Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 86

message: :Image:Qxz-ad16.gif
I fully expect to see a surge in the number of nominations. Not – Qxz 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha ha... good one! Depending on the outcome of some other discussions, you may have to add "And are you willing to stand for re-confirmation by these arbitrary standards on a regular basis?" :) Kafziel Talk 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: O rly? Majorly (o rly?) 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff, good stuff. - Anas Talk? 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Hilarious! WjBscribe 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Priceless! Now a vital part of my user page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Superb!! -- Avi 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  That just about sums it up!  The Rambling Man 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Superb. -- Nick t 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I suspect everyone who's every been involved in RFA to have been guilty, at least once, of one the sins mentioned above.  We are, all of us, inperfect.  The Rambling Man 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to say inperfect [sic]. ;) Bubba hotep 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I meant that.  cough, leaves stage left The Rambling Man 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That almost had me laughing ;). Especially when it said "Great!" :D. Yuser31415 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *snerk* - I so didn't need to see this right now :-) - Alison☺ 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only thing I have to say is that people say we have too few admins anyways. Is this really going to help? Still, it's too cool not to copy and put on my userpage. Oh well, nice job making it. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't just add that... you can add  to get all of them... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but most of them are just plain, boring advertisements for WikiProjects and stuff. This is the only one that seems to have its own small fan club going... :) – Qxz 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just wonderful! You are a genius! --Meno25 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - both because it is great humor and maybe because it is (apparently) so true. The only one that seems to be missing is "What do you do (plan to do?) with all your spare time?" --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA 

message: How do I add that darn closing date?? --Plainnym 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have messed up your nom page a bit :) I suggest copying it from another page, and adjusting it to fit your nom. Majorly (o rly?) 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your tally has disappeared, along with the neutral section.  I would suggest repairing this as soon as possible, or else I suspect your application will be removed via WP:SNOW. The Rambling Man 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see that you had posted here, but I have already made the necessary corrections to fix up your RfA template. Nishkid64 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing date??

message: Posting as anon... Does anyone thing it's a bad idea to post an RfA on April 1st? 128.32.112.233 08:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 1 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal. This is a trap for newbies, who think it's a greenlight to them running. Can we add a disclaimer that not everyone votes that way, and many RfA participants do want to see activities across namespaces? Xiner (talk, email) 14:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Admin tools are no big deal" does not equate to "give people we have no reason to trust with them admin tools". I have no objection to a disclaimer, but it shouldn't imply that some people are ignoring that, which they aren't. Treating adminship like a big deal is more like "Well, we have enough that the wiki won't die, so we can't promote any more! If someone's only criteria are centered around them trusting the person with admin tools, then whether or not some of their criteria are stupid, it's not because they treat it as a big deal. -Amarkov moo! 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've a point there. Is it alright then to say that while it is no big deal, you should have earned the community's trust before applying? Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already says "Administrators are expected to respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy because they are known and trusted members of the community" in the lead. It's not like the info is hidden away in the small print right now. As well as at Wikipedia:Administrators, the same point appears in WP:RFA and WP:GRFA. No amount of copy-editing can make people read these before applying. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to avoid beating a dead horse here, so please bear with me. Maybe by the time they get to that passage, they need another reminder? It can't hurt to re-emphasize the point. Xiner (talk, email) 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it can't hurt. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA trap 

message: What is a good number of edits to have before being considered for adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Randomfrenchie 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably have at least 2000 edits, but without a trustworthy track record and knowledge of how Wikipedia works it doesn't matter if you have 20,000 edits. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: There's an interesting point regarding "canvassing" at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelBillington 2, referring to the practice of posting RFA notices, like MichaelBillington, Orderinchaos78, Riana dzasta, and so on, apparently since late 2005. I have to admit feeling less than enthusiastic about the idea of announcing RFAs on project pages. Any comments? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People used to advertise RfAs all the time, on their userpages, signatures etc and no one thought it was a problem. It's just another excuse to oppose a good candidate. Majorly (o rly?) 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The only time I have a problem is when the candidate is canvassing specific users on their talk pages.  Posting a notice on your user page, or at Wikiprojects with which you are involved, is in my mind a Good Thing — those bring in people with which the candidate has actually interacted, which can lead to either a positive or negative opinion.  I certainly would them to have a voice in addition to the usual cadre of RfA !voters, who usually have to base their opinion on a light perusal of the user's contributions, where it's easy to miss big problems.  I'm tired and sick, so it's entirely possible this rant is incoherent, but so be it.  You're 2 cents richer for it.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canvasing for anything is a nono, but to do it for your RfA is a great way to get opposes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems perfectly coherent and rant-free from here. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but it does more for me than Majorly's memories of the Good Old Days did. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do have an issue when people post announcements on noticeboards, since far too many things like that have this odd group mentality. I wish it were "I know this person, so I can give a better judgement", but it's more like "I belong to the same group, so I'm expected to support". -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note that the candidate that have been pointed out to have canvassed have passed with flying colors or seriously look like that same thing will happen when the RfA closes. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue about canvassing brought up here is missing the target while MichaelBillington's RfA was announced at WikiProject Australia this was done by another respected editor not by Micheal, as such  he wasnt canvassing for votes. Additionally the announcement didn't ask for votes, is just has a list  of linked User names and the RFA under a section Request for Adminship. Gnangarra 03:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it matters whether or not votes are asked for, but you are right that it's immaterial in this case, because someone else did it anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: <--- moving back, leaving individuals discussion out there. 
I do wonder how highlighting an RfA on a portal/wikiproject can be unacceptable as the notification is where the editor is known given that if the editor has any past issues the editors who have had a lot of contact are more likely to know about these. Where as editors that are monitoring the RfA to garnish "experience" look for the less indicative edit count, edit summary usage, AfD edits or even(heaven forbid) how many FA has this person contributed to. As I see it, if I was hiring an employee I'd want a reference from past employers and work colleagues rather than from someone who happen to be in my store at the same time as this person applied for the job.  Gnangarra 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gnangarra on all of the above and bbatsell on most - it actually keeps the system honest - esp on a project the sheer size of WP Australia. There are people who may well get through as their general patterns of behaviour are not understood or known beyond a small range of people who generally don't read the RfA section. Talk page spam is in a totally different league as it's often intended to influence. I see it as a question of pressure. If someone feels pressured to vote a particular way, then it is a Bad Thing. Merely having it on a neutral list of links and announcements such as the one we're discussing means those who really don't care, don't have the time, don't want to participate etc don't have to vote, and those who want to place a contrasting vote can do so without any fear of censure. Orderinchaos78 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFA "canvassing"

message: I want to offer congratulations to those who have nominated the current group of candidates.  It looks like 11 of the 12 candidates who were nominated by someone else (and whose candidacies are open as of when this is posted) are going to become admins, a nice percentage, and a nice number.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets be fair though. Most RfAs are either obvious passes or obvious fails, the obvious fails being removed quickly, so it makes sense that the vast majority of currently listed RfAs will be passes. --Deskana (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no doubt, but seeing as one of them is my own I kinda don't want to pre-empt anything. - Alison☺ 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare say you're a safe pass! --Deskana (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Alison, unless about 30 people appear out of nowhere and decide to swamp your RfA with opposes, I don't think it's in any danger :) – Riana ঋ 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still waiting for a secret troll cabal to show up :) - Alison☺ 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have them under control. ViridaeTalk 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How is this possible, I heard that RfA was broken and that it was a gauntlet that nobody could pass. Hmm, I guess all that was exaggerated, it seems to be working to me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bugs in RfA are still there, it's just that the conditions that cause them to show themselves aren't coming up at the moment. --ais523 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps people have been paying attention to the rants, and have been acting more rationally? Even so, just because candidates pass doesn't mean that they're the *right* candidates. :-/ --Kim Bruning 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 11 of the 12 candidates who were nominated by someone else (and whose candidacies are open as of when this is posted) are going to become admins ... bah.  I'm going to get Ben to ask all the admins who opposed his RFA to do his template maintenance from now on. (and I'm only half joking ...) Neil (not Proto ►) 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: It seems strange. What exactly happened on 10th September 2006? Simply south 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened. There was another blip in mid-February. There were other blips in January and February. Given that low edit count and failure tend to run together, failed requests from editors with significant edit counts mess up the nice lines on the graphs. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never seen that chart. That's a large average edit count required for the average admin candidate to be promoted. The average in December was 9000, and rising. I'm not even 1/3 the way there. --Iamunknown 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Don't worry. There's nothing wrong with RfA. <cough> --Durin 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **An average of 9,000 edits just seems...a bit much when the contributor wants to be an admin, will use admin tools, and isn't likely to wreak havoc upon Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ***It's also possible (and IMO more likely) that edit counts are going up in general. Note that the successful trendline is climbing faster than the unsuccessful one, which seems to indicate that other factors (AWB, scripts, etc) may be more important than sheer edit count. Good thing I already passed with 'only' 7k edits! -- nae'blis 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ****Edit counts of veteran contributors are, intuitively, going up. So are edit counts of non-veteran contributors. Some veteran contributors are already administrators. Those who are not and are not controversial will likely become administrators with no problem. This graph may indicate, however, that new users with lower edit counts that would like to become administrators in order to help the project in ways that they cannot as non-administrators are not becoming administrators. That is IMO a legitimate concern. --Iamunknown 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph is fairly meaningless for determining whether that is the case. Because it is an average—and the reason why the blip occurred—is that you only need one candidate with 30,000 edits to discount several candidates with 5,000 edits. The graph does not indicate what you think it does. —Centrx→talk • 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lines are also misleading, in addition to the methodology. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a more appropriate methodology you're familiar with? It might be revealing to apply it. --Iamunknown 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the median rather than the mean would bypass the problem of skewing the data by a few very high (or low) values. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, the median of the last 20 successful RfAs was about 7300 whereas the average was about 9200. The average is so much higher because  of outliers with 16,000 edits. Both of these numbers, but the average much moreso, also obscure the fact that 1/5 of the RfAs had below 4000. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a actual example, I passed at the end of February this year. According to the graph the average edit count for passes would be about 11000, but I had about half that, 5500 for all you maths challenged ;) which would put me in at about the average for failures. It does show that edit counts are rising however, which is concerning if we want more admins. It does however show that edit count isn't the limiting factor on all RfA's, people do care about other things. James086Talk 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you'd want to measure is the relationship, if any, between edit count and RFA success rate. The last time anyone did that, in August 2006, the data appeared to show that edit count had little impact on outcome at levels above 3000 edits. The curve may flatten out at a different number of edits now than it did in August, but it's a reasonable assumption that edit count is only significant at RFA when it's perceived as low. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the statistics that Durin compiled a month ago or so said that after 4,000 edits, getting mroe edits has no effect. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Or nominate AntiVandalBot, just to see what it does to the graph – Qxz 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to look at the data is to look directly at it, or to have numerous different metrics on it. Anyway, the median is still better than the average. I don't see what many problems the median would supposedly have, if a large enough sample size is used. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The trend of unsuccessful nominations is constant. The trend of successful ones will probably increase indefinitely simply because, across the wiki, the number of edits that have occurred increases faster than the number of active users increases. Anyway, it's not even clear from that one-year graph that the successful trend is increasing over the long term: it's quite possible that users with higher edit counts apply in September-December. The average for the last 20 RfAs (now) is even lower than the average during that whole time, let alone what the trend line would make it look like. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *As I've said before, there's plenty of ways to look at this data. The naysayers that insist nothing is wrong with RfA will find holes in it. The people who say there's something wrong will find supporting evidence in it. It's statistics. --Durin 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An average is a plainly wrong way of looking at it. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *So say you. Others disagree. Whatever method we use, there will be "problems". --Durin 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you have any reason why an average would be better or why an average would more accurately indicate the usual edit counts of RfA candidates? —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well statistically speaking, average or mean is the better indicator of the central tendency when the data follows the normal distribution. For most other types of distribution, median is used as the central indicator. In this case, I dont know whether the data followed a normal distribution but there are tools that can easily tell us that if we feed the data into them. The data however is not just defined by the central tendency but also by the spread which for normal distribution is defined by the standard deviation and for non normal data is usually defined by the span — Lost(talk) 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The data does not follow a normal distribution, partly because edit counts are bounded below at 0 edits yet have no upper bound. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *If anyone wants to play with this, the raw data is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All RfA nominations. --Durin 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interesting table. Thanks for the link. I'm thinking that a column with numbers might be useful, plus having the data in CSV format so it can be exported into spreadsheets and manipulated more easily. Is it possible to have links to or explanations of the history of RfA - how it was set up and what came before it? I know people often focus on edit counts, and looking at the high end of that, I see 22 people nominated with total edit counts over 20,000 and of those, 13 succeeded. Looking just at mainspace edits give a different story, with 5 out of only 7. The months active column is also interesting. The record is 64 months (from May 2001!) I'm sure someone has worked out the mean and median "months active" of successful and unsuccessful candidates before. What are those figures? The table doesn't seem complete though. Some of the end times and closing bureaucrats are missing. Is it possible to distinguish between unknown stuff and merely missing stuff? Carcharoth 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *semi-de-indent With apologies, I'm not going to make the effort to fix it.  If something is missing, it's largely because I didn't put the data in there. The effort required to make this table in the first place was stunningly massive. I spent more than a year collecting the data by hand. It's painful to collect. I've requested a bot to do the work to collect the data. I'm simply not going to do it, or any graphs from it, any more. I'm a) tired of doing it and b) tired of being attacked for it and c) tired of being attacked for making charts/tables from it. If a bot is created, then people can go insult the bot (or creator). If others make charts from it, then they can bear the brunt of the insults. I'm no longer up to it. And no, I'm not necessarily speaking of the above comments, but in regards to the sum total of a long history of comments directed at me regarding the collection of this data and creation of charts from it. --Durin 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologise. I appreciated the work you did, and I suspect others did as well. A bot would be best. I've commented over at the talk page for that page as well. Collecting the data by hand must have been very painful. Commiserations and thanks for producing that data. Carcharoth 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're right.  My use of "only" was particularly bad wording on my part.  I figured you'd get my point though, which is that looking at the apparently increasing requirements for passing RfA won't tell us if there's truly a problem or not.  If there is an increased workload per admin, it does suggest that we may not be enough being promoted, though there are still other questions we would want to ask regarding why that may be. Sxeptomaniac 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:AverageEditCountatRfA-2006.png]] blip 

message: For some masochistic reason, I decided to see what was lurking in the subpages of RfA. There is actually a good reason for this - as some of the useful subpages at RfA can get lost in the forest of RfA subpage nominations. But I feel faint at the number of malformed RfAs I've found mouldering away in there. If anyone is interested, they can look at User:Carcharoth/RfA data and User:Carcharoth/RfA data/Unsorted RfA pages. It's not as bad as it looks, as a lot of those links are in fact redirects, and a fair few are RfAs in progress or recently closed. I didn't fully cross-check, but some of the pages listed on that latter page are already at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All RfA nominations (which wasn't my source, see the pages for which pages I actually used as my source). Confusingly, some RfA subpages are historical records of older RfAs, created after the switch to the subpage system, so working out precisely what is going on is a bit more difficult than it looks. At the moment, I'm browsing the list randomly, and if I come across any RfAs that don't seem to be recorded in the archive sections, I'll add them here. If anyone has any ideas for systematically dealing with the list I've created, please say something (I'm stuck on how to eliminate the redirects). Oh, and creating an authorative list of the "admin subpages" would be nice as well. Carcharoth 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's time we routinely delete malformed RfAs, many which lurk as subpages from SPAs. There's no benefit whatsoever in keeping them, especially as no one but the nominator would have seen it. Majorly (o rly?) 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I found a page that's a bit strange. What happened here - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dino? Oh, I see, the page history says promoted, but it never got put on any lists (use 'what links here' to check). No, I apologise, it is on a list, but the redirect was on the list, not the page. Carcharoth 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There also needs to be a set standard of style: e.g Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John doe, as opposed to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/john doe. Then there's numbering. Do we use (2nd nomination), (2), (2nd), 2, (two), - 2? Which is right? Majorly (o rly?) 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember CSCWEM's RFA names? :) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping of subpages 

message: Note: There is a conversation on User_talk:BradPatrick#Your_Resignation as to if Brad should go through RFA after his resignation is final. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is if anyone thinks it is necessary. Whether someone is trusted or not does not change after a resignation. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <pointy>If he runs, I'm opposing him for wasting the community's time with an unnecessary RfA.</pointy> --tjstrf talk 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no doubt he would pass it. However, I see where Xaosflux is going (after reading his post at meta:Requests for permissions): if the user hasn't had a formal RfA, he should pass through one. But I also agree with tjstrf: would we ask Jimbo to pass through a RfA if he ever leaves this project? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone has been an administrator for a long time without any problems resulting, there is no reason they should not continue to be an administrator. Conceivably, if someone were even accidentally made an administrator and then was active and helpful for a year with no one noticing, it should not be removed. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly;  I think this is one of the more accurate applications of the "Adminship is no big deal" quote. -- Renesis (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be silly for Brad to have to undertake an RFA just for RFA's sake. If he was trusted enough for WP:OFFICE, common sense should tell us he can be trusted outside of it.--cj | talk 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above posts. I think we can safely bypass process in this case. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking this is one of the few valid applications of that policy, given the history and circumstances. Daniel Bryant 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, it's not actually a rule keeping him from becoming an admin; he stated in his resignation that he wanted to go through the normal channels for regaining adminship in the projects he had adminship in. I think it's his choice, though it's beyond me why anyone would go through RfA if they didn't have to. --Rory096 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this issue needs to be discussed any further. Process does not blindly equal legitimacy. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Nonsense! You can never have too many Brads! --tjstrf talk 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *He's already got the buttons and (so far as I know) nobody's remotely suggesting he's misused them.  Sending him through RFA seems like process for process's sake.  Friday (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Does he have the trust?  No, it's not process for process's sake, it's trying to judge as to whether someone is worthy of the tools.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After thinking about it for a little while, I agree that anyone who has used the admin tools responsibly and to the benefit of the project for such a period of time should be allowed to keep them regardless of they how they got them, without further RfA. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Instruction creep.--cj | talk 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, because there's no reason they should retain those rights automatically. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? RFA tests to see if someone is trustworthy enough to get the admin bit set. Current RFA doesn't do a really good job of it anymore (the wrong things are tests)... but still. The other way to test if someone can deal with extra rights is to just give them to him or her, and see what happens (this is the OmegaWiki approach in a nutshell). I think Brad Patrick passes on the merits of the latter method. If you can show me any bad admin decisions I've missed, I'll change my mind. And I think that that's enough of that now. --Kim Bruning 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA for Brad? 

message: Do you have any idea about how to proceed when someone declines a nomination? Do we have to delete it or archive it? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If its not accepted I would think deletion is the way forward. Otherwise the first accepted nomination has to be RFA:Joe Bloggs 2 --Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the candidate hasn't actually accepted the nom on the request form it would probably best be G7 deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page shouldn't even be created imo. No point unless they accept. Ask them to accept on their talk page or via email or something. It could make someone unnecessarily uncomfortable having to decline it (could hurt the nominator's feelings). Majorly (o rly?) 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys. Actually the nominee declined and hasn't answered questions. I've just deleted it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to have a record of turned down nominations. (I'm more likely to support people who know what they're getting into ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might be quite difficult; even if the RfA's deleted, you can tell it was turned down from its deletion log, but most declined attempts to nom won't have even created in the first place (they'll have been turned down via email or User talk: page), so they'll be hard to find (impossible in the case of email). (At least compiling a record of turned-down selfnoms should be easy!) --ais523 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Potential nominations discussed on talk pages or e-mail don't really count as actual nominations, in my view, which is why I've called them potential nominations. The only 'official' record is when things get to the stage where an RfA subpage is created and transcluded. Having said that, it would be nice if people would disclose at the start of their RfA if they've been approached before about running for adminship, but it's probably not essential (though it seems de rigeur to disclose previous RfAs if this is not immediately obvious - eg. username change). Maybe it could be one of the less controversial standard questions: "Have you considered or been approached in the past about running for adminship?" Answers ranging from "yes, I've been approached many times but declined until now as I felt I wasn't ready" to "yes, but I couldn't be bothered to do anything until now" and "I really can't remember and I don't archive my talk page" or "sadly not" or even "I waited and waited for someone to nominate me and eventually decided to nominate myself" could all reveal various things about the candidate, in the nice way that RfA can do... :-) Carcharoth 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, you'e supposed to delete declined noms? What about ones where the first one was declined a few months back and they've alreayd went through a second rfa?--Wizardman 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be deleted, just not created. Majorly (o rly?) 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that you made some actual edits. Majorly (o rly?) 16:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The link on your talk page is a fair place to start, but just clear up a misconception in that message, one doesn't have a right or earn the rights from just ...a substantial amounts of experience, discipline, a good track record.... There are no rights. As well as reading WP:ADMIN I suggest reading through alot of the RFA's that failed, and see if you meet any of the criteria for why they failed, such as number of edit, expertise in certain areas, etc. Khukri 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When declining a nomination

message: It seems possible to sabotage an RFA by 'false flag'-type canvassing.  I came to think of this while reviewing this case , and while I don't think that 'false flag' applies for that case, the use of 'canvass notices' by Nikosilver to a vast number of the "Oppose" votes got me thinking.  A person who wants a certain outcome for an admin request could further this outcome by canvassing for the other possible outcome.  After this, a co-conspirator can disqualify those votes on account of the canvassing.  This could work if the person's past contribs do not make obvious which side he would support in the first place.  What safeguards exist to prevent this sabotage from occurring?  The Behnam 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the scenario is so fanciful it'd never happen? --Deskana (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would dismiss a possible loophole just by assuring yourself that it will never be exploited? I think it is better to attack the loophole itself rather than dismiss it based upon optimistic speculation.  The Behnam 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're worrying too much. Seriously. Nothing like that would work. --Deskana (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:BEANS. You make the potential problem far more likely to occur by mentioning or outlawing it when it isn't already happening. --tjstrf talk 03:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I actually don't know if it has happened before.  You see, it wouldn't be easily detectable.  I just came here to see if I missed some obvious safeguard or to figure out how to prevent the sabotage from occurring.  The Behnam 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This co-conspirator has to be a bureaucrat, because nobody else can disqualify votes for canvassing. A bureaucrat who would completely disqualify votes from the people who would have voted anyway on the grounds that they were canvassed for is a stupid bureaucrat. A stupid bureaucrat did not pass RfB. Problem dead. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up.  The Behnam 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage! 

message: The page says:  At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion:
:I would suggest to reconsider the text and exclude any language that suggests that admins are in one way or another "better" or "higher" than ordinary editors. Admins have absolutely no upper hand compared to ordinary editors. What is more the policy about admins expressly says that they cannot use their powers in topics they are involved in editing. They only have power to deal with violations. A person is not "promoted" to be a policeman. It is enough that the word "admin" itself bears an aura of superiurity, so that suspicions are circulating that many seek adminship as kind of recognition in this huge RPG of wikipedia. IMO any efforts to demote the perception of "superiority" of admins will only to the better end, Thank you. Mukadderat 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *People do pursue adminship as a badge of recognition. They're wrong for doing so, but they do it anyways. *shrug* --Durin 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We have to say "!promoted" now to go with "!vote"? Strikes me as rather silly and overly politically correct, personally. --tjstrf talk 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Promote is the wrong word to use, however you should perhaps come up with a suggestion as to what word should be used. Majorly (o rly?) 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...consensus for status modification... - very 80's and clunky, but I like it!  The Rambling Man 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: !I !think !we !should !avoid !the !use !of !any !word !that !is !not !preceded !by !an !exclamation !mark !since !anything !else !might !be !perceived !as !not !politically !correct. !Kusma (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree - where I work, ! means not, very contrary.  The Rambling Man 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ! is an unfortunate and either insider or sarcastic term that has become mainstream in discussions and it would be disappointing to see it spread any further. MLA 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Along those same lines, it could simply be …there is a consensus for granting sysop permissions.'↔NMajdan•talk 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  Let's not get wholeheartedly dragged down into a political correctness argument.  Call a spade a spade and get on with it.  While we're at it, let's check how all the candidates who said they'd deal with the various backlogs actually did?!  Or reword Q1.  The Rambling Man 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's perfect. Acalamari 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the politically correct way of writing it in the edit summary? Currently it's "no consensus to promote xyz" or "xyz promoted". Majorly (o rly?) 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have now been forced to complete all the horrendous wikipedia tasks for eternity - works for me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, how about "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for granting the additional responsibilities."? I think that sounds better, at least. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /me likes it! Majorly (o rly?) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Me too; Majorly brought up a good point with the edit summary. Acalamari 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't like the "responsibilities" language.  This is a volunteer project.  Granting adminship gives you abilities, not responsibilities.  What's wrong with "consensus for adminship"?  We don't need to make this a verb phrase. —Doug Bell talk 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "responsibilities" phrase is too wordy. "Promoted", "consensus for adminship", and "granted adminship" are all fine with me.Rlevse 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Promoted isn't good because it gives the idea admins are above other editors. Majorly (o rly?) 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins have more rights than other editors and bcats have more rights than admins, than alone is a hierarchy, so the term promoted applies. Rlevse 10:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After all, according to our own article on promotion (rank): "Promotion : means an improvement in pay, prestige, position and responsibilities of an employee within his/her organisation" ... "Promotion may be an employee's reward for good performance i.e. positive appraisal. Before a company promotes an employee to a particular position it ensures that the person is trained to handle the added resposibilities. This is marked by job enrichment and various training activities." Sure, it's not a 100 percent match (obviously), and the areas that admins are "promoted" in have hardly any significance in article editing, but I believe the logic is sound. Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope you all don't hate me for it :) — Deckiller 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's another one: "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for granting administrator abilities." Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...conveying administrator status.  MLA 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But "conveying" does not have the same meaning as "granting". The extra rights are being granted, not conveyed. "Convey" means to "move from one place to another" or "imply a specific meaning". That's not what is happening here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more along the lines of a softer form of bestow ie passing administrator status onto the candidate. MLA 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How about "sysopping the candidate"? Xiner (talk, email) 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it should be a single word and based on a negative word, like executed or punished. So my suggestions are adminecuted or adminished ;-). I'd love to post on someone's page Congratulations on your adminecution! NoSeptember 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Promotion" is bad language

message: So the first question in RFA says "1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.".  Most candidates seem to take this as "How many backlog wikilinks can I add to my application?".  And months later the backlogs still persist.  So why do we bother reminding applicants that such backlogs exist?  I suggest this invitation be removed from Q1 and that RFA candidates work out these things for themselves.  Radical (!), sure, but I'd be interested to hear opinions.  The Rambling Man 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Let's not use a leading question; it's more useful to let the nominee form their answer on their own. —Doug Bell talk 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with that, on my Rfa, I didn't even look at the admin backlogs, I simply stated what I knew I would work on from my previous work. By showing a link to the backlogs, it gives candidates a free ticket to state an area that is in great need of admin attention. Any perspective admin candidate should already have clear idea's of how they would use the tools Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me. I can't even get to my other campaign promises on account of CAT:ASD, but at least I was honest... -- nae'blis 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think reducing it to "What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?" would be good enough. Then they have to list things without any hints. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The crafty types will base their RfA statements on the RfA statements of previous popular admins anyway, so it's not like they don't have enough hints now. I support the rewording. --tjstrf talk 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated it accordingly. Majorly (o rly?) 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I dissent. Regardless of whether the candidate actually steps into the backlogs that he promises, we need to advertise these backlogs as much as possible (especially to new admins who may be looking for stuff they can help out with) because they won't get cleared otherwise. >Radiant< 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be better to include in a message to successful candidates once their RfA has closed? This would likely be more effective. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a much better idea.  The Rambling Man 17:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q1 

message: Please see User:Majorly/OrphanBot if you need some kind of puerile amusement today. ;) --BigDT 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since this nomination has been snowed ... 

message: We are having way too many April Fools' jokes on here. Can an administrator protect the page? (Oh and because it's 0000 April 2, 2007 in Grennwich doesn't mean it's the same time in Australia for example.) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be between 0800 and 1000 2nd April depending on where you are, Gnangarra 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it matters much, but I thought that the greatest time offset was UTC+14 which would be at 18:58 on 1-Apr right about now. --After Midnight 0001 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about just blocking the people who continue disrupting for 24 hours? Naconkantari 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (ya rly) 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Aw, I was just reverted but I was only the 2nd one to post a joke (I think).  It doesn't seem like too many, and mine was removed after less than a minute.  I really didn't mean any harm and intended no disruption, but I am sorry if I offended anyone. --After Midnight 0001 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Geez, people don't have sense of humor. I am guessing it is because some want to say "I took RFA seriously, even on April 1" in their RfB ;-) -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, people without sense of humor, here is another to rollback ;-) -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As much as I'm serious about Wikipedia, being offended on April Fool's is rather, uh, amusing :] AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this page be protected until the end of today? 

message: Please see the current discussion on a RfA proposal. Xiner (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting for to ensure visibility