Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 110

message: very green today, no? – Gurch 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is good news. Pedro :  Chat   12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it doesn't matter any more. It's looking much less likely that anonymous page creation will actually be re-enabled – Gurch 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I hadn't realised that. Still more good admins are needed (goes the mantra) Pedro :  Chat   12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Gurch, could you link to a discussion of this? Village Pump? Mailing list? Carcharoth 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Found it: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Uhh...nevermind and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation, Carcharoth 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know why everyone's so worried about it. There is no apparent consensus to turn it on. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  :O 

message: I think someone should either figure out a way to include this page in the list of current nominations, or maybe change the clock on the page somehow. John Carter 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the cantidate transcludes the page, the "clock" should be started from that moment, I presume. - jc37 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Not anyone, though. Unless the candidate or his nominators figure it out, there won't be no RFA.--Tikiwont 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Transcluded now & time changed --Herby talk thyme 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I would have left that (the transclusion) to the candidate, but whatever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad - just used to working places that help people --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great thanks. There were some problems and I think a few people offered to help so it was down to who got to it first. (Emperor 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Herby, you never need to apologize for being helpful. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um - it wasn't an apology --Herby talk thyme 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and this is why I shouldn't edit while mentally exhausted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it means anything (and it probably doesn't), I read "my bad", as an apology too. : ) - jc37 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emperor]] 

message: Hello,
I've only run for administrator privledges once, and I was wondering if there was a specific amount of time that needed to pass before running again. Thanks. --Astroview120mm 04:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing set in stone, though editors will certainly oppose if they feel it's too short, and, more importantly, that whatever caused them to oppose the first time has not been addressed.  I personally am leery about a renomination any less than 4 months after without some rather extraordinary circumstances.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important question is how long it takes to address the concerns of the opposers. I someone really feels they've done that - they should run again. But there is a general expectation (for good or ill) of 3 or 4 months passing before adminship is asked for again, as Bbatsell says. WjBscribe 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 months seems to be the lower end. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As said above, the average is normally three months between requests (my second nomination was a day under three months after my first one closing), though some people wait for as little as a month or as late as a year (or more). In the end though, what people want to see is that a candidate has addressed the concerns raised in a previous RfA. Acalamari 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of time between requests 

message: Seems like we officially have the biggest green week ever...unless someone can prove different --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest Green Week 

message: I happened to drop by Wikipedia Commons and noticed that it is currently undergoing its first de-adminship procedure created on an ad-hoc basis. (The de-adminship section was simply inserted at the top of the RFA) Essentially one admin was found to have broken almost all the possible rules on image copyright rules, and the community is swift to take the mop away from him. It seems that judging by the response, there is probably little disagreement on consensus to desysop or consensus to remain sysophood. :P
Of course, such a thing is near impossible to ever occur here in the near future, but I thought it would be interesting to share with you all. ;) - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know I love when you share ;) the_undertow talk 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that we had no system/procedure so it is "policy on the hoof" for now but it is something that we will address when this one is over. --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It'll probably become permanent. Users tend to go for the tried-and-tested. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure - but the argument is what percentage decides - 75% in favour of removal (roughly RfA standard) or much less.  Some are suggesting a reverse of RfA so that 25% in favour of removal would mean it happened.  It will be interesting....--Herby talk thyme 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm....why are we talking about Wikimedia Commons here? We are English Wikipedia:-)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SJP, Wikimedia Commons is a sister project to Wikipedia, I think this discussion was originally started to discuss a possible de-adminship procedure on the English Wikipedia...Qst (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think every single de-adminship proposal has now taken up its' place at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, so this was more a "just so you know" or "in case you are interested" note :) Daniel 11:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I thought that's what arbcom was for...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons RfDA 

message: Just a note to let people know that I have resigned adminship, principally due to real-life pressures. If you want a fuller explanation, see my userpage. WaltonOne 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ( —Qst (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sad day that was. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignation message

message: I tried a requst for adminship but mine failed!
But I'd love to become an admin.
So here is what I want to tell ya.
Is there another way to become an admin instead of this Requst for adminship?
If you find out leve me a message on my Talk page and tell me what I've got to do. Got It? Bye .Beko120 14:25 11 November 2007 (UTC)
: No, there is no other way. Wikipedia:Proposed adminship was put under discussion a few months back, but it was eventually rejected by the community. Qst (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even when you want temporary adminship (ie, election officers), you need to go through a RfA, IIRC). -- ReyBrujo 14:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Administrator privileges can be directly appointed by the site founder, our operating foundation, and to certain technical persons.  These appointments all have to do with the business operations of the site, not community editing and cleanup work.  RfA is the only "real" way for an editor to get the janitorial priv's of sysop.  Being an admin does not make you a better editor, serve as a badge, or make your edits any more "right".  Adminship represents that the community trusts you to carry out decisions that they have formed consensus on, really nothing more. — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beko, as said above, there is no other way for you to get promoted to adminship. I know Rfa can be hell, but you need to gothrough it to get promoted. What I suggest you do is improve, and try again in 4 or more months. If you are good enough, you should get promoted. Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People, people, no feeding the trolls.  Pascal.Tesson 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Your RfA failed only one month ago, and at that time it was due to inexperience (only being on Wikipedia for 2 weeks). You still don't have much experience on Wikipedia; at the end of the day - we are here to build the encyclopedia — not to gain adminship. Qst (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, nobody is saying that — I'm not going to stand here all day and explain to you what is expected in administrators, so maybe this page can. Qst (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I good idea would be for you to get an admin coach. Lradrama 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching. GlassCobra 18:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)You should know that being an admin is often not a whole lot of fun. Most of what you do is after discussion or at others' request. Most of the messgaes on my talk page are "why did you delete this?" type complaints or vandalism by somebody that I've managed to offend. You will always manage to do somethings "wrong," assume good faith generally stops applying with respect to you, and anything you do that is perceived as wrong is "Admin Abuse!" Mr.Z-man 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only gotten one complaint. You probably just need more ink. :) the_undertow talk 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a great start, and Lradrama's suggestion was a good one. Good luck. the_undertow talk 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll get tuition in working as an admin so once you've been doing that for some time and have gathered the experience and knowledge together, you should be ready to put a good RfA together. Don't rush things, make sure you take it one step at a time and work on improving in terms of quality not speed. And enjoy it! :-) Lradrama 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Kidnap another admin and have your brain transplanted into his or her skull. DS 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there another way to become an admin? 

message: A good way to check your interactions with an RfA candidate is to run the RfA candidate's talk page through Wiki stats. Then search the Wiki stats for your user name to see whether you posted on their talk page. You can also run your own talk page to see whether the RfA candidate posted on your talk page. There might be an easier way to do this. If so, please let me know. It also would be nice to have a tool that brings up sequential posts such as if I posted on a talk page and the RfA candidate posted on that talk page right after me. -- Jreferee   t/c 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do I know this editor?

message: It looks like there are lots of people who show up at RFA to vote for their friends.  This of course makes RFA way less useful, because it's not really supposed to be about who your friends are.  Would it be reasonable to ask people to not vote in RFAs if they are friends with the candidate?  (By "friends", I mean either from real life or a chat room.) We don't have much of a way to enforce it, of course, but we could at least ask.  Friday (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you show some examples of this? I honestly wasn't aware that Wikipedians had many friends on here from RL. GlassCobra 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a way to produce examples- how do I know who is friends with who?  So I could of course be way off base with this concern.    I'd assumed it was just something that people would agree does happen.  Some RFAs see huge amounts of votes compared to others- I assumed the high vote counts were generally associated with people who hang out in the chat rooms. Friday (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're talking "Wikifriends" (i.e. editors you have collaborated positively with over time on this or another wiki project) then we can hardly encourage them not to comment - they should be the ones to add extra strength to supports, or to counter unfair crticism from opposers. If it's RL I agree with GlassCobra. I don't know a single person in RL who even edits wikipedia, yet alone is interested in the project side of it (mind you maybe I just don't have enough friends......!) Pedro :  Chat   16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is something that we can actually patrol. I agree with Pedro that limiting wikifriend RfA involvement is a bad idea, but real life friends... unless that friend created an account specifically to participate in the RfA, they have just as valid a voice as anyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Conversely, you also have people who vote against someone based upon one interaction they had with that person they did not like.  That's more of a problem than friends voting in support.  --David Shankbone 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Truer words, and all that... K. Scott Bailey 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said.  (At least my wife doesn't have an account here, or I'd be guaranteed an oppose: "Spends too much time here, needs to finish redecorating the bedroom"...) BencherliteTalk 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! That could definitely be a downside, all right. GlassCobra 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it reasonable to ask people to not vote for their friends?  No. This has been an ongoing concern since before I got here. "Friends" voting, the you-name-it-cabal, these are part of the "political" aspect of the process. What I think I have seen, though cannot document, is that new users that start at about the same time seem to bond and to share participation in the admin building areas, including RfA. Then, they tend to drift away from RfA. Last year this worried me. I was afraid that people might be !voting based on personal/political connections and not on the merits/demerits of thenoms. In retrospect, if this has been detrimental to the project, I've not seen it. Looking at admins that I might have had some worries in particular about, I'm happy to say my concerns were not realized. Generally, if consensus errs, it is on the side of caution. I believe that all of us who care about Wikipedia enough to participate at RfA care enough to not let someone wreck it, even out of friendship. The process has always been and always will be "broken' in the sense that no human endeavor is perfect.  It works, though, at least as well as any other "political" process.   Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Who would know the candidate better? I have both supported and opposed friends. I don't think we should be discouraging people who are familiar with the candidate to give an opinion. 1 != 2 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have the maturity to give an honest appraisal of your friends.  A huge number of our editors do not.  There's a reason I worded my concerns the way I did.  People familiar with the candidate should give their opinions, certainly- that's not the problem at all.   What is the problem is people voting for their friends.  I suppose this is really a specific case of the general problem of "a great number of RFA participants vote on their whims, rather than giving a reasoned analysis of the candidate."  Friday (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Friday, I think it's time you wrote an essay about this.  "Friends of Wikipedians should not edit RFA", perhaps? :) --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it count as an essay when it's only one sentence?  Something like "Wikipedia works better when we don't divide other editors up in friends and enemies."  I dunno, it just doesn't pop.  Friday (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: RFA has always had a popularity contest component to it, that's a bad thing and it gives uncertain results for sure. I don't know how you would ever reduce that without running aground on WP:AGF...RxS 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfA is (to an extent) a popularity contest. Wikipedia is also a community. The strength of the project comes from it's community. A community generates people who are more or less popular than other people in the community. Let's not work against what makes Wikipedia work, by denying the community element of RfA, even if it could be viewed as giving uncertain results. Better that we have a few admins created through popularity, than we have no community. Just a thought. Pedro :  Chat   16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the community needs to collectively decide that promoting competent admins is more important than being "nice" and supporting everyone.  I am suspecting that this is one of those changes that the community will be unable to make on its own.  If the community were inclined to be so sensible, we wouldn't be seeing what we're already seeing . Friday (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And the community comes second to writing an encyclopedia, and while keeping those interested in community (and not everyone is) happy, an effort to keep them happy doesn't extend to promoting unfit admins (if that is indeed happening). I don't think Wikipedia's strength comes from it's community in the sense that there's a shared community consciousness...it's strength is in individual editors interested in contributing to content. But I may be splitting hairs, there's always going to be friendships created and alliances built so who knows. Maybe there should be a WP:NOT extension to exclude community building :) RxS 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points, but at the time WP:NOT includes "A Community" I'll resign my tools and remove my account. And I would not be alone, I'm sure. Pedro :  Chat   21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the collaborative community of Wikipedia is one of the things I like about it. What's more, I've got well over a dozen people that I've met here as friends on Facebook (folks like Jimbo, Riana, Majorly, Lar, Ryan...); I consider them all friends, albeit ones I just don't regularly talk to about unrelated stuff. At the very least, the camaraderie helps to alleviate wiki-stress, which burns out our editors slower, which improves our overall encyclopedia. It's all connected. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not trying to harsh anyone's buzz here, and I'm not seriously suggesting WP:NOT a community. I'm just trying to get the priorities right. Community comes after the aims of the project. A collaborative community is a natural result of editing Wikipedia, but it's not why we're here after all. It certainly is all connected and Wikipedia would be poorer for it's loss but there is a limit to how much of a negative impact it should be allowed to have on the actual encyclopedia work (which is probably obvious). This is in the context of RFA being a popularity contest at times and how (if at all) it contributes to promoting unfit admins. Long winded point...RxS 06:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but it's exceptionally difficult to tell when people are !voting for their friends because they are friends; my aforementioned list of friends (which is far from complete) includes people who, aside from being my friends, are also outstanding contributors, and as such, I would likely support them because of the trust I have in their judgement. From an outside observer, it might look like I'm supporting them because we're friends, rather than because of the enormous respect I have for them. Does that make sense? It's such an ephemeral subject that I don't feel like I'm making much sense. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *People are spending so much time looking at all the RfAs that the backlogs are growing still further. (P.S., WP:RM needs you!) Dekimasuよ! 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People's friends are part of the community too, and if they trust the candidate as an admin then that is just as valid as someone else's trust. This is not a factual determination where bias can have an effect, I don't see how one can be biased towards or away from trusting someone. Trusting someone is a subjective decision, and if it was made by a person who knows or even likes the candidate then all the better. 1 != 2 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it reasonable to ask people to not vote for their friends? 

message: I decided to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daven200520 early. It would never have succeeded (trying to avoid the unloved SNOW). Please beat me over the head if you think I was being too bold. — Dorftrottel⁠ 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like common sense to me. The nom had not edited since the oppose-storm started. It's a shame that a questioner was watching it more intently than was the nom. Answers to the additional  would have had to been pretty good to overcome that deficit.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise it was actually a self-nom, do you? S/he signed differently though (as "Jayson", although  it links to User:Daven200520) and wrote the self-nom in third person. — Dorftrottel⁠ 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're going to close an RfA early, cite WP:SNOW. It doesn't matter if it's unloved; that's the policy/guideline/whatever that is driving the action, and it's never a good idea to make it look like you're doing something "just because" (and it's a lot better than saying "it's a waste of time").Also, if you're going to get involved in closing RfAs, follow all the instructions (sorry for how dickish that sounded; it's not intended, but it is the best way to drive home my point). RfAs should be added to the appropriate Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies sub-page (which I'm doing right now). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. I agree with EVula that phrases like "waste of time" really are best avoided. WjBscribe 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, will avoid that on future occasions. As to explicity citing WP:SNOW, I stated that I was being bold, so I figured that would sufficiently indicate application of IAR, but I'll try to remember that as well. Also, yes I forgot to include it in WP:RFAF. I somehow thought that it had been replaced by :Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship. — Dorftrottel⁠ 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dorftrottel, I personally think that you did the right the. Next time, if you run into a similiar situation, close it right though:) He did have as much of a chance as a snowball has in hell. It was for his own good that you closed it. The criticism may have been too much to handle if it went on, and because of the stress we may have lost the next Pedro or the next Wimt. YOu never know. Cheers!--SJP 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind as you are SJP "losing the next Pedro" could be viewed as a good thing! :) Pedro :  Chat   13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Never thought of Pedro as being someone hated by some people.--SJP 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did say something to that effect when I told the user about the closure. Btw: I also suggested WP:ARL and WP:XFD as useful go-to points. What else could be useful suggestions? — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that he do some vandal fighting, do some article work, and try again in at least 4 months, in addition to what you told him. Cheers!--SJP 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why vandal-fighting? Article writing is, by definition, infinitely more constructive. Vandal-fighting doesn't teach a user how to be an administrator, because deciding between "Yes, this is vandalism" or "No, this isn't vandalism" and mashing the appropriate button is ridiculously easy. Administrator candidates don't gain the discretion that is generally required to be successful at RfA through button-mashing. Daniel 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, with the reservation that pure or almost pure vandalism-fighters often don't succeed at RfA not because they lack the necessary discretion, but because too many don't trust that a good level of discretion has been established. May seem like splitting hairs, but it's a difference. If I were to really tell a user *how to become an admin as quickly as possible* (as opposed to "a good user, and possibly a good admin some day"), I would primarily tell them to be civil (=shut the heck up) at all times, even against their own good judgement, because curiously, civility is generally far higher-rated than good article/wikispace contribs. Everybody's darlings with no clue whatsoever often reach more than 100 supports, while one or two occasions of being incivil can sink an RfA single-handedly. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  early closure 

message: ... is if an IP ran for adminship! I know, I know, i just told them not to stuff beans up their nose, but wouldn't it be funny? J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be done. Apart from all the other issues, there's no techical way to provide sysop status other than to a registered account. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, but how often do you get the feeling that IPs read directions like that? I know that it can't technically happen, but they could run. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RFA There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account ... So that solves that! Pedro :  Chat   16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, have you found that the majority of IPs care to read such things? :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J-stan is correct about IPs not taking care to read things like that. For example, the help desk. How many times does an IP or new user miss the big notice with big, bold red letters at the top of the page which tells them that this page is for questions on the topic of Wikipedia only and go on to ask a question like can you help me with my English coursework? Can you tell me about Charles Dickens. It's a common occurance... Lradrama 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that an IP creatng an RfA would snowed on transclusion before any debate could take place, due to the technical restrictions and the above. The process could not proceede. Let's not give people ideas..:) Pedro :  Chat   21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A bit confused by your wording. Note: I am not saying that an IP has a snowball's chance in hell, just that it might be possible for them to run. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically possible to run, technically impossible to pass, and against stated instructions is the thing!!! Hence SNOW as there is not point running something though a process when it cannot pass the process. Pedro :  Chat   22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember it happening once, it was removed due to being technically impossible. 1 != 2 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238. Hut 8.5 11:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know what would be ''Really'' funny... 

message: I was looking at that large bar at the top of this page when I noticed that the number of admins is now 1400. That just seems like something worth announcing so I took care of it. :) Captain panda 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's also worth noting that of the 16 RfAs in progress, the lowest support is 94%. Eleven candidates have unanimous support. Just something to keep in mind next time there's howls of "RfA is a tortuous gauntlet that no one can pass!". ;) Chaz Beckett 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thats the greenest I have ever seen it. ViridaeTalk 02:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems we go through recurrent bouts of sanity alternated with "Oppose Less than 76.3% mainspace edits and only 17 featured articles." Raymond Arritt 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Al Gore would be proud - RfA is going green. November 2007 is now officially The Green Month. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HA! :-P nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, what's the record # of admins created in a month anyhow? :) SQLQuery me! 05:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should run again just to put some red up there.  SashaCall 05:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a drawer of socks that I've created for various reasons (usually as jokes). I could put one of them up. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 68 - October 2005 and again in December 2005.  Dragons flight 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had run one day earlier, it would have been 69 in October 2005.  No comment on the number.  Just sayin.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a nice round number. And we are seeing lots of brilliant candidates of recent times. Not many self-noms, which from what I have seen, tend not to be as successful. Lradrama 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  37 this month so far. If we keep this up, we'll have 70+ this month. This is, after all, The Green Month. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting achievement: in four lines, you somehow manage to simultaneously flatter yourself, put down the current candidates as too meek to edit complex articles and discard the opposition you got on your RfA as coming from POV warriors. "Highly qualified candidates" usually have more tact. -- Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pascal. Could you advise how your comment furthers the aims of this project? Pedro :  Chat   22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly Pascal is right. I do note that his statement itself makes several not necessarily well founded assumptions, such as "put down the current candidates...". I personally see no "put down" in the statement being referenced. And I do note that at least one admin who does work diligently to deal with "POV warriors" is having his actions and character currently discussed elsewhere. While Pascal's statement may have some relevance to the editor he's commenting on, the statement of that editor I think still remains valid. -- John Carter (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant to a current RfA make it on the RfA main page. Sorry, but this an ad hominum argument by Pascal that serves no purpose. Pedro :  Chat   22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1400 admins

message: This has turned up and yet I don't believe there was agreement for it (although I initiated the thread requesting it  back here.) I've three concerns. 1) No consensus in the first place. 2) Use of the word "vote" 3) It should be on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Front_matter. I'm loathe to remove it, and I'm certainly not going to put it on the header myself. Thoughts? Pedro :  Chat   11:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its needed; we have a page for that already, no? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that solved that. Pedro :  Chat   12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty of implanting a link to the page detailing the process of transclusion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've slightly tinkered with the wording  but I think that was positive. We had an RfA recently where no-one seemed to know how to transclude it. Pedro :  Chat   12:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion Notice on the RfA main Page