Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 31

message: Just informing everyone of an impostor, User:Boothy 443, who voted on a few RFAs (it looks like all of the votes have been deleted or struck through, and the user blocked).  I've also deleted an IP vote on User:Who's RFA- by the timestamp, it appears that it was the same user.  Ral315 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove the vote. Mark it as a sockpuppet below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boothy impostor 

message: I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but it is possible for a user to contact other individual users to discuss whether or not he or she is worthy administrator material before actually submitting his or her formal nomination.  Is such "campaigning" before formally requesting adminship 'poor form'?  Denelson83  01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with discussing adminship with a few friends.  It is when the number of people being talked to/solicited becomes substantial when compared to the number of voters on the typical RFA that I see it as a significant problem, and this is a reason I have used for voting oppose in the past.  Dragons flight 01:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It means you fail the "must have ego the size of a small universe" requirement. More seriously it depends. If they are ask a couple of people to make sure thier aplication wont get completely pwned then fine. If they are trying to mobilise potential supporters I'd be more concerned.Geni 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: (After two edit conflicts) I don't see a problem with asking a few users if they think you're ready for adminship, or asking someone to nominate you, so long as you have had significant contact with them in the past. It wouldn't be appropriate to ask lots of users, or to ask in a public place like the Village pump, because that would just be duplicating the RFA discussion. If you wanted to ask someone privately, by email, or in IRC, or IRL, then no one else would know about the discussion yet the effect would be the same.-gadfium 01:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that would be the case.  Thanks for your insight.  Denelson83  02:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigning for support before an adminship nomination 

message: I suggest we add a statement to RFA policy: "Please refrain from voting oppose on nominations that are clearly failing".  I think we can avoid a lot of bad blood that way. Thoughts? Borisblue 13:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. My only concern is that a nomination can be "clearly failing" one minute and can turn around the next - if a nominee has, say, 4 support and 5 oppose votes, they are clearly failing; but if a dozen people turn up to vote support over the next hour, then the candidate is headed to success. In the meantime, people who would have opposed, and may have supplied relevant information as to why the candidate in question is unsuited for an adminship, will have held their tongues (and may not revisit the candidacy to see if it takes off). If we add such a statement, perhaps we should qualify what constitutes a failing candidacy. -- BD2412 talk 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer that nominations that are clearly failing be removed by a bureaucrat. If a nomination is still active, all users should be able to vote on it, whether they're choosing to support or oppose. Limiting one side of the vote doesn't make sense to me. Carbonite | Talk 14:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, apart from Fvw's comment below, that would turn the process from consensus into consensus, providing that fewer than n people oppose. That would be a major policy change. --GraemeL (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Looking at User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records, 5 of the 39 listed top most active nominations had more than 10 oppose votes. --Durin 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yup, I agree. I do think we should be encouraging those whose RfA is failing to withdraw early, and make it as easy and non-humiliating as possible to do so. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 15:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't suggest a constraint... what I'm saying is a firm reminder that Admin candidates are people, and people can get their feelings hurt by oppose votes being piled on them. In the interest of civility, I say it's simply good wikiquette to refrain from casting an oppose vote once the nom is dead. And yes, people have been hurt by this process- perfectly good editors have left wikipedia simply because they had an admin nom piled on with oppose votes. Borisblue 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An example would be User:Rl Borisblue 17:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding Pile-ons

message: Bureaucrats; if you would please, when you close out an RfA would you please make a note of the decision that was made regarding the RfA perhaps similar to the way in which AfDs are closed out? In many cases it is not readily apparent as to what the result was. For example, , , and . Not having the decisions on these pages means a person perusing them would need to check Wikipedia:Recently created admins and/or Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies to clarify the status of the RfA. Thank you, --Durin 16:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terry had suggested the same. Infact I was going to do the same tonight. A different colour such as the yellow or grey used in fr: meta: could let one know if the nom was sucessful/unsucessful. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or just a notice at the top of the page. I had that trouble too on my RfA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestianpower (talk • contribs) 22:57, September 28, 2005
Ok, I've done something about it. User:  (RFA promoted/pass);  (RFA fail). I've used two different colours so that it is clear that the nom is 1) over 2) successful or unsucessful. See this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DESiegel =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This doesn't work, as now there is an open box (meaning any text/images following the RFA will be included in the box). Talrias (t | e | c) 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All it needs is a box closer at the bottom, a la . I'll make one now. -- BD2412 talk 20:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - tag  to the bottom, see if it works. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 20:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'd prefer the subst: instead of the direct template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Bureaucrats on closing out RfAs 

message: ...isn't working for me and I notice a comment on the page about it's removal. Is it gone? Marskell 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working for me as of 01:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The newer version is down, but this one still works. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kate's tool... 

message: I've noticed that most of the recent noms have been at exactly 3:55 UTC. What's going on? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The history says otherwise, so I suppose people are copy-pasting the last nominator's handiwork. -Splashtalk 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I made the  template, it was 3:55. I fixed this like three days ago I think. But that's the reason, and the worst possible result is that someone may lose a few hours in their RfA or wait a few more hours. OhNoEs!! Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3:55 UTC 

message: Please note: A bug in the system is preventing bureaucrats from setting admin rights. This does not affect a candidate's RFA, or the RFA process. All sucessful RFA candidates will be added to wikipedia:Recently created admins but not wikipedia:List of administrators till the bug is sorted out. Developers have already been notified.
Special:makesysop is used to set admin rights. Currently an error: "page not recognized by Wikipedia" is being displayed. If this is rectified, a message "you do not have permission to access..." will be displayed. Bureaucrats will be checking this page periodically, but if you notice the page up before a bureaucrat does, please feel to contact any one of them (). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this effect only makesysop or other flags as well? Like bot flags for example? Just waiting on one atm so just wondering.  ∞Who?¿? 06:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well bot flags are the responsibility of stewards. I really don't know about the bot situation. As of now, bureaucrats have little power. They can't rename users, or set admin rights. They can only close RFAs. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That I didn't know. One would think that a bureaucrat would be able to at least rename, but that a different discssion :) Thanks for the info. ∞Who?¿? 06:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if you are basically impotent right now, maybe we should start calling you lambies.  :-)  Dragons flight 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well I just came from meta, and bot tags are suspended too, same bug. Figured I would answer my own question here in case anyone else wondered. And I wonder wonder.. Who who who..   And I was more partial to the title Big Kahuna, makes me feel like we're at the beach. ∞Who?¿? 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: Admin promotions suspended 

message: I so want to nominate User:JoanneB for adminship. She's an experienced editor with over 2000 edits, well balanced over different namespaces. She's tirelessly fighting vandalism and participating in WP:AFD. No fair her having only been in Wikipedia for a bit over one month! — JIP | Talk 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're after here. An informal RfA/RfC? Better not to examine someone publicly in that case, I'd have though. Ask around the talk pages of some editors whose judgement you trust, rather than in a public forum such as this. -Splashtalk 14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At that rate, she'll have 6,000 in 3 months, and be a shoo-in then. I counsel patience. -- BD2412 talk 14:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Echo BD2412. Put a reminder in your tickler file to nominate her in late November or early December. If someone beats you to it, c'est la vie. If you wait and do it in a couple of months, she should fly through if your estimate of her is on the mark (I'm assuming it is). --Durin 16:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave notes on their talk pages asking them to remind me to nominate them in the future, as I know I will just forget. Martin 16:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I felt this way about a p[otential admin earlier this year and even left a comment on his talk page something like "start thinking about whether you'll want to be an admin in a month or two's time". When he'd been here three months and a day, i went to his talk page... and found that someone else had offered to nominate him a couple of hours earlier (he went on to get admin with a strong vote and is a highly respected admin). Don't worry - if they keep going for another couple of months, you or someone else will nominate them. The main reason for th three month wait is to make sure they don't suffer wiki burnout after a few weeks. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Grin, I just read this and I feel flattered, of course :-) And sure, a rollback button would be great once in a while (uhm, quite often actually) (and yes, I know that being an admin is more than that)! I've spent quite a lot of time on Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks and feel like I've learned a lot, and I'm very glad my contributions are seen as useful. But I think the 3 months period is quite reasonable. I'll use the next couple of weeks to learn more about how stuff works on Wikipedia and to get to know more people here. I don't think I'll be bored :-) --JoanneB 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JoanneB 

message: Well, the makesysop function has still not been sorted out. (See story above). I strongly feel that we should pause all new nominations till the bug is sorted out. IMO its unfair to give the candidate a licence but not the keys to adminship. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's a moot point, now, but it didn't bug me in the slightest to get the license with the keys only promised later.  I would've voted for continuing nominations. Jdavidb 20:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree. Until makesysop is fixed, there should be a moratorium on promotions and new nominations. — Dan | Talk 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just don't stop the ones running already. Titoxd 05:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant new noms. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, so did I. Sorry if it was unclear. — Dan | Talk 05:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I knew you meant that, only that I wanted to make sure of it. By the way, I was BOLD and posted a notice about the problem at the top of the page. Feel free to revert if necessary. Titoxd 05:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've also been bold and amended the notice slightly so that people know they can still vote on the nominations currently listed. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  I see no reason to not continue with business as usual.  Friday (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true. However, I don't know how often we should be bugging Tim Starling to do this, after all, he's got better things to do than to do bureaucrats' jobs. But I'm pretty sure that he can "mass promote" the nominations that are on the holding bin already. Titoxd 18:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the situation is the same in meta I heard. (see the related post above). We have a backlog of 8 at this very moment, and the rate of new noms keep on increasing. If Tim can mass promote, good enough, but as Tito mentions above, Tim must be having more pressing tasks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked Special:Makesysop, and it says "Permission denied." From what Nichalp said earlier, I think that means that it is fixed, so I've gone ahead and removed the big red notice tag and presume that RfA will operate normally now. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed by Tim Starling. It's fixed! Many thanks to him for fixing it. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yipeee! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping nominations 

message: That's silly. Tim can just promote them with a SQL query.
 UPDATE user SET rights = 'sysop' 
 WHERE username='Graft'
That will still work, regardless of any bug in the makesysop function. Uncle Ed, Developer Emeritus 13:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I see no reason to not continue with business as usual.  Friday (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true. However, I don't know how often we should be bugging Tim Starling to do this, after all, he's got better things to do than to do bureaucrats' jobs. But I'm pretty sure that he can "mass promote" the nominations that are on the holding bin already. Titoxd 18:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the situation is the same in meta I heard. (see the related post above). We have a backlog of 8 at this very moment, and the rate of new noms keep on increasing. If Tim can mass promote, good enough, but as Tito mentions above, Tim must be having more pressing tasks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked Special:Makesysop, and it says "Permission denied." From what Nichalp said earlier, I think that means that it is fixed, so I've gone ahead and removed the big red notice tag and presume that RfA will operate normally now. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed by Tim Starling. It's fixed! Many thanks to him for fixing it. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yipeee! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A developer weighs in