Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/Are admins interested in a RfB?

The purpose of this page is to gauge the current level of interest that Wikipedia administrators collectively have in running for bureaucratship. This information can be used by editors seeking to find admins to possibly nominate for cratship (one should always ask first!). It may also help Wikipedians in general get a clear picture of how admins view the RfB process.

I am interested

 * 1) I wanted to be an admin because I believed that by using the tools I could be of benefit to the project; after six years of wielding the mop I still think so. The problem is, as I have said in a recent previous discussion at the RfA talk page, that any admin who concentrates on basic admin work - CSDand AIV especially - as I do, cannot help but annoy some editors; it is not possible to do the job properly without doing so. And many of those editors have a !vote at RfB, which as we know requires a higher level of community acceptance than does RfA. I failed my first RfA, although the second did admittedly come back with a very high approval percentage; both were quite stressful, and that was before editors had learnt how to ask the currently used truly taxing questions. I would be very cautious about nomination for 'crat without a prior perception of there being a reasonably high chance of success, which I agree is an idealistic concept that cannot realistically be achieved. It is in my view regrettable that RfB nominations are normally self-noms, because this means that, unlike RfA, there is no outside impetus or encouragement to put oneself forward.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 08:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd like to give it a shot - one day, in the distant future. For now, I am more than happy to juggle content work and admin tasks. I also don't think I'd pass a RFB, as I'm sure I've pissed off too many ne'er-do-wells who would love nothing more than !voting against me. GiantSnowman 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I've thought about it and I am plenty active in RfA but I'd want to improve my understanding of the BRFA process and CHU process before I went forward with it. I also seem to rub people wrong and I'm sure a cadre of opposes could be found.--v/r - TP 15:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I am always interested in anything that let me help the project, generally. I would only be interested insofar as there would be a need for more 'crats; I want to help when help is needed. However, I feel like I don't have enough experience (and I expect that'd be unanimous consensus if I ran for RfB today) at the present time. I also don't have the time needed to be able to respond as quickly as a 'crat often needs to; as an admin, it's passable (although not ideal), but as a 'crat I feel some degree of responsiveness is required at all times, and I am currently unable to deliver that. But if there comes a time when I am able to be available enough, when I have enough experience and when a 'crat is needed, I certainly would be happy to help out. I would not avoid Bureaucratship because I feel there is anything wrong or unacceptable with the position or the RfB process. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) As always, I'm interested in doing anything I can do to increase the efficiency of the project and keep things functioning. I'm a wikignome for the most part, so would probably stay largely away from RFA and stick to the boring, mundane paperwork 'crats do. But, I'd absolutely be interested in running at some point. I'm pretty familiar with the username policy (active at CHU and UAA) and generally active at RFA, but would probably need to gain more proficiency at BRFA before running. To be sure, I don't have any time frame in mind (or if I'd run at all), but that's not to say that I'm not interested, which I certainly am. Tyrol5   [Talk]  23:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm interested, but I don't think I'm ready to run just yet. Maybe after getting more experience in the relevant areas, and of adminship in general. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 05:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) The only reason I haven't is because I haven't been here long enough; at six months I fully intend to.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested

 * 1) To be honest, I think the reason we don't see a rush toward RfBs is lack of interest in bureaucrat activities; at least that is how I feel. 'Crats do what?  1. Judge consensus at RfAs and RfBs, 2. flip the ±sysop and +bureaucrat bits, 3. perform username change requests, and 4. do +bot.  3 and 4 are areas I neither have nor really care for expertise in, and I think most other sysops are in the same boat.  1 and 2 interest me but are so infrequent that, given the current number of bureaucrats, the return for both the project and for myself would be quite small.  Maybe in the case of emergency desysops for Arbcom I could be of use, but again, large effort, small gain. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed with Amorymeltzer, and the early comments below. Any experience like this for a marginal incremental value-add to the project is a tough sell.  I am impressed by those who have been able to push through it but I am not seeing a need for additional crats to the point where the gain would jusify the pain.   7  02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) When I went through my RfA the environment was fairly toxic. These days its down right lethal. I'm definitely not willing to put myself through that hell. AniMate 04:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) To the original question, my reply is much the same as Amory's: I find the admin permissions useful to me for improving Wikipedia, and the bureaucrat permissions not so useful. As a matter of interest, here's a little outlook from the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I am also active: There, the community considers the bureaucrat role to be not just technical, but also an arbiter of sorts, having the final say on various controversial issues. It's a relatively small community, with about 200 active editors, about 30 admins and 3 bureaucrats, so it kinda makes sense to have a less complicated system of community roles there, but mixing the technical permissions of a bureaucrat with the community role of an arbiter is wrong. So it's better in this sense in the English Wikipedia - but I am just not very interested in it personally. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Even though my RfA took place during what would today be considered a rather genteel era of Wikipedia's past, it was still a rather stressful experience. I have no desire to repeat that experience in a considerably more hostile environment. --Allen3 talk 07:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) As per... well, all of the above, particularly Amir and Amory. Unlike admins, with a high workload, there is no functional need for more than a small handful of bureaucrats; the only need to have more than one or two at all is so that we can reasonably assume one is going to be around for emergency desysopping! RFA means a user gets tools they can use and the project gets more people doing work it urgently needs; RFB means tools you will not use very much and very little added value to the project. Even if it were merely "sign up here" to be made a bureaucrat there would be very little pressing urgency to do so! As it stands, going through an RFB is an active deterrent that I can only see appealing to people who a) do a lot of bot-approval or user-renaming work (RFA has, effectively, no need for further bureaucrats); or b) value the perceived status. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Not enough gain for the pain, as Amory said. I don't see a need for it either, as there was for Admins when I go the bit many years ago. -- Alexf(talk) 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) The role doesn't interest me, and I've got enough to do in other areas of the wiki.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) The few abilities of a 'crat have very little direct connection to creating and improving articles, which is my primary focus. Even if there were no RFB to get through, I still wouldn't be interested. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) I appreciate the question (not that I'd even come close to being one myself), but just to reply out of courtesy: It's not the type of thing I do on wiki; but thank you for asking. — Ched :  ?  15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) There's nothing crats do that I'm really interested in, or that I participate in already and could use crat bits for. I mean, I'm a wikipedian, so of course I'm all for boring, endless tasks, but not boring, endless tasks that have plenty of people doing them already and that don't interest me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) There are a couple of tools that crats use that would be handy, most especially the ability to rename accounts. I've helped quite a few people make username requests, especially people I run into who use the name of an organization they work for. If I had the ability to do that myself, I could probably save them a lot of trouble. But I find that I don't have a lot of time to contribute as an admin as it is, so someone with more time to give would be better off with the tools than myself. --  At am a  頭  15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Not really interested per above comments, provided the crat role stays the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Not interested in going through another RfA, not interested in performing username changes, not interested in closing RfA's, never have been interested in badge collecting, and I'm not here often enough anymore to get any appreciable quantity of work done with any regularity. I'm interested in bot-related activities, but as far as I can tell, all crats do with regard to bots is look to see that there is an approved BRFA, and then flip a bit.  None of it is all that interesting or worth the hassle of another RfA.  I'm really not even sure why the position of bureaucrat even exists, and why username changes and bot flags can't or shouldn't be done by regular ol' admins.  I'm sure there is a reason, but I doubt it's compelling.  ‑Scottywong | gossip _  16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) The duties of a bureaucrat do not interest me. As others have mentioned above, it is not an issue of avoiding another week at RfA/RfB, but that I have no interest in or use for the additional tools 'crats have. -- auburn pilot  talk  17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) We have plenty. Closing RFAs isn't something I'd ever do and I'm not a bit collector. --B (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) "Not I", said the mouse. Not interested in the jobs a 'crat performs, other than maybe helping out with user renames, and even then, it doesn't seem liek we really need all that many. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Been there, done that. Requests for bureaucratship/Beeblebrox I volunteered to help with the downright boring work that the crats do, and was told I was not boring enough to do the boring work. I was also criticized because a standard practice at RFB is to leave a massive list of old RFAs and ask the candidate how they would have closed each one and I said right up front I would not do that if anyone left such a list at my RFB. I think that is a useless exercise since 95% of the time RFA closes, like most crat tasks, are a complete no-brainer and asking them to second guess the other crats is not conducive to helping the candiddate enter this very small group of users in a positive fashion. The role of the crat is taken way to seriously by the community, who seem to imagine that crats are an elite group who are somehow in charge of the other admins. To me it looks more like the opposite, and it is my understanding that the name was deliberately chosen to make the tsk seem unappealing and bland, which it is almost all of the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) I have no interest in bot operation or policy, no familiarity with the specifics of the username policy, and no inclination to get involved with RfAs unless I already know the candidate. So that's a full house of reasons why I am not interested in getting involved. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) It's been so long since I last did something that needed the bit that I had to check when it was. That long? Wow! Some day I might go back to doing the sort of dull admin scutwork I did before, but there's no chance at all I'd be interested in being a bureaucrat. And I'd be useless at it anyway. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) The duties performed by bureaucrats are not ones that interest me greatly, or in the case of bots, in which I have any degree of competence. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) No thanks. Even though I've been an admin for about 10 years now, I've got a life outside Wikipedia and have no ability to give even more of my time to it! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 23) No thanks! I'm too much on my plate as it is with CU and Oversight stuff. Best off if someone more worthy applied -  A l is o n  ❤ 19:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 24) I don't have the experience required to be an admin, let alone a bureaucrat.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 25) Not particularly interested myself. I am a bureaucrat on another language (fr:) and it does not seem the amount of work would deserve to have MANY bureaucrats. But I do not mind either way. Anthere (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 26) As an administrator on two projects, and bureaucrat on one of them, I'm not interested in the crat bit. It is simply so tiny for the amount of work and perfection you must have to get it here, and the payoff is almost unexistent. I think that the road to become a crat is too harsh for the reward that awaits at the end. And, after all, we don't have the big amount of RfAs we used to have in the past; hence I think we're fine with the current crats. —  ΛΧΣ  21  19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure

 * 1) I don't have anything to say about it, except that I don't have anything to say about it.Antonio El Pesado Martin dime 04:30, 17 April, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I nominated myself for adminship due to Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats explaining the need for more editors to volunteer for the role. Although my RfA passed fairly easily, it was a stressful wringer that I wouldn't want to go through again for the miniscule benefit I'd gain as a 'crat. I'd volunteer for bureaucratship only if a need to swell their ranks becomes evident. If someone else nominates me I wouldn't object, but I'm unlikely to put the same effort into passing RfB like I did for RfA. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) If someone were to really want to nominate me, I'd let them. But I don't know what I'd do with the 'crat bit, and there doesn't seem to be any shortage of 'crats. So lacking any intention of actually using of the bit, I'd probably not pass. Anomie⚔ 12:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Semi-interested, as I'm always enthusiastic about learning new things, though I doubt I'd pass the much stricter standards of an RfB. --  &oelig; &trade; 05:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested currently, but that could change

 * 1) I'd prefer to spend my non-article, non-CP time on Commons related edits, in the hope I can become a Commons admin, which will help me at OTRS.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  18:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Been there, failed that. I wanted to be a crat when I had sufficient time to devote to Wikipedia and the community told me they didn't want me. I still would like to be one but I also know that I have not been very active in the last months/years and I'm still a bit busy in real life so I won't consider it again until I have more time to devote to Wikipedia again. Regards  So Why  19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not really active, as of late, and that doesn't look to change anytime soon. It's not out of the question for some time in the distant future, however. I do worry, though, as I lack many of the "credentials" that it seems like so many people expect in 'crats, nowadays, which include but are not limited to being popular, writing a billion featured articles, working in all areas of the 'pedia, being "uncontroversial", and editing 24/7. The only reason that I still entertain this possibility is that it seems like many of the tasks 'crats undertake are gnomish, and I love gnoming.  Airplaneman   ✈  00:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been asked by some but the extra tools don't interest me at this time.  I'm not convinced that is where I can be the most useful here.  I don't savor the idea of another RfX, playing the human piñata for a week, but I don't think that would stop me.  We seem to have enough Crats right now, perhaps if there was a shortage, I would reconsider at that time.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I always been curious about that position around 2007/2008, and being in the project for so long, I know what is required for the job relatively well. Many times I've seen things that are simply taken out of proportion. I personally believe being a bureaucrat isn't as stressful as people think to be. It is all about determining consensus and having a thick skin. I have the experience but I'm slowly cutting down on some of my administrative tasks in order to focus on my final year in school. Not to mention I don't know much about the bot part that the position requires, never being computer savvy to create one, or be interested on them. Currently RFA is a dead so I don't see a desperate need of them. Also I'm trying to move some of my past in the project behind me, but in this editing atmosphere its hard. Maybe towards the end of the year with a massive uptake in RFAs. Secret account 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Like Secret, I was interested in becoming a crat a long time ago. But given the decline in RfAs and not a whole lot of interest in usernames/bots, I haven't really found a need for the tools. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I already am a crat

 * 1) I honestly have no clue why anyone would want to submit an RfB these days, considering the "payoff" is so ludicrously small given the gamut you have to run. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) We need more crats and BAGers, dammit! But I couldn't advise any person I remotely like to subject themselves to the RfX process these days.  MBisanz  talk 22:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * Until you solve the biggest problem in RFA/RFB, efforts such as these, while noble and well-intentioned, will not solve the problem, which is the week-long feeding frenzy and torture sessions that RFA/RFB have been for far too long. Wiki continually shoots itself in the foot and this is just one of many examples. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. I am still an advocate for eliminating the us and them, admin vs. editor schema and replacing it with something else more modular. But as this would require a lot of admins to lose power, that will never happen. Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what PumpkinSky said, I don't think. PS has an axe to grind with the process, you're pointed against the people.  Don't hate the player, hate the game. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an axe, it's fact. I know MANY users who would make great admins but won't do an RFA because the hellhole it has been for years. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I have an axe to grind with the process as well as a number of extremely poor admins.:-) I'm starting to make my axe from a mallet but I hope to shave it into an axe at some point. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've seen a lot of good people suffer at the hands of RfX. I've seen a lot of wrong people succeed in RfX.  I've seen a lot of good efforts to improve the process.  I wish I had an answer - but I don't. — Ched :  ?  15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The easy answer is simple: Until they do really feel the issue, until they really are in an unmanageable situation, this won't change. RfX is such a difficult and hazardous environment that even our current admins, who are supposed to hold the trust of the community, are afraid of going through it again. The requirements the community has set are mugh higher than what good users can achieve, and many users have become so nit picky, that they oppose a good candidate only for a single mistake, even if it happened 4 years ago. On this project, being an admin is the biggest deal ever, when it shouldn't be so. — ΛΧΣ  21  17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh. If you can't take the pounding at RFA you won't be a very effective admin. RFA is actually just a one-week introduction to what you will have to put up with from then on on a more or less constant basis if you are at all active as an admin.


 * RFB is a different problem. Cratship is a nothing position. You have permission to do exactly what the community tells you and nothing else. It is not a step up to some higher level of adminship where you are pulling the strings, it is a step into a job that is essential but which only rarely calls for any judgement at all on the part of the crat. If the candidate gets enough support, you make them an admin, if the new username does not violate policy you change it, if BAG approves the bot you give it the flag. There's not much room for error in those tasks, anyone who is competent as an admin could do them. Yet RFB is easily twice as difficult to get through as RFA. Users act like it is a really, really important decision and they pepper the candidate with a litany of questions, mostly focussed on the >5% of RFAs that actually require some judgement to close. In those cases the crats almost always discuss the close with the community and amongst themselves, it almost never comes down to a single crat if there is a tough call to make, but the community acts as though there is some life-and-death power held by the crats, which is completely false.


 * We could have a bot doing 75% of crat work and nobody would notice the difference. What we need is better education about that so the community won't treat it like a big prize or promotion as it does now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm at least being somewhat serious here, if a bunch of people ran for RfB at once, there wouldn't be enough animosity to go around and the gauntlet wouldn't be as bad. I don't think it would have a serious negative impact on the ability to evaluate the candidates, because there are more than enough participants in RfA/RfB to deal with multiple candidates at once. Ryan Vesey 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It worked once before. The February 28 and March 6 batches of failing RFBs led TRM's March 6 passing RFB.  MBisanz  talk 22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A suggestion, then (and I'm just tossing ideas into the open here) would be to have one or two set occasions each year for bureaucrat elections during which several candidates toss their proverbial hats into the ring. I have my doubts, as I'm sure anyone else would, that anything like this could garner consensus. But it's an idea. Or, without waiting for any changes in process, I suppose a bunch of administrators could run simultaneously in some pre-arranged movement to bolster candidacies (just don't ask me to work out any technical details with the latter idea, I've no idea how it would work, or whether it would at all). Tyrol5   [Talk]  23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I saw this effect my own RFB. Another candidate decided to run as my RFB was going down in flames (well, I did get nearly 100 supports so it wasn't so bad but it clearly was not going to pass) and they sailed through. I happen to agree that of the two of us they were probably the better pick for the job, and since my only goal was to provide one more crat I felt I could count my loss as a win for the project if it helped the other candidate in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No its still a loss for the project. Your one of the better admins so if you can't pass it doesn't look good for most of the rest of them. Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a group nom is a great idea. It works for ArbCom nominees, so why shouldn't it work for 'crats? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan made a very good suggestion above, in my opinion. Is anyone interested in pursuing that further? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean in terms of actually going forward with a group of nominations, then I suppose for most people (but I can't speak for anyone but myself), it would depend on the timeframe. But, if you mean pursuing further discussion, then why not? It's about as good as anything else. Tyrol5   [Talk]  01:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we (and I don't even know who "we" are) would need to gather up a group of interested candidates first, but that might take a while. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose if that's the case, perhaps laying out some sort of time frame would be a good starting point? Tyrol5   [Talk]  02:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing the thought experiment...assuming this mass-RFB idea would work to make RFB better, would it also make RFA better? (i.e. have all admins run at a certain time of year, then promote no admins until admin time rolls around next year.) It would mean habitual RFA watchers would be forced to take some time off to think about other things. Plus it would mean that you would have all possible admin candidates laid out before you; rather than opposing a candidate based on some minor issues, you'd be more apt to consider them in comparison to their running mates. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting suggestion, Scott. The largest barrier to any such change would be community receptiveness of any major change in process at all at RFA or RFB, which I fear would be very difficult to gain consensus for in the current state of things, is community acceptance. That said, you make some valid points here, specifically your contention that accepting candidacies one or a few times per year would improve the environment at RFA (and, for that matter, RFB). It's something worth considering. Tyrol5   [Talk]  02:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say to any well qualified candidate be very careful about aligning yourself to some sort of Trojan Horse, group-think, mass RfB flood. If you're good enough be confident and apply. There is no need to contemplate a joint enterprise which some of the community will see as being dubious and likely condemn all such candidates out of hand. Leaky  Caldron  09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaky is right here. I was thinking the same.  I'm not willing to go on any sort of "group-nom" that might improve chances of success because it'd be too exhausting to give each candidate their due scrutiny.  I'm sorry, just not interested.  I'll wait to try it on my own.--v/r - TP 14:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) That was my initial thought as well. I hate to sound cynical, but Leaky Caldron is correct. The community-at-large would probably be suspicious of some effort to "disperse the gauntlet," as it were, among multiple candidates so as to limit the scrutiny each candidate gets. While I understand that scrutiny and animosity are very different, I can't shake the feeling that anything like this is likely to be viewed by the community as having an overall reduction in scrutiny as a supplementary goal. That's probably not likely to go over well. While any ideas certainly deserve discussion, I'm more inclined now to stay away from an idea like this. I wouldn't fret, though, since this scrutiny of ideas proves the value of discussion, which statistically has gone a long way towards getting candidates to run, at least in this editor's humble opinion. Tyrol5   [Talk]  14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I just wanted to note that AutomaticStrikeout apparently retired today and locked his account. Not sure why but if you wonder why he's not commenting here, that's why. Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I could move it to my userspace or somewhere that is proper in Wikispace (like the admin nominators Wikiproject) if there is any problems with that, I think this is a wonderful talk that is very relevant to the current RFA atmosphere. I think something further can be made good with this primary discussion. Secret account 01:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree. I'm not trying to scuttle the discussion I just wanted to let everyone know. Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have briefly returned, I feel that I should drop by to state that I have no objection to this being moved elsewhere, if that is what people want. Of course, a redirect should be left at this current location. Thank you and I hope something productive comes from this discussion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work, AutomaticStrikout. Regarding moving this page, I think making it a subpage of the admin nominators project is our best path forward. Tyrol5   [Talk]  02:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to apply for bureaucrat rights in due time. I'm currently a bureaucrat on other non-wikipedia wikis and an administrator on even more wikis including test.wikipedia.  I'm currently in a WP:CVUA training program as well as a host on the Teahouse.  I'm working on improving the AFCH script as part of an involvement I have with WP:AfC.  Some day in the not too distant future, I'll be applying for "reviewer" and "rollback" rights, and then within a few months after that I fully intend to submit an RfA.  I'll probably stay at that level for about 6-9 months, and then based on community input I'll likely submit my RfB. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Even less work for 'crats soon
One of the biggest areas for 'crat work, Changing username, will be going away in the coming months. See the announcement at. Anomie⚔ 13:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what will that leave bureaucrats with?-- Laun  chba  ller  13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lookin' fabulous. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing RfAs and RfBs, and granting/removing some user groups. Anomie⚔ 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BAG and RfAs/RfBs. I think this would certainly change some people's opinions on running/who should run/what is required, myself included. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)