Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 108

message: It's really frustrating to edit the entire discussion section in a busy RfA when attempting to either address a single person or fix the numbering in one of the sections; it'd be really nice if each section were editable.
To that end, I've tweaked the RfA format templates in my userspace. You can see it at work (albeit with fake RfAs) at User:EVula/admin/rfa. There would only need to be a tiny little tweak made to  to add the headers, but though I'd get some feedback first. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely! That would make commenting a whole lot easier. I was thinking about this a couple days ago, but thought that no one complained, so everyone must think it's ok. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Rlevse 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. Would really be convenient in popular RfA's. We already have considerable load times, and frequent edit overlaps. This layout sure would reduce this. Gray62 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, it seems to me that most objections seem to be based on issues related to people's !votes, which I don't think will be an actual issue (especially when weighed against the technical issues this change would address). It seems like there's plenty of initial support for the change right now, but I'll leave this here for a couple of days before making any changes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) OMG. Put this into action immediately. That has been driving me crazy since my first RfA vote! нмŵוτнτ 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea, this will make things easier. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. --Eye of the minD 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But you haven't demonstrated that the current system is broken!  How can you suggest a change?? oh, alright, good idea.. Friday (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well pile on too... bibliomaniac15 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To reply to an inquire on my talk page, mathbot won't be broken by this change. The idea of introducing section headings is a good one I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See, a proposal can be passed here if consensus supports it. 1 != 2 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, I always wondered why they weren't separate sections. That aside, OMG! Someone get the camera! A proposal with no opposition. This is a Kodak moment! Lara❤Love 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why they weren't separate sections is because they were in the middle of a heated debate over a "voting" template and a "consensus" template. Some people wanted to have the support, neutral and oppose sections removed altogether, some wanted to have them as real (clickable) sections, so the compromise version was just a bold word. It wasn't anyone's preference, but it was better than nothing. See the history of Template:RfA. Melsaran (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This was a great idea! Makes life a lot easier. Phgao 11:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, good! I'm really glad we did this. GlassCobra 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheadings for discussion sections 

message: Is there a general guideline as to what stats should be shown here, recently I've seen a spate of   where only the bare stats are shown as opposed to  where everything is shown. For those on slower computers I think it is better to have everything up there so they do not need to access Kate themselves. Phgao 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather not have them at all, but that's just me... --Agüeybaná 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just the main statistics is better, if anyone else wants to go further in depth, then they can just check the Kate URL for themselves. ~ Sebi [talk] 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you may not like to see them, but tbh they will be referred to and will have to be addressed, so it is useful to have them in an area easily accessible and not have to go to Kate each time. To Sebi; I think the main point of having detailed stats there is to help slow net users as well as to alleviate the need to keep bringing up Kate,  every time something needs to be checked. Phgao 04:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do 'em all. If you see an instance where it's just a handful, feel free to update them yourself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I was wondering whether there was a tool that at least would summarize the deleted edits somehow - if someone has 100 deleted edits if they are all  that's a different story than if they were all edits to an article about his/her pet dog that got deleted. Carlossuarez46 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I think there are enough admins that are active on RfAs that can check for that sort of thing (and [hopefully] have the good sense to note any problems). Yes, it's a slight disadvantage for regular editors, but there's a technical restriction on deleted edits being available to everyone. Besides, generally someone who has a ton of speedily deleted articles also has a ton of notices about speedily deleted articles somewhere on their talk page (at the very least, in the history). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, as deleted edits often contain rather distasteful edits and opening that up wouldn't be good. But I hear there is a edit-counter that queries the tool-server and that gives a count with deleted edits, but I'm not sure, so you'll have to ask someone more familiar with the system. Phgao 07:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed there is. See here for your total edit count including deleted edits. I believe this is what produces the edit count you see when you click on "my preferences". Carcharoth 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, at first I thought that was just a bunch of code, then on closer observation, it has the number nestled in there. Lol :0 Oh can you shed some light on what the other numbers are? But that is a super quick way to get a edit count for someone else w/o going to Kate! Phgao 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the same number, for yourself, also appears in Special:Preferences, although you need the contribcounter query to view the information for another user (or install an edit counter like mine that provides an interface to that information, among other things). On another note, I've updated Wikipedia:Edit count with an explanation of the various sorts of edit count, which should be helpful for clearing up such matters in the future. (Note that Kate's counter shows a deleted edit count as well as a non-deleted edit count.) --ais523 12:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't want to say you're wrong, but Kate does not show any deleted edits; unless I'm not looking at the right place? Phgao 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example of the original Kate counter: . (It's my alternate account and therefore has a low edit count.) 'Deleted edits' is four entries below 'Total edits' (and the 'total edits' doesn't include deleted edits). Interiot's "Wannabe Kate" counter doesn't show deleted edits. --ais523 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA Talk page stats 

message: It's come to my attention that it states on RfA pages this "It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants." Now I think we all know that not answering these questions is akin to a failed RfA; most times rushed answers are critised and play a part in RfAs failing. Now I see a contradiction with this which is on nominations for adminship, "Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so" where it implies pretty much only after answering the questions, then one may post the nomination. 
Furthermore, these questions really play a major basis for further probing/questioning and as such I would not consider them optional. I suggest a minor rewording, and am welcome to suggestions here, but something along the lines of "Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants" would be more suitable I would think. 
Sorry if this has already been brought up! Phgao 06:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I know that it probably won't happen, I must agree with this. The questions have not been truly optional for a long time, so the only reason to continue to refer to them as optional is for a test to see the difference between what we say and what we actually want. And that's silly. -Amarkov moo! 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are optional in that they are not required to accept a nomination, if the wording bugs you add a comment that historically the community has not favored skipping the questions. 1 != 2 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The questions are stupid, and every candidate gives roughly the same answers. You should look through the candidate's contributions and decide whether you deem the candidate suitable for adminship, rather than looking how well they can formulate standard answers to standard questions. There has never been a consensus to add them to the RFA template, but unfortunately I don't think there's going to be a consensus to remove them now either... Melsaran (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were removed from the standard template, then someone would invariably ask them every time. So long as people wish to use the answers to those questions, they will be put up in some form or another. -Amarkov moo! 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, those three question are ones that I would like to see every candidate answer. The fact is that some people betray a fundamental misunderstanding about what an admin is by these questions, other times it show a lack of experience in other areas. I don't think they are "stupid", but they are very on-topic. 1 != 2 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that comment, I like to see good answers to the questions and certainly consider them when deciding between support, oppose or neutral. GDonato (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. I think they are good questions and can help gauge a candidate. These questions are like handshakes. You don't have to shake someone's hand when you meet them, but a strong handshake makes a good first impression. Not shaking can be seen as rude or dismissive. Similarly, you don't have to answer the RfA questions, but strong answers make a good first impression. Not answering is dismissive and leaves the opposite impression. That's my opinion on that. Lara❤Love 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-optional Optional Questions 

message: Can somebody pz nominate user User:Hut 8.5 2 be admin!
:Actually, I concur - s/he seems to be an experienced user, and looking at Special:Contributions/Hut_8.5 I saw a long history of productive edits. So if someone rises to the above challenge, I will certainly support. WaltonOne 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems another user has already thought of that... --ais523 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me :-) --Agüeybaná 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! We need more of those candidates whose contribs assure unanimously support. RfA isn't broken, we just need more of those good candidates. Gray62 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As I said earlier, if potential candidates know how to behave and plan for the long term, they'd eventually be nominated and succeed.--Alasdair 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  More candidates who refuse to think outside the box, don't rock the boat, and come from <insert editor who spends too much time on RFA>'s favorite cookie cutter.  kmccoy (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my opinion that the only reason RfA is "failing" anymore is that the regular opposers aren't commenting very often lately. *Cremepuff222* 21:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's an interesting observation. Who in your mind are "regular opposers"? Pedro :  Chat   07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it could be me, but this recent lot of admin candidates have been pretty good (not counting newbies of course), but those regular opposers are good in that they point out flaws that perhaps aren't blatently obvious, and sometimes can change a RfA completely. Then again, often these were past minor slips of mind, and have no impinging effect on the editor's capability as admin at present. But I too would like to know who you consider these opposers to be. Phgao 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, I'm not pointing out anyone in particular. *Cremepuff222* 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Hut 8.5]] 

message: Before you say anything take a look and the idea here, the idea is not a bad as you might think(at the moment). Also please place your comments there, not here so we can have a centralized discussion  --Chris   G   01:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented. Phgao 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the consensus was against this bot.  Useight 18:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New and different Rfa closing bot 

message: RfA seems to be one of the best examples on Wikipedia of how human communities, when faced with bureaucracy, create even more bereaucracy to counter it :(. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA system 

message: Can someone with greater familiarity with the process do the necessary at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreamafter, as Dreamafter has withdrawn?  BencherliteTalk 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn RfA needs closing properly 

message: I already voted on some but just wanted to make sure!! Have a good day Stupid2 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If u want to be an admin ten you just put your name up there? Stupid2 06:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with an account is welcome to participate in the RfA process. If you're looking to make an attempt at adminship yourself, I highly recommend that you look at all the requirements of an admin; with only 61 edits to your name, I can assure you that your RfA would be removed rather quickly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, ok, thanks for clarifying everything. most other website you have to be on really good terms with the owner or admins to become one, not like here where teh comunity decides. Stupid2 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, pretty much everything on Wikipedia (and all the other wiki projects, like Wikiquote and Wikinews) is decided by the community in one way or another. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hehe... favoritism. Just be friendly with Deskana and you'll definitely receive adminship. That's the way I got mine. *whistle innocently* --DarkFalls talk 06:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be Cecropia. Its not what you know about policy, but who the crats you know! ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EH? I had to PayPal fifty quid to every one of my supporters and two hundred to each of the 'crats. What's this community decision thing??? </fun> Pedro :  Chat   08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Pedro, I'm uhh still waiting for my money. If you could hurry that up, it'd be great. Thanks, I look forward to supporting your upcoming cratship request.... for a fee of course.... :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, heh, all you guys had to fork out I'm getting all my votes from pure trust --Chris   G   09:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - Sorry Chris G - I supported you in good faith because I thought you were a paying punter (as per WP:AGF-FOR-A-FEE). I need the dosh to hand over to Dark Falls for my RfA......... :) Pedro :  Chat   09:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll fix up your deal with Dark Falls if you get the rest of your socks to support... :) --Chris   G   09:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Pedro, I imagine Anonymous Dissident or Phaedriel would be filing for bankruptcy then. They'd have to pay twice the price. As for me, bribing with free gift certificates from my company was a much cheaper deal. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We're talking about RfAs, I wonder how much some paid out for their RfBs. Note to all aspiring crats: Get a rich aunt. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, my rent is due tomorrow, Pedro. Bearian 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So anybody can vote right? 

message: Politics rule was blocked indefinitely very recently for sockpuppetry, and I've just begun going through the RfAs to indent his comments, as that's what is supposed to be done. However, as I was going through them, I came across this edit, and I'm uncertain to whether I should continue what I was doing, or revert the edits I made. What should be done? Acalamari 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only modify if the socks were involved. PR had his say. His socks do not. Just my 2 cents. the_undertow talk 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am willing to revert the edits I made in indenting four of the comments. I haven't touched the others yet. Acalamari 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these current RfA's? the_undertow talk 06:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only indented them from active RfAs; there's no point in indenting comments on a closed RfA. Acalamari 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I made that comment based on an understanding that basically goes like this. Single Purpose Accounts and multiple (i.e. more than one) votes by sockpuppets would be indented. Blocked users (who are blocked only as a result of disruption to this board) and whose only contribution has been to an RfA (or more than one RfA) would be indented. I believe the !votes made by Politics Rule where in good faith at the time they were made, and as there is no evidence of sockpuppet use outside of the incident that resulted in his block there is no cause to strike these comments. I'm certainly flexible on this however, and if others feel that all his !votes should be indented then that's the way it is. Pedro :  Chat   19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm of the opinion that if you're indefinitely blocked from editing, you're no longer part of the community, meaning that you're no longer allowed to participate in community decisions (such as XfDs and RfAs). If a discussion was closed before the block was put in place, the editor was still a member of the community and so the comments stand, but if they are blocked before or during the discussion's closure, however, they are no longer welcome to contribute. It's a consequence of their actions, as far as I'm concerned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see exactly where you're coming from EVula, and I certainly respect your opinion. I just think in this case PR lost his judgement (as evidenced through his actions) in one particular instance and the !votes he made on other RfA's could be considered to have been good faith. A quick glance idnicates that indenting of these votes will not affect the outcome of the various RfA's at this time, although that would be a 'crat decision anyhow. However I'm unsure if there is any prior consensus to this at wider level e.g. XFD et. al. and if not their certainly needs to be probably should be. It may come down to how far we AGF and how far back we retoactively no longer assume it. Pedro :  Chat   20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly true Pedro, I blocked PR for one week originally due to using socks in an RfA, a checkuser was then run, and it was found he had made a number of other socks in recent weeks, hence why the block was extended to indef. I indented PR's comments in the RfA he had been proven as using socks in as he had attempted to disrupt the discussion. As he is a multiple sockpuppeteer, I'm also of the opinion that all his other comments should be indented as we don't truly know who he is. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My comment was also addressing my more general attitude towards blocked editors and the subsequent consequences of their edits, rather than just this one instance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both Ryan and EVula. Ryan, on further examination yes, I agree. EVula, that's what I was getting at further up the page, is that my understanding is we do not have consensus / precedent on how to manage !votes in discussions (whatever areana) for blocked users. But I think it would have to be case by case. Someone voting keep on an AFD who later gets blocked for edit warring on an unrelated article shouldn't have their comment indented even if the AfD is in progress as we'd be turning WP:AGF on it's head - i.e. that as they've broken faith once they must allways have done so. To me noting that a user has been blocked would be sufficent for the closing admin (at XFD) or crat (RFA) to take account of the "value" of their comment. Perhaps another consideration is that if we start indenting comments at RFA (with the exception of mutiple votes from sock-puppets) we are clearly giving up the concept of RFA being a discussion. A discussion is - editor makes a support or oppose comment - another editor notates that the editor has been blocked - 'crat decides what weight to give to comment. A vote is -  if you're blocked you loose your enfranchisment and your comments are disregarded however valuable they were. Just a rumination. Pedro :  Chat   08:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons that I like striking or indenting rather than removal of comments is that it's still visible to the 'crats. As for the comparison of vote to discussion, that's a good take on it, though I still look at it the whole RfA process as a "community-derived decision" (whether it is a vote or a discussion), and users who have been indefinitely blocked from the project are no longer members of the community. Their struck comments are still visible and can be cited by others if there is any merit to their opinions, though; I certainly wouldn't have a problem citing a !vote from a Willy on Wheels sock iff it provided damning (and real) evidence of editor abuse that other editors had somehow missed in their assessments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry did I say remove? I should have made it clear I mean indent / strike if I did (I can't see where I did?) That's why I prefer indention to be honest. I'll happily strike through the words oppose / support but the rest of the text should be legible, as you rightly say, so that others can read and comment based upon it. I guess until we get an RfA that hangs on the knife edge because of a subsequently blocked users comments it's probably academic, and when that unhappy event does happen the 'crat decision will provide precedence. Pedro :  Chat   15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't hurt yourself looking for where you said "remove"; you didn't. That's accidently left over from a couple of lines I typed and then removed because I realized it was a bit of a fork in the conversation. Whoopsie. :DThe gist of what I was originally trying to say with it is that striking makes it clearer to everyone else what has happened (as opposed to indenting, where it can get mixed in with responses to individual !votes), but still leaves it in place for people to read and potentially refer to. I think I was just pre-emptively opposing the removal of blocked users' comments, without anyone having actually suggested it. Perhaps I need to re-read WP:BEANS. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit summary ! Ha! Yes, actually you're right in that unstruck votes can also look confusing. I guess that's not a big issue, certainly we agree that removal of votes totally is never acceptable (well except pure vandalism). Thanks EVula. (spelt it right this time....!) Pedro :  Chat   15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right Dorftrottel. Surely either all of Professional Deletionist's and Politics Rules' comments should be counted or indeneted for consistency? Neither was a single purpose account. Admitedly the closing 'crat will take care of this all all RFA's and I don't think any hang in the balance based on these votes. Pedro :  Chat   13:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indenting a blocked user's comments 

message: Without wanting to sound like a scratched record, I am getting pretty tired of people asserting RFA is broken.  Prove it.  We've had around 3,000 RFA discussions.  How many of those were "wrongly" closed?  How many RFAs failed to sysop someone who should have been sysopped, or sysopped someone that has subsequently been de-sysopped?
Don't simply tell us it's broken, back up your assertion with evidence. 
Even if you can show me 50 RFAs that were closed wrongly, that would still be only a 1.7% error rate.  And I bet you can't even show me 20.  RFA isn't broken. Neil ☎ 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the idea that RfAs are broken is broken. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Enough is enough. The page is working as best it can; a process like this cannot be simple or easy, and people need to get used to that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the biggest stumbling block is the fact that most complaints about how RfA operates has more to do with the participants than the process, while the proposals have reversed that focus to concentrate on the process. At most, all we (as individuals) can (and should) do is refuse to participate in whatever fad is being applied, and hope that it falls out of favor (for example, I haven't seen candidates be opposed for failing the "1 Featured Article" requirement in a while). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There have only been about 35 desysoppings where the admin is currently desysopped and would have to go through RfA to get the tools back. Out of 1368 admins that's a pretty good success rate, especially when you consider that 9 of them did not gain adminship through RfA. Looking through the old discussions most seem to have little opposition, which suggests that even here they were closed correctly. Hut 8.5 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bad argument. You're assuming that 1. All of the desysoppings were justified and 2 That all of the desysopps were the only ones that needed to be desysopped. It would be like saying "There weren't that many U.S. presidents impeached therefore most of them were good!" Wikidudeman (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to agree with EVula here and also point out that a good deal of the problems with RfA would not be solved by a different process. Captain panda 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: RFA is only broken in the sense that we're short of admins. We really should take this seriously. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short on admins? You must be planning to run for admin...(That was a joke, of course, but there does seem to be a movement occurring where most of what so many people do or say is only in an attempt to become an administrator.) The fact is that we are not 'short on admins'. The real problem is that we have too many unqualified admins and not enough qualified ones. Simply adding more admins won't do anything but complicate the problem more. Too many people are becoming administrators who simply aren't qualified for it. The results are wheel warring, admins breaking 3rr, lack of civility, etc, etc. This is itself bad for several reasons as it causes people to lose faith in wikipedia itself when administrators act like that. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This won't ever happen but... If we could just give out the +sysop bit on a temporary basis (with the software de-sysopping to save everyones time) it would be so much better. Want to be an admin ? Okay subject to say 1,000 edits, clean block log and not currently involved in an edit war you can have it. After one week you loose it again. Then 1)The editor can really decide if they want to put up with the abuse they get and 2)The community has some admin actions to look at when assesing RfA, rather than believing that we can determine how good someone will be with admin buttons by reviewing their editing history when they didn't have them. Pedro :  Chat   14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea. Carcharoth 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I don't think that one week will give people an accurate taste of what being an admin is like. I know my first few admin steps were rather tentative, and it wasn't until I'd been a sysop for a while (maybe a month) before I started being more aggressive in my adminship (such as blocks and more pro-active warnings), which is when you start getting into conflicts. I could be an exception, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, give people a 30 day run. I think it could be great, but there's two major problems - 1) the software patch to auto desysop and 2) we'd probably need a method of emergency desysopping at a more local level, and that then goes back to the age old debate of giving 'crats desysop powers. I think it's a nice thought but it won't ever happen. Pedro :  Chat   16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That just won't do.  Please be specific.  WP:ANI is always full of complaints about administrators, but this doesn't mean there are many administrators doing anything wrong.  --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zzzz

message: I seem to see quite a lot of comments like this made in support of candidates
*Looking through your deleted contributions, your speedy deletion tagging seems spot on.
It seems a slightly odd thing to say, as the deleted articles are only the pages tagged which actually got deleted. So, assuming the reviewing admins are doing their job, all deleted CSD tags should be spot on, by definition. Surely in assessing a candidate's CSD tagging, it's at least as important, if not more so, to look through non-deleted contributions for speedies which were rejected - that's where the incorrect tags are likely to be found.
Not really a question, more of a suggestion for anyone who's only looking at one side of the coin. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat true, somewhat untrue. I've seen plenty of articles that were tagged for speedy deletion with the wrong tag, yet I speedy deleted them for another reason.  I think the most common mistaggings for articles I speedy delete involve A7, A1 and A3, and G1.  I've taken down A7 tags under G10, A1/A3 tags under A7, and G1 tags under A7.  A reviewer of deleted contributions can check if the tag applied  matches the reason the deleting admin used and whether they agree with that decision.  Whether any reviewers are doing that, I'm not sure.  GRBerry 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I hadn't considered that this might be what people were checking. Of course, many articles fit multiple criteria: an article called "Joe Bloggs" with the text "you're a wanker" could plausibly be classed as G3, G10, A1, A7, and arguably A3 as well... in such cases I normally don't worry too much about which of the many possible tags to apply, except that if it's an attack page I'd give priority to G10, as some admins make a point of deleting attack pages before moving on to the others. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Looking through your deleted contributions..."