Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 111

message: Why is not considered more unacceptable/irritating for a recently promoted or failed candidate to compulsively spam the talk pages everyone who voted in the RfA?  It almost seems as if candidates feel this behavior is expected of them.  Does anyone actually like this practice?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this should be more discouraged.  Friday (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, this is a kind of "I don't care" kind of situation. But that's just me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMUNITY balanced against a productive members input at WP:BACKLOG. If you don't like it put a note at the top of your talk page asking editors not to, or just undo it. Pedro :  Chat   23:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer if editors who succeeded at RfA didn't leave huge colorful banners,  including their picture. However the general idea seems harmless. Delete it from your User talk if you don't like it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) Is the advisement against it anywhere in that balancing act? I generally don't mind ANYTHING on user talk pages, but the RfA spam bullshit is so bad that I have de-watchlisted just about every user I know. the_undertow talk 00:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's unnecessary.  Put a message on the talk page of the RFA in question, and anybody who cares about it will see it.  The idea that other people's talk pages are a place for self expression seems somewhat obnoxious.  Of course the same goes for the stupid practice of spamming "newsletters" and the like, including, Wikipedia:Signpost, when the contents are readily available on the wiki and all changes can be tracked through the watchlist.  Needless duplication should be strongly deprecated. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Signpost spamming is less objectionable in that it's at least opt-in. —Cryptic 00:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a little less.  But the principal cost in this case is borne by those who actually want to use the talk page for its intended purpose, and have to deal with kilobytes of useless clutter that is all available on another page.  If I go to somebody's talk page with an important issue, I have not opted to have my communication pre-empted by somebody who has nothing more important to communicate than a lengthy and redundant recital of the contents of the latest Signpost. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Necessary or unnecessary, I don't mind a brief thanks-for-your-input message; every such msg I have received has been friendly, and they make a nice change from some of the spleen people see fit to vent from time to time. That said, I do object top the fancy formatting of some of them.  A quick thank you and a few words will suffice, an I don't need a fancy box and an illustration off a Hallmark card. And like Pedro, I take a dim view of those who thank obly the people who supported them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *To be fair, I can understand how that would happen. For my RfB, I only got around to thanking my supporters, because I wanted to customize my message for all the opposers, and then Real Life flared up something awful. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Pedro, did you really just say that someone should be desysopped for only thanking supporters? I believe you are serious as I've seen you threaten to block for simple discussion. I didn't thank anyone. If I would have, I would have probably only thanked my supporters, so you would have had to take away my mop. Your comment is a perfect example of political correctness gone awry: Thank everyone or get demoted. Who cares who anyone thanks? I sure as hell wasn't going to thank Weber for implying that I was power hungry. How you draw the conclusion that thanking certain users is equal to failure to understand RfA is very disconcerting, and a conclusion that should not be rationally drawn, and is probably not your call to make. the_undertow talk 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, on reviewing that remark it didn't come over in the way I meant it. I do feel that thanking only supporters does lend itself ever more to the appearnce of a vote. My de-sysopping coment was tongue-in-cheek but it didn't come over that way. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat   13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Got no issues with them, and they may be helpful.  New admins are often ready for work, and it's a good way to remind people that them that they are ready for some tasks. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note. I have read the above comment from Lara. Pedro :  Chat   13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFLCOPTER. XD Lara❤Love 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly appreciate Sebastian's approach, and I believe this is one of those things the individual candidates or electees should decide for themselves. Responding to the Fat Man's original question, I neither like nor dislike this practice, nor can I tell whether it is done because it is expected. We see people of diverse age groups, cultural backgrounds, and metapedian intensities requesting adminship. I see these "thank you notes" as a sign of enthusiasm, thoughtfulness, and maybe also gratitude. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe it's more a question of taste. Pretty flowers and happy horsies are always welcome, though never explicitly desired, on my talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I sure like getting RfA thanks, as opposed to the usual flood of "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE ON MY (friend|garage band|friend's garage band|cat|dog|website|company|significant other) YOU #*(%#&*(#@(*&!!!!!!" I didn't do too many of them myself (I thanked a few people whose support I particularly appreciated, and responded to a couple of opposers to inquire about concerns), but really, there are a lot better things we could be worrying about than expressions of gratitude. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the notes don't bother me.  I'd rather get short notes like these than some of the junk I get from vandals and vanity article creators.  I sent everybody a note that I tried to customize with something I remembered about them.  For the opposers, I addressed their concerns.  Hopefully I haven't disappointed them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also like getting the thanks, and appreciate the creativity that goes into making the visually-pleasing or amusingly-written ones. I don't want to annoy people who vote in a lot of RfAs and are sick of getting thanked for it, but neither do I want to slight people who would appreciate a "thank you." Unless people have said something, I don't know which they would prefer. So, aside from thanking or not thanking people who've posted their preferences here... I am not sure what to do. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're making a mountain out of a molehill here. RfA "spammers" waste nothing but their own time; should they choose to participate in this somewhat silly practice, so be it. For those who have failed their RfA, it's likely to just annoy those who opposed even more; for those who managed to survive, it just wastes time that could be spend trying out their shiny new buttons. Indeed, the practice is a waste of time. But there's better things we could be worrying about. Anthøny 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: this is cool. I might borrow it.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, here. I always like getting the "thanks for participating" RfA spam.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it so much I collect it in a separate archive ... Haven't got much lately but I also only comment fairly rarely. I feel like an old buck, I don't know most of the newer candidates very well so don't feel right commenting on them. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have well over 100 collated in User talk:Neil/RFA spam.  It is interesting to see some of the early names and realise that they may act like salty dogs now but they were bright eyed young newbies once, too. Neil ☎ 10:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I collect some of the thanks as well. :) Acalamari 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you for voting for me / not voting for me / I really learned a lot

message: (OK, maybe not that different but at least it breaks up the text, non?) While I will undoubtedly grow sick and weary of them, RfA thanks/notes perform a different function for me: They allow me to have a post-RfA contact with a new admin or someone who didn't achieve adminship. I don't know about anyone else, but I have no acquaintance with the vast majority of admins. There's, what, about 1500 admins now? The RfA process remains a type of good behaviour/best foot forward affair. How someone acknowledges their RfA success or failure speaks to me of their character and how they will act post-RfA. However personalized or impersonal such messages are, they express the candidate's vision of their future to some extent. Am I reading waa-a-ay too much into these often rote messages? Is this perhaps projection on my part? Sure, but it remains a point of contact between me and them. Like an election (and yes-i-know-it's-not-vote), people who expressed an opinion in an RfA are almost like constituents to the RfA candidate, responsible for shaping the issues discussed and the tenor of it. There's a reason why many of these thank yous include a phrase like "If I can do anything for you, please let me know." There's a feeling of special and specific obligation to those participants even though the participants are essentially representing the wider WP community.
Connected to that is the "community" of Wikipedia. Yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to be friends or buddies with everyone, but a collegial atmosphere does not grow out of purely mechanical contributions or interaction; it also requires some level of trust of each other's decisions and actions. This is a social aspect of WP and its importance in shaping community shouldn't be discounted. So, for the moment, I like RfA messages. All too soon, I will become jaded and indifferent to these artifacts of WP culture, desiring only to block vandals and delete pages through my superior familiarity with WP policy, wanting my talk page to be clear of excess clutter. But still... Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here. I always like getting the "thanks for participating" RfA spam.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it so much I collect it in a separate archive ... Haven't got much lately but I also only comment fairly rarely. I feel like an old buck, I don't know most of the newer candidates very well so don't feel right commenting on them. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have well over 100 collated in User talk:Neil/RFA spam.  It is interesting to see some of the early names and realise that they may act like salty dogs now but they were bright eyed young newbies once, too. Neil ☎ 10:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I collect some of the thanks as well. :) Acalamari 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And now for something completely different...

message: Could a non-participant or bureaucrat close: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer‎ & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Finale Wiki Geek. They both seem to be heading towards snow. Thanks. Rudget.talk 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done :) - Rudget zŋ 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFA Closures

message: Hi all. I am here to announce that the Toolserver has now released a new edit counter on their 'stable server' which is a dedicated server for 'stable tools'. If you are interested, you can see it at http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/editcount. The syntax for the edit counts should be in the format of http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/editcount/result?username=<USER>&projectname=enwiki_p. — E talkBAG 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging only by it's speed I'm assuming this is a Special:Contributions scraper? — xaosflux Talk 06:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not, as it is at least several hundred edits of mine behind. — xaosflux Talk 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting, I ran both after making an edit and the new one came up 16 edits higher. However, wannabe_kate gives the breakdown of most recently edited pages broken down by namespace, which is of paramount importance to RfAs (in my opinion). Good for individual users, perhaps, but not so much for the RfA process, methinks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This tool runs from the replicated databases just like the other toolserver tools. However, it runs on the stable toolserver, which is a new part of the toolserver cluster designed to run, not surprisingly, stable tools only (as opposed to tools-in-development), the idea being that it has the potential to be more reliable and less breaky. --bainer (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be picky, but ideally shouldn't the stable vs. development server issue be transparent to the outside world?  In other words have a single url (eg. tools.wikimedia.org) that recieves queries and transparently directs them to either the stable server or the development server as appropriate.  That way there would be no need to teach users about new urls when a tool was promoted from development to stable, etc.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm just repeating what I know as a subscriber to toolserver-l. The stable toolserver project is still in development and testing. Perhaps you should suggest that? I believe River is the one who's been doing most of the work on that. --bainer (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolz. I love the way the stable toolserver which is "[not for] tools-in-development" is "in development and testing". Gotta love computerists.  Splash - tk 15:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Does the new server have a delay? Rudget talk 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I am getting it now when I try and run my edit count, it worked alright yesterday for me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New toolserver edit counter 

message: Only four open RFAs?!  We've lulled! Neil ☎ 14:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, strange how we had such a swell not too long ago, and soon we'll have nobody left... maybe I'll pull out a sock and put it up, just for fun. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RFAs are always like that, one week it's 25 nominations, the next week it's four. The lowest I seen was two several months back This is a Secret account 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in August there were briefly no RFAs, seems to come and go. Davewild (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of people I've approached to see if they're interested in running have come back with "in the new year". I suspect it may be quiet on the ground on the run up to Christmas. It could also be a hang over from Thanksgiving as well, which is why the remaining 4 are all due to expire shortly. I guess the "holiday effect" on RfA could show Wikipedia's systemic bias towards westernised countries. Pedro :  Chat   16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last time I checked, Christmas and Hanukkah (I always see different spellings, sorry if it's wrong) are celebrated all over the world; there shouldn't be an apparent bias, just a universal lull. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I guess people get the bit at a semi-random rate, but as long as we keep getting more people to help with admin chores then that's what counts. Wether it's in a rush or a steady progression it's no big issue. Pedro :  Chat   16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that Tim Vickers finally ran out of people to nominate... :)  --barneca (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking that the push from a couple weeks ago may have artificially exhausted the convenient candidates.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us all go forth to WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:ER and find some more then! In particular WP:ER is often a place for promising candidates, and also could benefit from some more reviewers. Whilst reviewing only a few days ago I found someone with 10k + contribs, loads of article work, no blocks, clean and civil talk page etc. etc. etc. - Another one of my "maybe in the new year" editors. Pedro :  Chat   08:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, check with the virtual classroom and Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests#Matched_requests to see if their students are ready. J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I just looked though admin coaching and VC, I only see one, maybe two that are clearly ready for adminship, expect a long drought ahead. This is a Secret account 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We seem to have found an oasis in User:Useight. J-ſtanTalkContribs 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, J-stan, I actually really appreciate being called an oasis. Useight 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They rock! :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh dear 

message: Based on this discussion I created the above report for those who may find it useful. NoSeptember 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report|RfA Report with RfBs included]]

message: My suggestion: A minimum of 1000 edits to *nominate* someone for adminship (including yourself). Anyone can go up for RFA, but if they're not sufficiently experienced, they need someone who is to vouch for them. --Tango 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ingenious! bd2412 T 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brilliant!!! J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, pretty clever. This is a plan that I support fully. I wish I thought of that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but I have two questions:  Who would be in charge of enforcing this rule?  And what about deleted contribs (specifically tagging pages for deletion)?  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How the hell did I come up with this? Not sure that I did. Before I change it, why is my name attached to this? :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I can't read. I also just realised I succesfully suggested someone for admin when I had around 1000 edits, and it could well have been less. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably best to define it as server count (see Wikipedia:Edit count for information about the various definitions of edit count that exist). It's easy to understand and efficient to count, and also includes deleted contributions. --ais523 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a new tool for that, right? I like that idea. If someone would please attach my name to this on as well.... </silliness> J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if you were joking or not, but if you weren't (and maybe even if you were; your edit summary and unmatched SGML tag would imply that you were) here's a relatively new one that checks server count on a variety of Wikimedia wikis; here's how to request the count directly from the server (this is very efficient). My edit counter will display the count if you use the 'quick count' option; and you can find your own server count in Special:Preferences. --ais523 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a bad coder. I should have put <silliness> before the third sentence. But about the counter, I do like the idea of using server count. That wasn't the tool I was looking for, it's this one, a few sections up, but whichever. J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That tool measures toolserver-based count rather than server count; it measures 9950+1361 (11311, but that has to be added up manually) for me, whereas my server count is 10471, probably due to deleted edits I had before server count was invented. --ais523 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tango's suggestion

message: Ooh. Look: "There are currently no requests for adminship" - when was the last time that happened? Carcharoth 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QUICK - set up the super-duper new RfA system before someone nominates themselves! :-) Carcharoth 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It last happened a few months ago. --Deskana (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. And I was getting all excited. Thanks for answering the question, though. Carcharoth 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I recently decided to watchlist RfA: I've never seen it without any nominations before, and I missed the last time. Acalamari 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? BencherliteTalk 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFA isn't a Wikiproject. If you want to make it active again, you know what to do! --Deskana (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point; perhaps I should have said  - I ran over the burning coals a few weeks ago, not that anyone noticed at the time... BencherliteTalk 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Burning coals! You were pretty darn lucky. For you it was more like walking over a shag carpet. :) bibliomaniac15 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: When?  August.  Diff.  This happens about three times a year, in March, August, and December.  Keegantalk 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, December 2005 is tied for the highest month ever.  It may fluctuate but it is not really seasonal in the way you suggest.  See :Image:Wikipedia_Rights.png.  Dragons flight 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I stand corrected on the December of '05 stat.  Personally I see a seasonal correlation in the graph and at No September's data regarding seasonality and I maintain that it follows the school cycle for the most part.  Outliers always outly.  Isn't there an expression that figures lie and liars figure?  :D  Keegantalk 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Quickly Deskana! Desysop yourself and go for adminship. Should be helpful for your arbitration campaigning... :p --DarkFalls talk 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a nom for my admin coachee. Still hasn't responded yet, but I hope they'll get some attention. bibliomaniac15 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking about using  temporarily. Thoughts? J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, it just didn't look right. — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Indeed – now's the time for spontaneous RFA reform! GracenotesT § 03:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a proposal-palooza! Let mayhem begin! J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! Can't I run? -Goodshoped 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a a pretty good candidate sure to gain support in the automotive community!  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean, run – as a bull, or as a victim? =] GracenotesT § 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a good candidate too, but he declined. Can someone convince him? -Goodshoped 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he'd rather stick pins in his eyes, as I would. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if some of those attack sites discourage editors from wanting to become administrators?  I have seen some outright bizarre and disgusting stuff posted both on and off-wiki that would make adminship a concern for me.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the attack sites anyway? -Goodshoped 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are considered banned sites and we cannot post links to them on-wiki.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  CURSE YOU, USEIGHT! :) And, BTW, What in the name of Jimbo was Willy on Wheels? J-ſtanTalkContribs 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you can route them onto an open proxy, which aren't. But they should. -Goodshoped 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J-stan: You probably might find this story illuminating. Basically he was a move vandal who moved things to <USERNAME> on Wheels!!! He also spawned an enormous number of socks, all of which were blocked. We'd have a rogues gallery, but WP:DENY is right. bibliomaniac15 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I make "...on Wheels!" jokes in everyday conversation, and no one ever gets it.  At least I amuse myself, I suppose.  Keegantalk 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that is anything to worry about, the lesser the number the greater the scrutiny and that can only be a good thing.  In fact limiting applications for consideration and  making people wait in a queu would do no harm as it would allow for greater time of reflection on personal suitability. Giano 11:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there's a thought worth considering: a hard upper limit on concurrent adminship candidacies. I like it. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People already complain we don't have enough admins around. This would further limit the amount of new admins we could have. Although I absolutely agree with the reasons behind this suggestion, I do not think it is practical. --Deskana (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We should be looking for quality not quantity. Giano 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason we cannot look for both. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The only hard limit we need at RfA is not to be disruptive. I don't think it is a big deal that we don't have a lot of candidates right now, it ebbs and flows. 1 != 2 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, is there a way I can withdraw a nomination, of course, with WP:SNOW. -Goodshoped 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Bureaucrat page gives instructions on how to close discussions, unless you mean your own, in which case just ask a crat to close it. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah, I know. I ruined the empty page. But if I didn't do it, someone else would have. <joke> Useight 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then we suddenly got bombarded. At the moment of this writing, there are 20 requests for adminship.  Useight (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed how it jumped like that and found it similarly curious. RfA is cyclical like that, I guess. SorryGuy 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There are currently no requests for adminship" 

message: I apologise to everyone for inadvertently starting this wiki-drama, and the lengthy thread of discussion thereby generated. I don't want to waste any more of the community's time or complicate matters further, so I will only run for RfA if someone else wants to nominate me. If not, I'll remain a non-admin for the time being. WaltonOne 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. This kind of situation would needed to have been debated eventually. Epbr123 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh geez, I'll nominate you Walton, you're definitely one of the good guys.  I'm sure a zillion others would offer to nominate you too.  I don't see why some people fuss about reconfirmation RfAs or call it "ego stroking" and the other personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith that some made when Majorly went through the process.  It's a very respectful gesture to the community, and "wastes" mere seconds of people's time.  Maybe it's fine not to require reconfirmation RfAs, but if the reconfirmee feels it's valuable, I don't understand why some people in the community feel the need to disrespect that desire to be respectful and accountable; it should be applauded. --JayHenry (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry