Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 111

Thank you for voting for me / not voting for me / I really learned a lot
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)


 * I agree this should be more discouraged. Friday (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, this is a kind of "I don't care" kind of situation. But that's just me. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)


 * 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, 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)
 * Signpost spamming is less objectionable in that it's at least opt-in. &mdash;Cryptic 00:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Personally I went per instruction and changed my user page for the day to say thanks when I passed. It doesn't help, but it doesn't hinder too much. What I do find objectionable is candidates who only thank their supporters and ignore opposers and neutrals. That really makes me think they should be de-sysopped on the simple premise of failing to understand RfA is a discussion, and that all input should be gracefully received. I'm not going to name names, but as a regular commentator at RfA there is no question that some editors are honest enough to thank all, whilst others seem to think only their supporters are worthy of a note. Bottom line however, just change your talk page for 24 hours and consider that (say) 70 odd thank you notes = 70 odd CSD deletions instead. Pedro : Chat  00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 // &#9775;  // 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Massively cut-and-pasted thanks are no thanks at all. They might have some value if only they didn't come after the RFA was already closed, as a way of showing that an admin hopeful thinks nothing of spamming several score innocent users' talk pages. &mdash;Cryptic 00:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had fun with my RfA spamming. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in this practice. If a candidate feels gratitude to those who supported him or her, there is no reason to be cross if he or she says so, in a location where people are guaranteed to see it. I know that I felt good about thanking the people who supported my own RfA, and dropping each of them a brief note saying so, some tailored to the specifics of their particular comments. With all the incivility and name-calling we have to deal with from time to time, I think it would be more than a little regrettable if we adopted a community norm against people saying thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I agree that all editors need to be thanked for something or another at one point, but is cross-posting RfA thanks across multiple voters' talk pages the only venue to do so? In my opinion, the same thing can be accomplished by putting a box at the top of your talk page thanking everyone who voted; it accomplishes everything that a normal RfA thankspam message would, minus the "new messages" bar, since the people who voted should care enough to keep an eye on your talk page, be it by watchlisting or a periodical drive-by "How's it going?" message. For this reason, I do not think a policy against RfA thankspam would wholly sour the atmosphere as it would actually encourage users to keep an eye on another's talk page if they do not already. —Animum (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two pennies, since Pedro is probably talking about me... unless lots of people don't thank him, which wouldn't surprise me. Let me first apologize if my thanks spam annoyed anyone. I was 110 in before The undertow notified me that it was discouraged. I'd gotten so many over the months, I thought it was expected. But I would like to note that I customized mine depending on the various votes of support to thank my supporters for precisely what they'd done, whether it be a simple support, a strong support, or either of those and a dash of defense of my character, etc. Also, there were some that I really wanted to give a special note to, and I felt it would be very discourteous to only send a pretty note to some but not other supporters. Plus, I like them. But I'm a girl... I like that pretty stuff. Now, as for my opposers, I dropped a line (not the pretty card) to those who had legitimate opposes. I thanked them for taking the time to really consider my candidacy and bring up legitimate concerns. I told them that I understood those concerns, had learned from those situations and looked forward to proving them wrong in their fears, honestly. I wasn't being sarcastic or rude about it. At least one appreciated it. I meant to get to the neutrals, but work came, then time had passed, and it just fell from the todo list. My apologies there. If anyone feels I overlooked them and would like a thank you, please drop a line on my talk page. I'll either give you the belated thanks with an apology, or explain why I didn't feel it appropriate to be fake and spam your page. As for you, Pedro: If you want your thanks, give me your email. A very special card, custom-made just for you has been waiting since before my RfA concluded. :) Lara  ❤ Love  07:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. I have read the above comment from Lara. Pedro : Chat  13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ROFLCOPTER. XD Lara  ❤ Love  14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Without having any strong opinion on the issue, I'd like to say that templated thank you messages are somewhat impersonal and in that could even be considered a bit unfriendly. Personal messages to individual users are so much better. Such may include thanking someone for constructive criticism. After all, a good oppose comment with diffs and polite wording and all requires a lot more effort than any other kind of RfA comment. And those thankyou messages could (and should, imo) be issued regardless of the outcome of the RfA, as a matter of simple politeness. |dorftrottel |humor me 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree here; in fact, I don't think I could agree more strongly. Seeing "Thank you, !" makes me almost want to change my vote. It positively reeks of impersonality. GlassCobra 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was too dazed to thank anyone in any form the day the sysop bit fell on me. After a day or two I recovered but I think nobody will kill you if you don't thank them... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is unnecessary, I didn't do it. But I'm not annoyed when I get thank you spam. I would suggest discouraging it, but there should be no penalties for doing so. Though I do feel a bit weird getting thank-yous from people I opposed... Mr.  Z- man  06:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that RfA contributors should only vote their conscience and only support the nomination if they think it is good for Wikipedia. I will therefore not canvass any thank you messages on people's pages who voted for me, nor will it affect my attitude towards anyone who votes against me.
 * I wrote the following in my RfA: &mdash; Sebastian 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Back in my day *hobbles around on zimmer frame* (ok, April 2007), it was a more common practice than it is now, indeed it was more or less expected of a candidate. As I recall I only thanked my supporters (to save time, if nothing else). (As it was also HM the Queen's birthday, I added in a "Vivat Regina" as well. :-)) However, I agree it's a complete waste of time, and I wouldn't do it if I had an RfA now. WaltonOne 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There exist those topics of discussion that are not amenable to policy or guideline. This is one of them. There exist those topics of discussion that are not worth everyone writing a paragraph about. This is one of them. I can't quite believe how much pointless chat has been produced over something so irrelevant. It's as if in the absence of "RfA is broken (n+1 th nomination)" we have this instead. Splash - tk 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the practice is more noticeable at the moment as more admins are getting through at present, and if "the same ol' names" keep commenting at RfA, they'll get a lot of post. So the answer, obviously, is to stop commenting on RfAs, and then the spam will magically stop. (err...) BencherliteTalk 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (who didn't spam his supporters (not that it would have taken long, and he had no opposers to thank anyway (grin!)) because he isn't great at pretty banner messages and it was far more fun to delete some real sp*m at CAT:CSD...)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Is this becoming more of an issue lately? I've not participated in RfA as of late but as far as I can tell this isn't a problem as much as it was back then. And anyway, someone who does not want to see RfA thanks messages posted on their talk page should simply say so on their talk page. That takes care of the problem right away. - P ilotguy  contact tower  01:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I don't mind receiving thank-yous. I don't "expect" them, but I see nothing wrong with a candidate thanking people. Anyway, if the candidate had a successful RfA, I spam them with this, where the new admin gets a T-shirt and a link to the school for new admins. In the end, however, despite RfA-thanks on multiple talk pages, the best thank-you a candidate can give is using the tools effectively, efficiently, and properly, and not letting their supporters down. This is how I see it anyway. Acalamari 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the thank-you notes either. In a way, they remind me to check RFA. And while we're on the subject, I never got around to thank those who participated in my RFB... yes, that was almost two years ago, but who is counting? ;)
 * Hey, I never got that shirt... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor did I. Gimme! :-) — Kurykh  07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * this is cool. I might borrow it. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...
(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, Pigman what? / trail 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, here. I always like getting the "thanks for participating" RfA spam. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I collect some of the thanks as well. :) Acalamari 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-mortem regarding Requests for adminship/Shalom
"My God, guard my tongue from evil, and my lips from speaking deceitfully. To those who curse me, let my soul be silent; and let my soul be like dust to everyone."

&mdash; Appendix to the Amidah prayer, ArtScroll translation

I say these words in Hebrew three times every day as part of the standard Jewish prayer service. As I prepare to comment on recent developments, I say these words again.

First, I wish to thank Riana and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me, and I thank everyone who showed a tremendous degree of respect not normally offered to people who have committed crimes against Wikipedia. I also thank Deskana for putting the discussion to rest before it got out of hand.

Though I keep most of my feelings on this matter to myself, I share a few very important ideas with the community.

I reiterate, clearly and unambiguously, that I have not vandalized Wikipedia in the last five and a half months.

It should not be necessary to state this, but since some of the "oppose" voters cast suspicion on my current level of integrity, I must not allow such allegations to stand in silence. I was asked to prove that I am not currently vandalizing Wikipedia under alternate accounts and IP addresses, as I have admitted to doing in the past. It is impossible to prove that I am not vandalizing Wikipedia, just as it is impossible to prove that space aliens do not exist. Without complete information about the workings of the universe, we cannot definitively prove that space aliens do not exist. Similarly, without complete knowledge of how I spend my time, you cannot definitively prove that I do not vandalize Wikipedia.

As I stated on the RFA, I occasionally edit from my IP address without logging in. The IP address at my home is currently 71.174.224.76. In the last two months, I have not edited Wikipedia outside my home, and nobody else in my home has edited Wikipedia. You can convince yourself that this is my IP address by comparing the interwiki links on the Hebrew Wikipedia from this IP address to the corresponding English articles which I translated from Hebrew.

I will not apply again for adminship via the RFA process for the next five years.

Originally I decided that I would never again run for adminship, but after careful consideration, I decided that "never" is too long. I do not know whether I will still be active on Wikipedia five years from now, and if I am still active, I probably will not want sysop access anyway.

Please do not offer to nominate me for adminship one or two years from now. I am not interested.

Please do not discuss my vandalism or my use of alternate accounts and IP addresses.

I have admitted what I did wrong. I have apologizing specifically to every editor and administrator who was involved in cleaning up the messes I made. In June I committed to follow the rules, and I have upheld that commitment. I disclosed all of this, providing links where relevant, in my opening comments at the RFA.

I hoped that it would convince people that I am on the right track. It didn't happen.

Accordingly, I will ask an administrator (privately, by email) to delete User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/RFA review and other user and user talk pages relating to the past.

I will no longer close discussions based on the snowball clause.

A number of users, both before and during the RFA, raised concerns about my application of the snowball clause in closing XFDs before the five or seven day period of discussion has ended. Though I continue to defend my past decisions, I will not apply the snowball clause in the future.

It would be helpful if the community could clarify (1) when it is and is not appropriate to apply the snowball clause, and (2) whether non-administrators are on equal footing with administrators to apply the snowball clause in clear "keep" situtations. It's hard to follow a policy when the policy itself is unclear.

I will dedicate a much larger percentage of my time on wiki for writing articles.

Some people mistakenly believe that Wikipedia already has all the articles it needs, so the remaining tasks are to maintain and improve the existing roster of articles. Actually, Wikipedia is still missing thousands of articles on highly notable topics.

I recently discovered that many of the towns and villages in Israel do not have articles on the English Wikipedia. I have translated about a dozen articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia about kibbutzim and moshavim in the Beit She'an Valley. I hope to translate articles about towns and villages in other regions of Israel. I am surprised that, after almost seven years of Wikipedia's existence, this has still not been done.

Undoubtedly the same lack of information exists for other countries where English is not the primary language. (See, for example, List of postal codes in Algeria). I challenge the community to create English articles for every incorporated city, town and village anywhere in the world within the next five years. Using my ability to translate from Hebrew (and, to a lesser extent, from other languages) to English, I will do whatever small part I can.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit I found the end result to this RfA to be something close to shocking, in that I was shocked at the way it developed (not 'shocking' in the 'oh my goodness you are shocking at your job' sense). You quite clearly demonstrated that you could be trusted since the incident (I opposed your last RfA as "too soon after the incident" or words to that effect, if I recall correctly), but you had done fantastic work since then and proven that you had changed. That alone deserves a commendation, and I felt it had made you an excellent administrator candidate.
 * I had my faith in the Wikipedia community when dealing with this kind of situation restored with my experience with this process, had the edges torn by the way Essjay was treated (comments), and the metaphorical parchment torn into two again with this result. Although consensus was clear and there was no fault with the close itself, I must express my disappointment at how it developed.
 * I commend you for sticking round after that less-than-enjoyable experience, and I have no doubt you will continue your fantastic work. I found your comments and thoughts expressed above englightening and thanks for writing them down and sharing them with us. Cheers,  Daniel  06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What a shame our community has not heard of forgiveness? You'd have made a great admin, Shalom. Keep up the good work, and do the best thing on Wikipedia: write an encyclopedia.  Majorly  (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am shocked. Fingers crossed next time. I really do want you to become an admin. Rudget .talk 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Majorly. 1) The community should have forgiven, but I respect their right not to. 2) Let's build the work. Your contributions are valued more than many admins 'pedia building efforts (specifically mine!!) 3) Utter total honesty by not gaming it via a new account. Bravo. As ever, best wishes Pedro : Chat  21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalom, your friends are still your friends. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(*sigh*) -- I'm sorry to have to play the part of the old grumpy man here (regardless of the fact that I am in fact a relatively old man and am sometimes grumpy), but leaving a long "you missed out on a good thing, sweetie" letter on this talk page is really inappropriate. The statement: "I will not apply again for adminship via the RFA process for the next five years" is a horribly melodramatic plea for wikilove, especially when it's clear that this person is indeed "good admin material", but is perhaps a bit impatient to recieve the forgiveness he has clearly earned. Wikipedia is not group therapy, and it is not a drama group. You're a good, standup guy, Shalom, and you shouldn't feel the need to play games. Feel free to canvass me when you do another RfA in 6 months or so, but please try not to say things you don't mean. -- SB_Johnny | <sup style="color:green;">talk  22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA Closures
Could a non-participant or bureaucrat close: Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer‎ & Requests for adminship/Finale Wiki Geek. They both seem to be heading towards snow. Thanks. <font face="tahoma" color="green">Rudget .<font face="tahoma" color="green">talk 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Already done :) - <font size="+1">R udget zŋ 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain?
Can someone explain how consensus can be two different percentages? RfA is traditionally 75%, and RfB is 90%, but how can that be? And why? RfA is basically a vote, which bureaucrats don't need any "judgement" to close, so why is it so much harder for admins to become one, when normal admins can close incredibly difficult AfDs which do need judgement? Sorry, I'm just curious. Thanks,  Majorly  (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the limit seems rather misplaced. Bureaucrats require much less judgement than Administrators (in effect, a lot of their job is pushing buttons, but sysops require analysing skills, discussion skills, the ability to judge consensus with tools other than a calculator, et cetera), yet the requirements for support in an RfB is higher? <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but my guess is that people interpret these things politically, rather than as a simple consensus on the trustworthiness of the user and/or the need for another b'crat. One user was rather outspoken in his opposition to me as b'crat on wikibooks, for the stated reason that he was worried about the consolidation of power, but I believe the objection was discounted on the grounds of it being irrelevant to the discussion. It can be very hard sometimes to see the distinction between usergroup and political importance on a wiki.
 * On the other hand, b'crats can do things that cannot be undone by other b'crats (e.g., a steward is required to unmake sysop), so the level of risk is theoretically higher than administrators (who can undo other admin's actions). However, I have a hard time imagining a case where a steward could not be found within moments of a b'crat "going rotten". -- SB_Johnny | <sup style="color:green;">talk  18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are one-off situations where admins look to 'crats to determine if consensus is met, so we place the thresholds for community approval high here. If talking strict percentages though (as if this were a VOTE), it can be noted that stewards ARE voted for, and their pass threshold is 80%.  Now stewards are technically not supposed to DECIDE anything, but they are given tremendous community trust. —  xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is just supply vs demand. We don't need many 'crats so we can afford high standards. If we don't need many, we might as well have the best of them. 1 != 2  19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that traditionally, crats are required to have a higher degree of community trust because of the seriousness of their responsibility closing RfA's. AfD's are reversible via DRV or relisting of kept articles later on. Sysoping is seen as almost irrevocable. It can be very hard to take back the mop. And RfA is not simply nose counting. Crats have discretion in determining consensus. They have promoted with <75 % and have extended the time limit of RfA's. Arguably, at least one such extension changed the outcome of an RfA. Cheers,<font color="#009500"> :) Dloh <font color="#950095">cierekim  00:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Consensus' is neither one number nor the other, as you very well know. As for the differences in 'traditional levels' well, Wikipedia is not an exercise in consistency. Admin actions are reversible. Bureaucrat actions are not. Irreversible actions need more prior scrutiny than reversible ones. The most acrimonious AfD closure is probably orders of magnitude less acrimonious than the most acrimonious RfA promotion. The 'steeper slope' for bureaucrat actions means that people have 'traditionally' wished for greater certainty that all is ok in the first place. Splash - tk 15:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'crat actions are quite reversible, albeit with a higher degree of difficulty than admin actions (need to get a steward to reverse a rogue sysopping, for example, while a rogue renaming of a very active editor would cause a massive drain on the servers). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a merely technical distinction, and it overlooks the exceptional amount of lava flows that have resulted from controversial 'reversible' actions on behalf of bureaucrats in the recent past. To all intents and purposes, a bureaucrat action is irreversible, short of going to the arbitration committee. No bureaucrat can reverse another bureaucrat's action if it is plainly abusive, plainly wrong or plainly anything else. Stewards must be located, and they will not act without some extraordinary evidence, save in the case of simple mistakes or rogue-ness. Admins on the other hand can, with their own authority and endowments reverse any other admin actions. Bureaucrat actions, from the perspective of RfA, are irreversible without extraordinary effort. Splash - tk 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a large amount of bile and anger can be spewed forth from rogue admin actions, even if the edits themselves are easily reversed. I understand what you're saying, and largely agree with it, but just wanted to make that distinction. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New toolserver edit counter
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. &mdash; E  talkBAG 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging only by it's speed I'm assuming this is a Special:Contributions scraper? — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  06:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, as it is at least several hundred edits of mine behind. — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 // &#9775;  // 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Interesting. Does the new server have a delay? <font size="+1">R udget talk 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Doesn't seem to be working now. I got an "internal error" when I tried to run an edit count on my account. Has this happened to others? Useight (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Great questions, difficult questions, many questions
Kudos to DGG, who has asked great questions on some of the open RfAs. I particularly like the part of one question asking for the nominee's views on a policy problem currently under dispute, and the one asking if, in the nominee's opinion, we currently have xyz policy "exactly right". They're great ways to probe the minds of the nominees as well as to stimulate policy discussion among people who like to discuss policy. (I'd even like to answer the questions myself.) If my plaigiarism could be forgiven, I'd like to add variations of them to RfAs in the future. Daniel has also been offering some very thought-provoking questions lately.

At the same time, Scott5114 has been asked 11 optional questions (and one follow-up) in one day at RfA; getting one question "wrong" on an RfA is more than enough to sink a lot of nominations, and some of the questions involve in-depth scenarios. Are we expecting too much from some of the candidates - particularly in terms of time commitment to their own RfAs - now that the anon-creation issue has been put on the backburner? I say this while recognizing that the other nominations have only 2-5 optional questions, because it is quite possible that the prospects of such an analytical/time-consuming test have reduced the number of nominations again. Dekimasu よ! 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think people ask questions to trip candidates up. I think they ask them when evidence provided from contribution history or from answers to the standard questions don't supply enough information for an opinion to be drawn. Say, for example, the candidate states that they will participate at CSD but has sub 100 speedy deletion tags I would ask a probing question to try to ascertain knowledge of Speedy process / procedure (and have done in the past). At the end of the day all process / policy / guidelines are available and candidates have time to research before replying. If the then get the answer "wrong" it's certainly worrying. As long as the questions aren't redundant and add value then at the end of the day it's in the candidates interest to answer them fully and honestly. If their response is weak, or just wrong, at least they'll learn. When it's a question on opinion (e.g. what would you have done in this dispute?) then I guess there is insufficent evidence of delaing with conflict, and so a specific example case has to be raised. Pedro : Chat  08:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all trying to imply that editors asking questions have anything other than the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Personally, I think it's great to see more questions that speak to the editor's personal opinions and ability to communicate them well. And if a candidacy fails because the nominee has insufficient experience, that's certainly appropriate. However, if nominees are failing to submit to RfAs because of the time necessary to spend answering (or, perhaps, researching) responses to difficult problems, we may need to do a bit of cost-benefit analysis here. Dekimasu よ! 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be put of running because of a "fear" of a deluge of questions. In an ideal world any candidate would be able to demonstrate their knowledge through a review of contributions, but that's not going to happen. I do sometimes wonder what value some questions bring, when they search for obscure bits of policy. I don't expect a candidate to know every policy by rote (heck, I certainly don't) - what I expect is that they can find out and then communicate findings clearly and within their interpretation of policy. That implies a candidate who can learn on the job. And whatever experience you have, until you actually have the buttons you can't proove your ability to use them. Pedro : Chat  09:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you both have a point. However, I think that buffeting a candidate with too many optional questions can be too much; it takes time to answer tehse questions, and often there are multiple possible answers to the often complex questions asked. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A further thought. If someone had asked me about image policy at my RfA I'd have certainly had to go digging to find out (consuming time). I never stated I wanted to work there (I know - too few admins do!) so there was presumably no value in asking me about something I didn't know or, well, care about. I think the best value questions are driven from a candidates statement of where they will help out (Q1) balanced against contribution history. Per my rationale earlier "I will block vandals" and 10 reports to AIV would prompt questions to demonstrate understanding of policy. "I will clear CSD" and 25 speedy tags also warrants a question. "I will protect pages" and 400 requests at RFPP and a question would be pointless. I know admins get all the buttons, but if someone specifically states they don't want to go anywhere near an area (say BLP, Copyvio) then AGF says not to worry to much about whether they understand the policies in that specific arena. Pedro : Chat  09:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are certain areas that all admins should have at least a background knowledge of. If I ask questions, one will almost always be about, or will include BLP, because I will not support a candidate who cannot properly apply that policy. If they say that they won't work with images or sockpuppetry, that's fine, but there are some policies that all admins should know well from the start. As to when lots of questions are asked, it is always in the borderline and controversial cases. If a candidate is getting more than ~93%+ or less than ~68% support, I generally won't feel the need to ask questions, or even comment unless I have specific concerns that I feel need to be mentioned as it will likely have no effect on the outcome. On the other hand, I try to make my questions practical, often based on actual situations that I have dealt with or seen that an admin should be able to answer fairly quickly. I try to avoid more "abstract" questions, though they can be helpful as well. Mr.  Z- man  21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sometimes oppose an RfA by asking a question rather than !voting. The question allows my concern to be viewed by others and does not require me to spend the considerable research time it takes to actually oppose an RfA. If the questions are piling up, that usually is a sign of a questionable nomination. -- Jreferee    t / c  16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to whether my difficult questions (mentioned in the opening statement here) are constructive, I echo my comments at this discussion. Cheers,  Daniel  04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have to say, since it's come up here at WT:RFA, that I remain a little concerned about the fairness of the questions. (Though I don't question they are asked with good intent.)  I note that Captain Panda's RfA did fail, and part of the reason for it, possibly the tipping point, was getting the wikinews question wrong.  My point is that it doesn't seem fair to ask these really difficult questions to only some candidates, but to let other RfAs sail through with nothing but the three basic softball questions.  There are countless other RfAs that would have crumbled under really difficult questioning like that.  (And remember, I'm one of the guys with quite conservative RfA standards; my concern here is not difficulty but fairness.) --JayHenry (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, a total of two users mentioned Q10 when opposing. Counting votes, without those two opposes the RfA, the approval percentage would have been at 71%. Given the high number of neutrals and lack of illegitimate opposes, I would suggest it would have still been closed as unsuccessful.
 * I only ask my specific questions where I'm unsure of the candidate on a personal basis and I can't make up mind where to !vote, and I feel the questions may help me make up my mind (so far it's been 2S 1O). I really don't recognise it as either my fault or my problem that the same questions aren't asked on all other RfA's — if someone has an issue with consistency across all open RfA's, they are free to edit and add a copy of my questions as they see fit.  Daniel  09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear
Only four open RFAs?! We've lulled! Neil  ☎  14:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 // &#9775;  // 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Back in August there were briefly no RFAs, seems to come and go. Davewild (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

December was slow last year too - only 19 successful RfAs. That said, in December 2005, 69 people had successful RfAs (the record so far) so we can't say that December is always quiet... WjBscribe 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It's just that Tim Vickers finally ran out of people to nominate... :) --barneca (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't part of the job of the most junior bureaucrat to drum up some new RfA candidates? :) NoSeptember  19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We now have three running, and all are scheduled to end within 18 hours or so. Have we ever had no current nominations?  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen it like that once or twice, but usually not for very long. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time it happened Grace notes T § 06:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Also, check with the virtual classroom and Admin_coaching/Requests to see if their students are ready. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * We seem to have found an oasis in User:Useight. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, J-stan, I actually really appreciate being called an oasis. Useight 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They rock! :) <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Report with RfBs included
Based on this discussion I created the above report for those who may find it useful. NoSeptember 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting the idea of a minimum threshold for edits
I think it's time to have a minimum number of edits required for editors to run for RfA. Here are some of my recent WP:SNOW closures and their number of edits:


 * Requests for adminship/Styrofoam1994 - 399
 * Requests for adminship/Dalekusa - 142
 * Requests for adminship/Hardcore Hak - 234
 * Requests for adminship/IslaamMaged126 2 - 215
 * Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer - 100
 * Requests for adminship/Richard n - 542

I realize that we're hesitant to set a number to ward off people who edit just to up their numbers so they can run, but I don't think we need to set the threshold too terribly high, and there's literally no chance in hell for someone with a hunded or so edits to become an admin (you know it, I know it, we all know it). I think 1,000 edits is a nice round (and reasonable) number (incidentally, that's also roughly my personal threshold for snow-closures). I have faith that the community can recognize simple gaming of the system, and there's no guarantee that just because someone has 1k edits they'll become an admin. I'm just looking to weed out folk that think they have a shot, only to shot down with varying degrees of kindness over the process.

It should be noted that several other projects have minimum requirements. Some examples:


 * Commons:Administrators lists the requirements as 200 edits and 2 months of participation
 * Wikispecies:Administrators has a more nebulous standard, the requirement being of just two months participation with no mention of edit count
 * Meta:Administrators lists the requirements as 100 edits on meta and a trusted position on another project (admin, crat, CU)

I think trying to tie a chronological requirement to RfA candidacy is going to be an uphill battle, so I'm suggesting our threshold be based on just a bare minimum of edits performed (again, just meeting that requirement is no guarantee for success; someone with 1,001 edits could very easily be seeing a "sorry, but..." message from a 'crat a week after). Thoughts? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Personally, I feel that 500 is too low a minimum; even though we're talking about a "necessary but not sufficient" number (excellent wording, barneca), we should make it at least close to a number that would pass muster; I can imagine a scenario with a 1k-edit candidate passing much more readily than a 500-edit candidate... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, with both the theory and the use of the number 1000 as "necessary but not sufficient". Hopefully, by the time they reach 1000, they'll be more familiar with the way things work, enough to know that they still aren't likely to be confirmed.  But it would at least weed out the ones with 0% chance, without hurting feelings and wasting time. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, it is time to impose something of this nature. A bare minimum of 1000 sounds right to me. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Might as well future-proof it, and state the practical minimum as "twice as many as was required a year ago." &mdash;Cryptic (only partly sarcastic) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A year ago we didn't have nearly as many tools to allow a good editor to make a large number of valuable contributions quickly. Just look how fancy AWB has gotten! bd2412  T 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree, though I'd think it even better to say "1000 edits performed without use of tools". There is something to be said for requiring minimum edit counts in main space and WP:space, etc., but there's also something to be said for not doing that.  All that said, and I think that making the minimum 1000 is perhaps too high. I certainly won't support a candidate with less than that, but some people do. There's a difference between failing and WP:SNOW-failing; I think 500 might be a better number to catch that distinction. Argyriou (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to draw a distinction on how the edits were made, or what namespace they were made in; the number is just there to give a minimum threshold that must be crossed before a candidate can even submit their RfA (each RfA can still get shot down or pass based on its own merits; even without a 1k minimum RfA requirement, someone who goes in with just automated edits is doomed to failure).
 * I imagine the largest hurdle here moving from 0 edits to 1 edit, after that it is simply an adjustable level. Personally I think it should start as low as will be useful to weed out obvious SNOWstorms (between 250-500 edits), with namespace not being an issue.  —  xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  05:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this move, and I'm fed of it when people criticise someone for opposing a candidate, who has very few edits, based on edit count. I say 1k is fairly nice, but I'd also support quite a bit upward of that too. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Convinced on the need, not convinced on the rationale of mentioning snow. WP:SNOW is not for the purpose of measuring edit count alone after all. Imagine this; A candidate with 3,000 edits but who was 24hr blocked for a viscous attack during an edit war the week before they launch an RfA. The RfA gets to 1/20/0 in 24 hours. Now that's a SNOW close as the process has no chance of succeding. If we're going to set a minimum bar to people running we don't need to mention SNOW. We have a straight forward policy, clearly stated in the various templates (like meta does) that says "The minimum standard required to request adminship is 1,000 edits and 1 months participation. Candidates who commence requests with fewer edits or less time served will have the request immediately closed by an administrator or other editor in good standing." I just can't see why we need to mention the SNOW bit as well. Pedro : Chat  08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a need for minimum edits, it only "embarrases" new users, who become frustrated and then, as some I know, have left Wikipedia. By doing that we're losing that extra bit of knowledge they may have had. &mdash; Rudget contributions 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't embarass them, they just wouldn't run and it would make them think twice before going for RfA, I support the minimum edit requirement, it will save us a lot of work on WP:SNOW closes and (potentially) stop new users from leaving, as its a fact that some users will get upset if everyone opposes their RfA, thus making them likely to leave in disgust. <font face="verdana" color="grey">Qst 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence what I said. &mdash; Rudget contributions 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I support having a minimum of 1000 edits before posting an RfA. This wouldn't prevent anyone with a chance of passing from running. Also, setting a solid number will help newbies by preventing the inevitable flood of opposition and WP:SNOW closing. Chaz Beckett 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed, Rudget. I failed to notice that, I thought you had said you opposed it. <font face="verdana" color="grey">Qst 17:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do realize it's a perennial proposal, and I'm painfully aware that people don't bother reading instructions. I hadn't really considered the bit about writing editcountitis into the rules... while it does make me pause for thought, I'm not convinced that this one instance of editcountits is bad (especially since I always consider editcountitis as using edit counts to establish a false sense of self-worth, as opposed to it being used as a prerequisite for an activity). I have a similar attitude towards instruction creep; I hadn't actually thought of it like that, but even after you point it out, I'm not entirely convinced that this is a bad thing. Aside from such requirements being somewhat standard on other projects where it works just fine (and what I'm suggesting is far stricter than most, with the exception of Meta; which requires a previous adminship), I'd consider WP:BITE to be more important in this case than WP:CREEP, though I'll readily admit that the road to hell is paved with good intentions... Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go work on some articles. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can possibly see myself supporting a user with a little less than 1000 edits, but only under very ideal circumstances and I would wager that they would still fail an RFA. Because of the extreme unlikeliness of a user with <1000 edit passing, I would support such a minimum. Mr.  Z- man  18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, if someone with less than 1000 edits wanted to run and had a legit reason (trying to imagine one now, maybe a highly trusted big cheese on commons with a compelling need for image deletion tools here), there's always WP:IAR. --barneca 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can imagine a steward who is active on other WMF projects wanting to come here and help with backlogs, but wants local permissions before doing so. I'd see the 1k edit requirement as being more flexible with an established and trusted user (especially in that scenario, since stewards are more globally trusted users than a local admin on some rinky-dink edition of WP). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a need for such a minimum number of edits has been demonstrated recently to avoid having new users face the inevitable opposition that occurs as shown in recent RFAs. I would want it set at a level where there have been no successful RFAs over the last year, 1,000 sounds reasonable unless someone can point to a successful RFA at that level. Davewild 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this idea too. Hopefully, by the time someone gets to 1000 edits, they will have a better idea of what's involved in an RFA.-- Kubigula (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Though all arguments in favour of this change are very good ones, it would do little harm, indeed, I find myself wondering what the actual use would be. Instead of snowballing RfA's, you could switch the closing RfA's because they are out of process. Maybe a few less of those editors with around 300 edits who do read through everything, and do notice they are not allowed to run. Is that small profit worth the change, and instuction creep? Martijn Hoekstra 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit/agree that it's party a semantic difference, but I think that telling someone "hell no, you can't be an admin" is very different from "I'm sorry, but you're not qualified to run quite yet". I think there'll be fewer hurt feelings with a requirement-based RfA closure than a judgement-based closure; as active as I am in closing premature RfAs, I do feel a twinge of guilt over locking them down too soon sometimes (for example, I waited on Styrofoam1994's until someone had at least posted a !vote; I was there soon enough that I could have locked it down well before anyone had actually seen it). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It will hopefully prevent some people from starting one that is guaranteed to fail and as EVula said, it will allow closing of ones that will fail before they get filled up with somewhat discouraging "too inexperienced" type comments. Mr.  Z- man  18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Cobi ran unsuccessfully for adminship with 1,063 edits and many serious people supported him, maybe because they felt his bot work helped make up for a lack of edits. There is also User:Samulili who is an Arbcom member on the Finnish Wikipedia who successfully ran for adminship here, and only had about 1100 edits on the English Wikipedia. But even in those cases, I think the threshold of 1,000 edits would be reasonable. EdJohnston 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with a minimum threshold, but if the user is involved with another Wikimedia project, it should be a bit more lenient. Maybe 1000-1100 as a minimum. Maybe we should make a policy and guideline test of sorts for users who we feel deserve a chance, but should still prove their understanding.  <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC)I definitely support the use of a minimum amount of edits required to run. It will give people something for which to shoot, and it will keep new users from trying to run, being snowball closed, then turning away from the project. Closing it saying, "You don't have the X amount of edits needed to run," may make them want to keep editing until they reach that mark, rather than closing it saying, "You don't have very many edits; try again in a few months," which some seem to interpret as, "YOU FAILED." I see only good that can come from this, as long as it's a reasonable number. And 1000 definitely seems like a good place to start for me.  нмŵוτн τ  19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Should this effort to institute an minimum edit count go through, what will be the criteria for incrementing this requirement? Will it be a matter of time, or something else? --Aarktica 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, pretty compelling arguments. The only possible negative effect that hasn't really been mentioned yet, is that the misconception may arise "I have 1000 edits, thus I should now run for admin", in a same way that some editors now go about "this article is a GA, thus it should now become a FA". I just wanted it mentioned, though I don't think there will be serious problems with this. If such problems do arise, we can deal with it as it happens. Martijn Hoekstra 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem I would see is you would get editors who would take 5 edits to do something when one would do merely in order to improve their edit count. But giving someone adminship with less than 1000 edits is, IMO, way unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really surprised that no one has brought up all the reasons this isn't a good idea–points that have been brought up all of the other times this has been considered. This is practically a perennial proposal. And that's because it sounds good, but wouldn't really help anything. The same people that don't read the current standards wouldn't read the new requirement. And there's the bit that the idea indeed is just a semantic difference anyway. But most importantly is the problem that this represents the worst kind of instruction creep. It writes editcountitis into the rules. We already have enough people that don't look an inch beyond edit counts in evaluating a user for adminship. The worst thing we can do for RfA is to do anything to encourage more of that. EVula, I know you're trying to help but this has been discussed so many times, that I have a hard time seeing why it justified another. I know reminding people one more time that articles are more important than discussions about tweaking RfA isn't going to change much, but one can hope right? :) - Taxman Talk 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very compelling counter arguments, but a user who takes the time to make 1000 edits (regardless of individual quality) would inevitably learn policy in their time here. The problem with pleading editcountitis is that having 1000 edits isn't a guarantee that they'll get the bit, just a guarantee at a fighting chance. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, how long has the front page said "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? I could have sworn that it said "the perpetual RfA discussion that admins who really should know better can mention the same damn things over and over". Crap, if I'd known that they'd changed it, I wouldn't have bothered... :)
 * Hey everyone, check this out! He cuts it close.... <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He just blanked it. "Arbitrary edit count" was "too much" for him. I think if we were to set a number, it should be higher than 1,000. How many RfAs have passed in the last 6 months with approximately 1,000 edits? I'd say 3,000 would be closer to a number that won't hand out false hope.  Lara  ❤  Love  21:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm. I'll meet you at 1500-2000, Lara. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. 1000 is fine. 300 is fine. 2000 is bit much, but still okay with me. In any case, I think it is good to be upfront with people. A nomination with ~500 will not pass, ever, period, and so there is no point in letting the trivial cases waste time and garner ill will. Dragons flight 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that is just challenging people to set up a sock puppet to try and squeeze the most productive amount of editing and talk page comments and spread over time, into 500 edits. :-) I'm sure it could be done, and it might even prove a point about RfA. Carcharoth 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, suppose someone drops 500 ready made feature articles into Wikipedia, one edit a piece. Still doesn't show they have admin qualities. There's no way you can get into mediating disputes or (patiently) showing newbies the ropes without racking up lots of edits. (See - in my time, I'm sure I've made a thousand edits just correcting my own typos). bd2412  T 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the uber FA-sock wants to run with only 500 edits, it can appeal for a special exemption (at which point, I still think it would fail). Unless, I'm mistaken the last admin to pass with even remotely near 500 edits was NicholasTurnbull, who had ~750 edits at the time of nom (26 months ago).  He also had the virtue of already being a channel op on IRC and was a key figure in the Mediation Cabal.  But frankly, those were also different times.
 * Maybe rather than making a policy of this it could simply be discussed on Guide to requests for adminship. The community seems to be setting the bar somewhere around 1k edits anyway, and it could end up like raising the speed limit (raise it to 65, and everyone who used to go 65 goes 75, etc.) Commons, for example, rarely passes RFAs without well over 200 edits (though sometimes they pass easier for people who are sysops elsewhere). -- SB_Johnny | <sup style="color:green;">talk  02:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, from December 2005 to January 2007 (when Requests_for_adminship/Nomination_data stopped being updated) there were no successful noms with under 1400 edits. In fact, during those 13 months, there were only 6 admins (out of 386 promoted) that had less than 2000 edits.  Assuming these trends haven't changed in the last year, I'd say the bar is already well over 1000 edits.  Dragons flight 02:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. The comments about 1,000 edits being where the community thinks it should be set, I don't agree. Candidates rarely pass with anything near 1,000 edits. If something is going to be put into writing, putting 1,000 gives false hope. Whether they've been editing for one month or one year, there would be opposes over an edit count that small.  Lara  ❤  Love  05:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Running though this conversation, I agree with Lara to the extent that in reality 1,000 is still likely to fail, and there is a danger of "false hopes" or as highlighted above "I've made 1,000 so I should be an admin". And, as detailed, there will allways be exceptions e.g. the commons 'crat who needs admin rights here for some reason but only has 25 edits. So an arbitary low figure will just create an IAR situation in various events and an arbitary high figure (say 2,000 - 3,000) just throws to much edit count issues into the melting pot. So I guess we may as well leave it as it is, and it's up to "RFA Regulars (horrid term)" to SNOW close and be as gentle as we can for clear good faith nominations in our opposes, in order to retain the editor. Pedro :  Chat  14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A 1000 looks like a sensible minimum though I think folk are ambitious to expect people to really know what they are doing in a 1000 edits (I certainly didn't :)). The Meta one at 100 edits is waay too low and I think will be revised soon -- Herby  talk thyme 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add that by the time someone racks up a thousand edits (assuming they haven't used a bot of some type to just fix 1000 minor typos) they should know enough about Wikipedia to know that 1000 edits alone will not guarantee them an adminship. bd2412  T 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat, an account with 500 edits could easily demonstrate all the qualities needed for adminship. Article contributions could be dealt with in less than 50 edits (large, good ones). The rest could be spread out over time over different namespaces and different areas (90 edits every month for 6 months - 24 edits every weekend for 26 weeks, for example). You would only need 20-30 edits in a particular area to show that you were aware of how that area operated (eg. ANI, AIV, CSD, NPP, etc.). And it should still be possible to read and edit Wikipedia for 6 months and get "up to speed" and be aware of most of the issues facing Wikipedia. Cut out all the typos correcting one's own talk page posts, and keep contributions short and to the point, and there should be no problems. It might look like an experienced editor starting a new account, but it is possible to 'lurk' for years before starting an account, and that would enable the user to hit the ground running. People quibbling about the "only 6 months" thing could be met with an essay on the history of Wikipedia, demonstrating that the user knew more about Wikipedia than the person voting. Carcharoth 22:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I used to think that stating a minimum edit requirement for adminship was bad, but I see that there is a de facto minimum edit count that is applied but not explained to candidates. While Carcharoth is absolutely correct that a person could conceivably warrant adminship with 500 edits, I think that it is very unlikely that even if that person warranted adminship that he would in fact be bestowed the tools. I think the transparency of stating the de facto minimum outweighs the harm to a potentially worthy candidate who has to continue editing without the tools a while longer than he might if the minimum were unstated. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose adding an edit count to the requirement for requesting the tools and strongly support adding it to the guidelines page as listed above. As Carcharoth has said, I can see situations where a user with fewer than one thousand edits becomes an admin. I do see, though, that if such a policy was enacted this hypothetical user could request the tools with a WP:IAR clause. But really, I think discussing this aspect of such a requirement's direct practicality is missing the point of its implications. Firstly, I am worried that setting any given number is too arbitrary. Why is the user with 998 edits less likely to be a successful admin than the one with 1002? I know this is simply semantics, but looking at even just the above discussion we can see that once we set some limit, it could have a way of ballooning. Additionally, as said by Taxman, a requirement would be a clear example of rules creep and of writing editcountis into the rules. I am also worried about how this sort of thing interacts with WP:BITE. Further, I feel that this proposal would not be staying with the ideal that adminship is not big deal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and it should be one where any civil, constructive, and knowledgeable user can request the tools they need to improve their work on it. WP:SNOW closes are applied here all the time, and with ease, sometimes even too much. Having these continue is not a big deal and is not, in my opinion, a determent to the user's applying. Simply put, I can see nothing but bad resulting from creating an edit requirement. SorryGuy 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tango's suggestion
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)
 * That is ingenious! bd2412  T 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brilliant!!! <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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? :) <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Fixed. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably best to define it as server count (see 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)
 * There's a new tool for that, right? I like that idea. If someone would please attach my name to this on as well.... <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm a bad coder. I should have put 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. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

"There are currently no requests for adminship"
Ooh. Look: "There are currently no requests for adminship" - when was the last time that happened? Carcharoth 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * QUICK - set up the super-duper new RfA system before someone nominates themselves! :-) Carcharoth 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It last happened a few months ago. --Deskana (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. And I was getting all excited. Thanks for answering the question, though. Carcharoth 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * inactive? BencherliteTalk 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Fair point; perhaps I should have said historical - I ran over the burning coals a few weeks ago, not that anyone noticed at the time... BencherliteTalk 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Burning coals! You were pretty darn lucky. For you it was more like walking over a shag carpet. :)  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When? August.  Diff.  This happens about three times a year, in March, August, and December.   Keegan talk 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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   Keegan talk 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I nominated someone who is very helpful and very good. He declined. Darn! He would have had the RFA board all to himself! Archtransit 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quickly Deskana! Desysop yourself and go for adminship. Should be helpful for your arbitration campaigning... :p --<font face="Harlow Solid Italic" color="black">DarkFalls talk 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I created a nom for my admin coachee. Still hasn't responded yet, but I hope they'll get some attention.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about using historical temporarily. Thoughts? <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno, it just didn't look right. — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed – now's the time for spontaneous RFA reform! Grace notes T § 03:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a proposal-palooza! Let mayhem begin! <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! Can't I run? -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * What do you mean, run – as a bull, or as a victim? =] Grace notes T § 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

<--OK, but what happened to him? -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha. The WP:BN/R is still stuck on thedemonhog all by herself. Speaking of which, the big hopes for November never materalized. I remember someone speculating that we'd get 70 admins at the rate during the huge green week (about two weeks ago). That was the only reason why I decided to run. And now I'm the 56th and last promotoin for November 2007. hbdragon88 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a good candidate too, but he declined. Can someone convince him? -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he'd rather stick pins in his eyes, as I would. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the attack sites anyway? -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they are considered banned sites and we cannot post links to them on-wiki. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CURSE YOU, USEIGHT! :) And, BTW, What in the name of Jimbo was Willy on Wheels? <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you can route them onto an open proxy, which aren't. But they should. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I make "...on Wheels!" jokes in everyday conversation, and no one ever gets it. At least I amuse myself, I suppose.   Keegan talk 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And just a few weeks ago there were over 20 RFAs at once. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * We should be looking for quality not quantity. Giano 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason we cannot look for both. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * By the way, is there a way I can withdraw a nomination, of course, with WP:SNOW. -<font color="#006400">Go od  sh oped 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, I know. I ruined the empty page. But if I didn't do it, someone else would have. Useight 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Return of administrative tools
I resigned my sysop tools on 11th November this year, for reasons which are explained in full detail on my userpage. The principal reason was that, during my first term at university, I simply did not have the time or mental energy to remain regularly active on Wikipedia (as evidenced by my sparse contributions over the last couple of months). I was also dissatisfied with many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure.

However, I have now returned from university and will be at home for the next six weeks (we have long holidays at Oxford) so I feel I now have the time to return to contributing as an administrator. I will be honest: since I still have a fairly busy real life, I will not be the most active administrator. But when I have the time and energy, I think my help in clearing backlogs (particularly CSDs and AfDs) might be useful. As regards my other reason for resigning, I am still unhappy with the undemocratic aspects of Wikipedia's governance, but whether or not I am serving as an administrator has little effect on that. I still believe in the project, and believe I can help it as an administrator.

As I believe in democracy and accountability, I promised that I would not return to adminship without an RfA. However, I know that many people dislike token "reconfirmation" RfAs and see them as a waste of time. I will therefore leave this post here for the next few days, and if no one objects to me regaining my admin tools, I will request that I be re-sysopped by a bureaucrat. If anyone has any objection whatsoever to me regaining the tools, then I will go through an RfA and let the community decide. WaltonOne 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BN. Don't waste time with it. Same as (the highly respected) Majorly should have done. If you run for RfA I'll personally neutral. If you just ask for it back I'll be delighted. You're a respected editor and admin. Just get the +sysop bit back in an easy way and save us all a wasted exercise. 1+ support = 1 less piece of rubbish at CSD we could be dealing with instead. WP:DEAL refers. Pedro :  Chat  16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Walton, you have been a great admin. Just ask for the tools back. Trust me, I'm a doctor. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think you should ask for your tools back. We may not have always seen eye-to-eye, but you were a fine admin. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh get back to it already. Great to see you back again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The desire to get community feedback before resysopping seems to be a common trend (Croat Canuck, Jaranda, Gurch, Majorly - just in 2007). If someone wants feedback before resysopping, I suggest that they ask on this page that if anyone has a problem or concern about their getting their tools back to post about it on their talk page. After a few days, they will know if there is any serious issue, and if none, they should go ahead and request the tools back at WP:BN. This is very close to what you have done Walton, and I commend you for following this non-dramatic manner of feedback, instead of rushing to start an RfA. Cheers, NoSeptember  17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with all that's been said. I do not think an RfA is needed or desired, whatsoever. So let's get this show back on the road!  нмŵוτн τ  17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)Admins are accountable, you don't need to re-run for RfA to get that accountability. Running for RfA at this point is not recommended if you can just ask for your bit back. 1 != 2  17:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with Walton, and support the return of these tools with due process. However, I don't think that we can set precedents for admins coming and going, especially if part of the reason for resigning was in protest to something like "aspects of Wikipedia's power structure."   I think that we should establish a firm-rule that resigning puts a person on the same level (at best) as other new applicants for any position.  --Kevin Murray 17:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would we do that? We already have a rule that you can come back just by asking if you left in uncontroversial circumstances, I see no point in re-testing with a second RfA, much less making a firm rule about it. 1 != 2  17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaving in protest is an action of controversy and actions have ramifications and consequences. --Kevin Murray 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been open about my reasons for resigning, and you're quite correct that my secondary reason (not main reason) for resigning was dissatisfaction with the power structure, as noted on my userpage. Nonetheless, I resigned in uncontroversial circumstances (since no one had alleged any misuse of the tools on my part), so under current rules I would be able to ask for the tools back without any further process. If you believe that I should go through an RfA, then I will do so (as promised), but so far it seems that there is a general consensus that it isn't needed. WaltonOne 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no general consensus here, just a few opinions and reflection of the current weak standards. The honorable thing to do is to do as you promised and set a good example.  I won't force the issue, please make the choice which best reflects your priorities in life. --Kevin Murray 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Controversial circumstances" is a terrible term, which I pointed out to ArbCom when this first use of this term came up. Fortunately so far ArbCom is clearly stating when they believe controversial circumstances have occured.  Walton  has done nothing close to actually faling into a controversial circumstance. Once the community has given you the tools, you should not bother/disrupt the community again (with another RfA) unless ArbCom mandates it. We have enough unnecessary drama as it is.   NoSeptember  17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors who have particular comments about your wish to resume work as an admin can make them on your talk page. Wait for a few days and, if there are  significant adverse comments, come back and start a formal RFA.  If there are none, just get a bureaucrat to flip the bit back on. Either way, welcome back to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've grown very disappointed on how the community views reconfirmation RfAs, so I'd say you should just ask for the tools back. Wizardman  17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I too would endorse the re-granting of Walton's functions. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly support you getting your tools back, Walton One; you're an excellent user, and made great use of the administrator tools. I have no objections whatsoever for you to regain the tools without another RfA. Acalamari 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with reconfirmation RfAs and, honestly, find in ridiculous that editors (admins in particular) would withhold support for someone whose request they support to get the tools back just to make a point. However, because this has proven to be a shameful trend in reconf. RfAs, I support you asking for your tools back, even though I believe going through RfA should be the preferred method.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with LaraLove. In principle, I think reconfirmation RFAs are a fine idea; however, the way the community has handled them recently is problematic. JavaTenor 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just ask the tools back at WP:BN. No need for a pointless RFA. Garion96 (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just realised that this whole section looks a lot like an RFA. People (including me) even use bulletpoints. Maybe we should change the "*" with "#", add support in bold and we're finished. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support the use of RfA style discussion (and for that matter, Weak Oppose recon RfA. You don't need it) :P <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just ask for the tools back. For one thing, you're still an established and trusted member of the community. Second thing, it would save you and the community a whole season of wikidrama that plays out every time a reconfirmation comes along. I know that the ideal of re-establishing trust is laudable, but given the current climate and attitude towards reconfirmation RfAs and the multitude of supports here, it's best to save yourself and the community by just asking a passing b'crat. Welcome back to Wikipedia, and good luck with the tools!— Kurykh  20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) SCNR 2 Support Agathoclea 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, thought the user was an admin.  Grace notes T § 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to have reconfirmation RFAs. Ask for the tools back.  -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally like this method being employed and have no trust issues with this user. I fully support you asking for the tools back, Walton. SorryGuy 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we need a reconfirmation RfA with Walton. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I nearly always support reconfirmation RfAs unless the candidate has done something that I think is worthy of desysopping (in which case I oppose) or I don't notice them (in which case no vote, obviously). --ais523 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need a reconfirmation RfA with Walton. Majoreditor 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't RfAs just be like this? :) <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Moralis, closing comment. Grace notes T § 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Situational assessment
This thread appears to have turned into a sort of pseudo-RfA, which I suppose was inevitable. :-) Anyway, from the above, it appears that no one's raised any objections to me regaining my admin tools. One user (Kevin Murray) would prefer that I go through an RfA, but indicates that he will not personally oppose me. As such, I feel I now have a sufficient mandate to request my tools back from a bureaucrat. I'll leave this thread up for another day or so to give people time to voice any objections, but if there are none, I'll make a request at BN and provide a link to this thread.

In the interests of democracy and accountability, I will of course add myself to CAT:AOR. WaltonOne 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As per this message, I now feel that I should undergo a reconfirmation RfA. I apologise to the many people who think that such RfAs are a waste of time/bad idea, but I did promise that if anyone had any objections to my regaining adminship, I would undergo an RfA. WaltonOne 11:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Democracy and community has full confidence in me are not the same thing. Isn't a clear preponderance of support as expressed on this page enough? NoSeptember  11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's enough for me, but Jeanenawhitney clearly feels that I should undergo a reconfirmation, and I promised that I would do so if anyone had any objections to my automatically regaining adminship. I'm sorry for over-complicating this issue, but I do feel I should stand by my word. WaltonOne 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the point that Jeanenawhitney raised; I think it's important that people should try to stick to their word. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: When you made that statement, was the trend of trustworthy former admins having unsuccessful reconfirmation RfAs because of editors making their points?  Lara  ❤  Love  13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And further, does changing your mind make you untrustworthy? I don't think so. Pedro : Chat  14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about not honouring one's word? I think so. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Consciously going against one's word as a rational, fully disclosed, and community-supported action at least brings it into gray area. Grace notes T § 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But why not keep it in the white area? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to start an RFA reform discussion, but if RFA worked like the above section, we just might have less problems with it. Well, community opinion to resysop without going through the actual process currently constitutes a supermajority, and probably consensus. But, the word (if not spirit) of Walton's promise is creating an RfA page, having Wikipedians express opinions for seven days, etc. Eh. I would have no issues with him asking for adminship through the noticeboard. Grace notes T § 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To make it clear Walton, while you said "does not oppose above", I clearly support your reinstatement, but with the proper process through RfA. --Kevin Murray 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I love the new pseudo-RfA. If you will feel guilty about getting the tools back by asking, maybe you should go for RfA. Maybe we could make it a shorter period of time though, like 4 or 5 days. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  TalkContribs 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can just trust the closing 'crat to disregard oppose votes that violate WP:POINT. Or just propose that anyone that is opposed to reconfirmation RfAs but not the candidate just refrain from voting altogether, considering the vote is whether or not Walton One should regain the tools, not how necessary reconfirmation RfAs are.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want anyone's votes to be disregarded. To be honest, though, I never wanted this to turn into a big complicated issue or a discussion about RfA reform (we've had enough of those). It might be best, therefore, if I stay as a non-admin for the time being. WaltonOne 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be sorry to see that. You have my vote, encouragement and full support. --Kevin Murray 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just ask for the tools back, Walton. You've got good work to do. It's not your fault some pointy people started more ridiculous drama to waste more time after you said you'd go through RfA if you decided to get your tools back. Circumstances have changed. It's not worth sacrificing your restored adminship (for yourself or Wikipedia) over a promise made before this inappropriate mess started.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lara, whilst I agree with you, have you recently read WP:POINT? You keep on referencing it, but there is no disruption here. Making a point (no blue link) is totally different to the spirit of WP:POINT. Pedro : Chat  20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When a person makes a promise I would expect that promise to be kept. It is not pointy to recognise that fact, and nor is the suggestion that because the RfA process is in some way broken with respect to re-appointing admins who have relinquished the tools a reason to ignore it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, having been – I feel – accused of being disruptive re WP:POINT, I would like to make it very clear that I would certainly support Walton's RfA. I simply feel that what was promised ought to be delivered. Else what are promises worth? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I apologise if needed, but I don't think I've accused you of any such thing. Pedro : Chat  21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No apology required, I didn't think that you had. My comment wasn't addressed to you. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to you, Malleus Fatuorum. I apologize if I gave that impression. I refer to those who oppose reconfirmation RfAs despite their actual support for the candidate simply to make a point. The point I refer to being "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper". Because in every reconfirmation RfA I've seen as of late, there's the opposes that state that the candidate is only looking for a pat on that back. That they want to make themselves feel better. That assumes bad faith. If an admin gives up their bit and later decides they want it back, it should be there choice in whether or not they want to go back through RfA, regardless of whether they went out controversially or not. Personally, I think it looks better to go back through the community than to just request them back. While not necessarily always necessary, I don't agree that it's an undue burden on the system. If you don't approve of reconfirmation RfAs (this is directed to anyone, no one in particular), then don't participate. Skip and move on to the next candidate on the list, because not only do some of us not mind participating in such discussions, some of us prefer former admins use that process to get their bit back.
 * To sum it up: To oppose a candidate that you support because you don't like the process is pointy, in my opinion. It's disrespectful to the candidate, the community and the project.  Lara  ❤  Love  21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The RfA process may well be broken with respect to returning admins, but that's not a reason to avoid it when a promise was made. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does everything has to turn out so unnecesary complex and difficult here. If this was asked at WP:BN it would have been so simple. Now we have this long discussion and a new RFA to look forward to. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * former admin  :I resigned my sysop bit under uncontroversial circumstances, but I would like it back now.
 * Bureacrat     :Sure, here you go.
 * Personally, I'm not a big fan of Admins who lose their sysop bits going to Crats to ask for it back but in your case, you didn't, you asked for it on this talk page and that shows character, and what Majorly did is something all admins should do in the future since admins are elected on trust and commitment to the Project and leaving and then returning to the project is just too silly an attitude to have..-- Cometstyles 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Comestyles, but that's too generic. Say someone left for three months but intended to return. Asking for the account to be de-sysopped is a sensible security precaution. On return it should just get re-sysopped, no big deal. Pedro : Chat  21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "controversial". Have all of these "many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure" that Walton appeared to be so upset about all been fixed now? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My definition of controversial would be more something like having Arbcom be in the final stage of desysopping you, but you decided to resign your sysop bit right before that. (slight exaggeration of course). Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Walton resigned, at least in part, over "many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure". Have those issues been addressed? What's changed? Those are the kind of questions that can really only be explored by going through the RfA process as promised surely? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I completely agree with you. I just think it would be terribly unfortunate if his RfA were to fail because of "Oppose I really think you deserve to get the tools back, 'cause you were a great admin and would be again, but I think reconfirmation RfAs are a pointless drain on community resources and are prima face evidence of wanting a pat on the back." That sort of thing.  Lara  ❤  Love  02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd agree with most of that, but I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the closing bureaucrat to have enough common sense to consider those !votes in context. But I'm afraid that I really don't see the logic of the argument that proposes not to undertake an RfA as promised in case it fails. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
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)
 * Don't worry about it. This kind of situation would needed to have been debated eventually. Epbr123 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)