Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 29

message: Somewhere we have a page on this, but I can't find it.
I'd like to remind everyone that the promotion standards for bureaucrats are:
* Loosely defined
* Higher numerically than the standards for admins
* Require a stronger conesnsus.  That is, plausible objections are taken very seriously particularly when voiced by more than one user.
This is important because "oppose" voters should be aware that such votes are taken very seriously.  Voters should consider any bureaucratship nomination to be a close vote, where their vote may well make the difference.  Please vote with this in mind.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 'best' we have is Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22#Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat. -Splash 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion standards for bureaucrats 

message: For those wondering why I removed the RFA nomination of , it was a fake nomination (a copy of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jitse Niesen with a few edits). I have blocked the user indefinitely. Admins can view the fake nomination at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DoKuDan. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DoKuDan nomination 

message: Several people have suggested that I apply for an administrator position.
I am considering an application as well, and I need to know what kind of criteria is expected. As of time of writing, I have almost 3000 edits, and I have been here since late 2002. I've occasionally made bad edits on accident, but I always try to catch those. I have never been in a conflict with another user.
So I am wondering - is there any other criteria that I should fulfull? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --Ixfd64 06:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
:I have no incontrovertable advice to offer you, but never having been in conflict w/ another editor isn't all it's cracked up to be... I think a lot of people who vote on RFA's look at how you handle conflict w/ other editors, rather than whether or not you've managed to edit only non-controversial pages.  There are, of course, notable exceptions, but I think most voters/commentators are interested more in how you handle yourself in a conflict, than whether or not you manage to steer clear of controversy... I, for example, have way more than 2x as many edits as you (not that it's a competition, don't get me wrong), yet find myself in controversies all the time, simply because of the contentious nature of the articles that draw my attention.  (And would never have the chutzpa to nominate myself for RFA...) Tomer TALK 12:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
::I have never had a single conflict, I also didnt have any oppostion to being an admin (other than boothy). Voters look at all sorts of things, experience and familiarity with policy are probably most important. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  considering administrator application 

message: How is it decided when AfDs are judged and which admin judges which AfD?
*There is no set structure. Either that, or there's a secret admin cabal page for AfD that I'm not aware of. Cue the spooky music! android79 18:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
**Well, I expect that when we become admins, a bureaucrat or an older admin will give us a brief rundown of how all this "being an admin" works. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judging AfDs? 

message: How do I do step 2? - please send me a message. sorry for putting this here I could not find anywhere else
Save the page. Follow the red link to the nomination subpage and paste in the the following text (replacing UserName as before): 
===UserName===
[ Vote here] (0/0/0) ending 10:51 [Ending date] (UTC)
 – [Your nomination/description of the user] Adam1213 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it for you, you need to fill in the questions etc. now. Martin 11:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Q from Adam1213

message: [ Vote here] (0/0/0) ending 10:51 [Ending date] (UTC)
 – [Your nomination/description of the user] Adam1213 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it for you, you need to fill in the questions etc. now. Martin 11:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:UserName|UserName]]

message: I was thinking about nominating User:GraemeL for adminship. He was very helpful in dealing with an anonymous user who wrote his own CV in several intentionally mistitled Wikipedia articles and vandalised my user talk page. Looking at his user and user talk pages, he seems very professional. WP:KT says he has over 1600 edits, over various namespaces. Problem is, he's only been on Wikipedia for less than one month. Is there much point in nominating him yet? — JIP | Talk 13:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Wait two months or so. Andre (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GraemeL 

message: I highly recommend that this RfA be removed early. It's an overwhleming rejection and is now generating a good deal of ill will. I'd remove it myself, but I voted and would rather have an uninvolved admin (or preferably a bureaucrat) remove it. Carbonite | Talk 16:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think he'll kick up a fuss if an admin does it though, so it's probably safer if it's a bureaucrat. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWattsDotCom]]