reasons I would vote no if you were nom'ed: "Demandation" is not a word; this edit violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; and it seems that the only reason you want to be a mod stems from these three edits. Want respect? We'll give it when you earn it. Want adminship? Show us that it's about the encyclopedia, not about you. RadioKirk talk to me 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more reasons why Xino will not be an admin any time soon... RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Xino is this some kind of joke? Sonic Hog 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out the RfC regarding Xino, which contains a somewhat clearer description of his behaviour than the links already presented. I'm guessing Xino wants to become an admin so he can block and/or ignore other users, and myself. RandyWang (raves/rants) 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this certainly explains a lot, thank you. On the other hand, this edit provides new insight into User:HappyVR... RadioKirk talk to me 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: it certainly does. RandyWang (raves/rants) 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: >x<ino 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Really? What exactly are you planning to do "when I am a admin"? RadioKirk talk to me 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xino, your case has been submitted for arbitration. Now may not be the most appropriate time to make personal attacks - particularly, it may be a bad idea to suggest that I suck anything, RfC or otherwise. Furthermore, as others have said: if you'd like to become an admin, and believe that you'd be successful, why don't you request adminship for yourself? RandyWang (raves/rants) 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xino was blocked indefinitely after this edit. Conscious 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ut oh. Zoe and a new shiny word. :-) Kim Bruning 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All your demandation are belong to us! --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demandation 

message: Are these templates valid? I remember such things being deleted on TfD several times before:
* Template:User:Digitalme/Box/User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator2
* Template:User:Digitalme/Box/User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator
70.51.9.190 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why they would be invalid they're perfectly acceptable and are quite informative in knowing who isn't an admin but wants to be one.  Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, if someone needs to advertise their hope to be an admin, they're not ready. Either wait for someone to nominate you, ask someone to nominate you, or nominate yourself. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same token, perhaps  would be inappropriate either, considering that no one has to accept nomination, and the RfA doesn't even gets listed unless the potential candidate accepts.  In theory, no one needs to post that they "don't want to be an administrator" via a template.  Redux 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people who use the anti-administrator template due it less as an informative action that they don't want to be an admin and more of a sign of protest against adminship and the admin process itself... just from where I've seen that template used. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I guess maybe some people who would like to be admins but don't feel they are ready would find the templates useful, but that's about it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They might also be useful for someone who is often confused with an admin, would, as Johleemk says, like to be one someday, but is not for whatever reason, ready or able to stand for RfA. I can imagine that the 30th "You aren't an admin? Would you like to be?" message probably leads one to really appreciate such a template. For the most part, they aren't hurting anyone, they're not being forced on anyone, and nobody is required to look at them (for that matter, if someone *really* hates it, we can set a div id for it and clear it out via thier CSS). In most cases like this, it's better to just leave it alone, rather than stir people up by telling them what they can and can't have; I don't think any of us can really argue that it's hurting Wikipedia, and certainly not anywhere near as much as a revival/ratcheting up of the user template war would. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case revise the wording to "No, I am not an administrator yet. Yes, I would like to be one. Stop asking!" :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for Adminiship 

message: Can a 'crat please close this? It wasn't on the main RFA page and needless to say the candidate will not pass. DGX 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was BOLD and delisted this as WP:SNOW and probable trolling. But yes, a crat should probably close it, or perhaps just delete it. --Doc ask? 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Restore and archive. RadioKirk talk to me 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Undelete it. --Tango 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, I heartily endorse this event or product. While he's been warned about the dangers of having a username like that, he should still be allowed the rights of a normal editor, albeit one who will tend to be watched a little more (like another user who had "WOW" in his name, WOW junkie or something like that). In fact, as of now, he is still indef blocked for his name. Looks like the blocking admin isn't online right now, but I don't know if I want to wheel war over this. I'm going to post on WP:AN about this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undeleted.  I don't know exactly what archiving old RfAs entails, so I've not done that. -lethe talk [ +] 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks. I added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies#J. --Durin 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine, duly chastized. Will find something else to do. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's constructive criticism, meant in good faith. Please take it as such. I well recognize that bureaucrats tend to be targets of complaints. The above isn't a complaint per se, but more a request that we handle that situation differently. --Durin 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the wiki concept working at its best - Essjay boldly deleted it, it turned out concensus disagreed, someone undeleted it and no harm was done.  Perfect.  The whole point of a wiki is that nobody is perfect, so we work together to achieve something closer to perfection. --Tango 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. --Durin 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm glad so many agree. I guess I'm off the hook for reversing this bureaucrat action without telling anyone ;-) (yes, this is tongue in cheek) NoSeptember talk 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm filing an RfAr against you. How dare you do that! :) --Durin 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, he did confess.  Let's just throw some rotten vegetables and eggs while chanting some catchy wiki-song. ;) Redux 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels]]

message: I was just wondering yesterday if any RfA had ever met the 80% OPPOSE mark. Right now there are two that have gone way beyond. One candidate does not respond. The other is RIGHT and refuses to withdraw. Why would the ‘crats not pull such lopsided RfA’s? :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has been discussed earlier but I really feel there should be a basic standard for RFA candidates. Probably like 1000+ edits and atleast a month of Wikipedia activity. Otherwise we have WP:SNOW cases like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piemanmoo occuring all the time. Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *This has been discussed more times than we can count. The general consensus has not been supportive enough of such ideas to implement them. Also note that WP:SNOW is not policy. --Durin 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE:User:Durin/Withdraw policy That's pretty much what I thought. I just feel sorry for the guy who is so caught up in his own rightness that he won't withdraw. Hopefully, he will listen and use it all constructively. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I generally pull any RfA that has more than 10 votes, and 75% or more oppose. I will, however, leave a nomination for a bit if it hasn't had much time up, as there could be some issue that can be resolved and things will straighten out. I'm the only bureaucrat I've seen lately doing this on a regular basis; I don't know if the others aren't comfortable doing so, or if I just end up getting there first, or if I'm just not seeing them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove them early, but only if there are enough supporting factors that I can be confident they have no chance of succeeding. I consider most of the points Durin has outlined, and if there is evidence that the user and the community will not benefit from leaving it open, I close early. For example, a nominee with very little experience and recent vandalism, being blocked, or incivility or similar in the Rfa or extreme examples elsewhere. So typically that's going to involve few or no supports from at least somewhat experienced wikipedians and lots of opposes from similar. If those factors aren't too severe, I'll leave it for a while until the lack of a chance for success is clear, but in very obvious vandal nominations, I've closed them pretty quickly. - Taxman Talk 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't agree with the view that leaving them open is more beneficial than closing early, especially if it means losing good contributors, which it often does. RfA is not Wikipedia:Requests for Review of my general worth as a contributor and perhaps adminship but I really don't think so but great if it happens. It's for requesting adminship, period, and that's all it should be doing. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've been accumulating evidence on the page I referenced above showing that some users are upset about early removal. I'd like to see similar evidence (Yes, I know it exists) that we're forcing users away by leaving RfAs up, rather than making the presumption that it always happens. Personally, I still do not see the harm in asking the user to please withdraw, rather than slamming the door in their face in non-obvious vandalism cases. --Durin 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While it's not a heavily used program at this point, users who are looking for feedback might be directed to Wikipedia:Editor review instead of using RFA for that feedback. NoSeptember talk 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowballing 

message: Why hasnt a bureaucrat closed Joturner's RFA? Its now twelve hours overtime, and oppose votes are now piling on from all directions. However if discounting the votes that were made after the ending time, he should be promoted, right? (It has been done in the past). Oran e  (t) (c) (e) 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the BCrat's noticeboard for relevent discussion. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Question

message: I just noticed a few minuutes ago that all of a sudden, an unknown force (can't find anyone in the history) nowikied the "Discuss Here" edit link so that it wouldn't work. I was wondering if I'm just going crazy or if some new software or something is being implemented. Thanks, Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working fine now.  I'm not aware of any reason that could have caused a temporary problem.  Maybe your browser is rebelling against you? ;)  Redux 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because all of them had mysterious <nowiki>s in the edit link. When I edited that out, it went away. Strange. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I had thought that whatever it was had gone away on its own.  Now, going through the histories, I see you fixed it.  Very strange indeed.  If it was a transcluded template, I'd say someone had edited it, but that's not the case.  It's as if someone had edited each RfA to add the nowiki code, but the history doesn't show it.  I'll have to ponder a bit more about this one.  But it is odd.  Redux 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't you know, Wikipedia is haunted. you just had a sighting ;-). NoSeptember talk 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spooky. <8O  Redux 15:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the code Wikipedia runs on changed or something, and it just did that involuntarily. I'm no programming whiz, but as all of them changed at the same time and there is no history of it, I'm thinking something internal. Notified Rob Church to see what he thinks. Master of Puppets That's hot. 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not odd, it just appears that people are forgetting to follow step 2 as per WP:RFA/N. So, it's not that the <nowiki>'s were put in, it's that the nominator forgot to take them out in the first place. (And I don't think you can take them out in the original  template, as if you do, the subst's for date/time/and name will be done at that point, which isn't what we want) Regards, MartinRe 16:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that that's what happened here, though.  If the nominators/candidates had forgotten to adapt the code, the links would have been missing from the start.  But they weren't.  It was all fine until all the links were disabled at once, it seems.  As Master of Puppets said, this was most likely something internal that inserted the code in all the links simultaneously — or it's the ghosts of Wikipedia playing a trick on us *shivers* ;)  Redux 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very curious. I did notice something when I was glancing through the histories, namely that {{fullurl: acts differently in depending on if it's in called in /w or /wiki (e.g.  vs , even though they are the same version. I'm guessing from the examples in m:Help:Variable that a {{fullurl: with parameters will adjust the url from /wiki to /w in order to edit, so I don't know what it's supposed to do on a page that's already /w. (it currently breaks the link, which is what was reported here, so I wonder if they are connected. I must keep an eye on the technical list archives, I hate unsolved riddles! :)  Regards, MartinRe 00:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's most likely this. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes.  Brion explains it all.  Again.  Thanks Titoxd, for solving the mistery.  Seems Wikipedia is not haunted after all.  Or is it??  Redux 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code problems 

message: ====For those who don't want icons====
For those who don't want icons, support looks like:
Support
Support
====For those who do====
Put the following code in your monobook.css (doesn't have to be monobook):
/* Voting */
.votesupport {
   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}
.voteoppose {
   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}
.voteneutral {
   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}
====Also,====
Also, this is not limited to  tags. So, you could also use  tags. (NOTE: If you use  tags for voting, to see the div tags properly you will have to add more parameters to the above code.) 
====Signature====
Thanks, --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support
or any other way a supporter may feel like voting. If people wanting eye candy can/would like to do any stylesheet/javascript/etc tricks to make any Support string show up as a perty icon for them, nothing can stop them. But introducint a new span class, class=votesupport, is somethign which makes no sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Look out!!! It's about to bite your head off! Oh no! It's The Instruction Creeposaurus!!! joturner 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution to everyone's problems:

message: Thanks, --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support
or any other way a supporter may feel like voting. If people wanting eye candy can/would like to do any stylesheet/javascript/etc tricks to make any Support string show up as a perty icon for them, nothing can stop them. But introducint a new span class, class=votesupport, is somethign which makes no sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Look out!!! It's about to bite your head off! Oh no! It's The Instruction Creeposaurus!!! joturner 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature

message: I have drafted a guideline that will help bureaucrats make decisions about when RfA's should be closed early. This is in response to the community becoming divided as to whether bureaucrats should close RfAs early and at what stage they should be closed. The proposal is here. DarthVader 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Close Guideline Proposal 

message: (Apologies, but I feel like because this proposal tangentially deals with RfA, I should bring it up here. Thanks!) Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the result will be controversial on this RfA either way. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy|Proposal for quasi-protection]]

message: (Have made this subsection an indented section of the QPP due to possible application of QPP to cases like this in future...)
I've taken the step of semiprotecting this RFA, due to ongoing AOL IP vandalism that continually forges signatures and votes. It's gone on since the start of this RFA. The last time I did this (Quadell's RFB), I was criticised, but here I don't think there's a better way to deal with this vandalism. NSLE (T+C) at 03:49 UTC (2006-05-28)
: I don't think the result will be controversial on this RfA either way. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappa.jake]]

message: Is there an intended meaning to background colors? Consider mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lar... no background color, no box around it. Then consider Joturner's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner 2 Grey background color, with a box around it... The consider Rob's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch 4 Pink background color, with a box around it too. I'm just wondering if there's a convention here (margins, failed vs succeeded? something else??) that I'm not aware of or if this is just an artifact of whoever closed it or ?? PLEASE NOTE: no criticism intended!!! Just asking... ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concluded some time ago that they, and their presence or absence, are secret signals to the Cabal. -Splashtalk 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They are all generated by the templates  (for a successful nomination) and  (for an unsuccessful nomination).  People have recently been altering the background colours in an attempt to make it clearer that voting has closed.  As the templates are substituted, the closed nominations bear whichever colour the template was using when the nomination was closed. Warofdreams talk 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 's background color has only been changed twice (and never to pink), and 's background has never been changed. So, how do you explain the pink? --GeorgeMoney T·C 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Color saturation in computer screen settings?  I.e., nothing to do with the template itself.  It's a possibility.  Redux 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, instead of pink, I mean #fff5f5. It has never been changed to #fff5f5. --GeorgeMoney T·C 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that should be , not , for a failed nomination.  That's the template with the pink background. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background colors on closed RfAs 

message: Oi vey.  I must say, I didn't expect objections to be quite this heated, not to be from this quarter.  There's no denying that I hoped this would catch on to the degree that some form of it it eventually became policy.  Not because of "guilting" or "shaming."  My number-one favorite wikipedian has gently declined, and I certainly don't think any less of him.  I'd optimistically thought that for the vast majority of administrators would sign on without too much hesitation, and that it would become (in some form) just "what we did."
* In the current conception, there are three barriers to re-setting the bit: six signatures, the personal choice to re-run, and the re-RfA itself.
** Despite what we seem to be saying, that first hurdle is a big one.  I ruffle feathers on an almost daily basis: Closing AfDs as other than votes, slashing and burning dubious links, culling fair use images, etc etc.  I haven't yet managed to get and keep six people mad at the same time.
** Going with the presumption that I'd not back out, I'm confident that I'd get the required numbers at RfA again.  Admittedly the big problem I had last time hasn't gotten any better, but I think I've also demonstrated that I can be trusted.
* We make policy on the fly all the time.  Sometimes it goes nowhere, sometimes it takes awhile to take off, sometimes it kicks us in the pants and makes us say, "Gee, we actually want to do the opposite of that."
** If you don't like the category, change it.  Add some caveats, make some notes, nominate it on CfD.  That's what we do here, we work things out.
** Even better, drop by the talk page.  Say why you don't like it, and try to have an open mind about what those who do like it have to say.
* However appropiate or not anyone may think this implimentation is, surely it can't have escaped notice that the "appointed for life" aspect of adminship is one of the things that is a non-stop topic.  I think the word commonly used is "perineum."
** Who is it going to be used on, really?  I know most (800+) admins will never have to worry as they are niether abusive with the tools nor rude enough to have burning coals of resentment somewhere.
** Everyking *nod of head in his direction* has been mentioned several times as a possible first "victim."  To be frank, I just don't think he's got that level of ill-will that he'd even get the six sigs.
** Let's not be shy, let's actually say whom we think would get screwed over if this became policy.  At least then we'd be talking about something concrete.
brenneman {L}  07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in progress