Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 151

Bot Approvals Group candidacy
I have been nominated for BAG, so per instructions I am posting this to invite comments at Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Anomie. I will not watch here for replies; please reply on the nomination page. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A different proposal: no self-noms
I was just reading through the discussion above, and it's clear that many people are frustrated by the high frequency of RFAs for users who are manifestly not ready for adminship, and are closed as WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW very quickly. The solution proposed above is an editcount restriction, but I don't think this would work; as well as the occasional false negative (users who are highly suited for adminship, but barred from it by having an unusually low number of edits), there would still be plenty of false positives (users who are clearly unsuited to adminship, but have plenty of edits). Such a solution wouldn't solve the problem, and would introduce problems of its own (like encouraging WP:Editcountitis); but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

I propose a simpler and more radical solution: ban self-noms.

This has probably been proposed and rejected at least a few times before, but I think it deserves renewed consideration. A quick look through recent RFAs produced the following statistics:


 * Out of the last 20 RFAs that were closed early as SNOW/NOTNOW: 20 were self-noms. 0 were nominations by another user.
 * Out of the last 20 successful RFAs: 20 were nominations by another user. 0 were self-noms.

That suggests to me that this move would, at a stroke, stop almost all of the hopeless nominations, while having very few false negatives. There have been a few successful self-noms recently - Spencer and Gladys j cortez in October - but they're very much the exception.

I would argue the following:
 * Being nominated by another user has become almost a de facto standard for adminship. While it's not official, the vast majority of our successful RFAs are non-self-noms.
 * Any user who is capable of successfully passing RFA should be capable of finding someone else to nominate them. If someone is unable to find anyone who agrees that they would make a good admin, then their RFA would certainly fail and shouldn't be attempted.
 * This is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of self-noms do, indeed, fail.

While this may be a perennial proposal, it seems to me it is one with far more advantages than disadvantages; and if we want to stop the endless tide of SNOWs and NOTNOWs, without introducing an arbitrary edit-count limit, it's high time we adopted it. Terraxos (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If they can't find someone else to nominate them, there's always the sockpuppet option, or convincing a newbie it's a good idea to nom them, or offering to nom someone if in turn, they nom you. It's good in theory, but it's not without issues. Somno (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, a solution for the severe physical and emotional fatigue that stems from the arduous process of typing  once every week or so! Badger Drink (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Flawed conclusions. Of course SNOW closures are going to be self-noms; nobody in their right mind would nominate an editor with 200 edits, and they're just misguided newbies (AGFing, of course; sometimes, they can be idiots). Doesn't mean we need to outright ban self-noms. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that the two mentioned above recently passed shows that there's still a need for self-noms, and that they're not all destined to fail. Somno (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I would be lying if I hadn't contemplated the thought, or wondered if Kurt was onto something with his opposes. But the reality is that while 95% of self noms may be NOTNOW/SPEEDY, the other 5% might be diamonds in the rough.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All due respect to Terraxos, I can't possibly endorse this suggestion. While it would certainly bring down the failed RfA tally significantly, it would also prevent quiet contributors with need for the tools from ever being able to gain them. We should be taking measures to free the WikiGnomes, not further imprison them.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as we judge candidates on their contributions and not on their nominators, ideally, all nominations should be self-noms (second party noms can be useful in getting timid candidates to RFA however), so I strongly oppose this idea. Icewedge (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unlike candidates with less than 2000 edits some self noms do succeed, and some of those that fail at least get seriously considered. A ban on self noms would inevitably be seen by some as an endorsement for admin coaching, and anyway as Self noms are the norm for crat and arbcomm elections, why the prejudice against them at RFA?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers ' 08:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollbackers self-nom as well; that would make sysop possibly the lone userright that an editor can't self-nominate for. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If candidates don't have the confidence to self nom what makes you think they are going to have the confidence to carry on when faceing an interesting mix of vague legal noise and deaththreats?Geni 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-nom has been around since RfA was created; This is a fundamental change on the process that is not be taken lightly. And 20 RfAs is way too small a sample size to back up the argument. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Absolutely not. Glass  Cobra  19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Closing a hopeless SNOW or NOTNOW causes frustration? Click, discard, forget. It's not content deletion or user blocks, and it is, in fact, quite infrequent. The scope of a "problem" is too small to warrant any action. NVO (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This year will be the worst for admin appointments since 2003. The figures are massively down from the past 3 years. Something like this is flying in the face of these facts. We should be willing more people to run no matter what.  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose- no thanks. I recall quite a few successful self-noms before the last 20. Reyk  YO!  07:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A far more different proposal
I not only disagree with the above proposal, I'll see you and raise you. I favor abolishing all 2nd party nominations, and requiring self-noms. Why? In response to the inevitable response, “But we’ll be deluged by newbies who don’t understand anything, I say that a minimum edit number is not a bad idea. I mean, it does not have to be a high minimum. The American age limit of 35 for being elected president has kept very, very few people from running any earlier than they would have, and if such a minimum was lacking, and some 19-year old ran for president, he’d be effectively SNOWED too, as there would be a consensus that he or she lacked the necessary experience. I’d be okay with a minimum minimum of 1000, but I can also see the argument for a minimum of 2000, especially in light of the widespread use of editing tools today. I think that by the time an editor has achieved 2000 edits, he is more likely to have learned the key components that cause so many to SNOW. Un sch  ool  19:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Elimination of self-noms will inevitably give ammunition to those who would charge that Wikipedia is run by an exclusive oligarchy (I'm not saying I believe this—I don't—but many others will).
 * Requiring self-noms places all users on equal footing. Believe it or not, it is possible to be a significant contributor to this encyclopedia without catching the eye of a would-be nominator.  But as long as nominations by a veteran editor are the gold standard, some potential self-noms are going to be intimidated and not step-forward.  If only self-noms are allowed, then worthy editors will more likely step up sooner, because they will not wait months or years for the prod that may never come.
 * Requiring self-noms does NOT diminish the weight of experienced editors who want to support a candidates nomination. First of all, if a potential nominator sees a potential nominee, he can broach the subject on that potential admin's talk page and encourage the editor to nominate himself.  Then, once the new candidate is listed, the supportive veteran can weigh in immediately with his support vote.  And as there is no limit (of which I am aware) to the comments which one can place with their votes, the veteran can include whatever stuff might otherwise have been in a nominating post.  Those editors whose votes at RfA often rely on the endorsement of veteran editors (whom they trust) will therefore still have that support on which to lean.
 * Even better: Instead of turning RfA upside down and screwing up the wiki-continuum by outlawing one or the other, why not just require people who have less than 1,500 edits to be nominated by someone else?-- Koji †  21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a smart idea. "If you have fewer than 1500 edits across Wikipedia, you should know that your RFA is almost guaranteed not to succeed, as no user with fewer than n edits has succeeded in the last two years. If you still want to go ahead with RFA--good for you, we always need people who want to help!--please ask one of these people to help you evaluate whether you should try at this time, and ask them to nominate you." // roux    21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's a terrible idea. The reason no user with fewer than n edits has succeeded in the last two years, for most values of n, is because people who can't be bothered to look at a user's actual contributions have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now you want to put up a barrier to applying for candidates who have fewer than this meaningless emergent number n, and that means that by definition the value of n can only ever increase. Defeating editcountitis will be hard already, so I'd prefer if you didn't make it impossible with a rule.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with User:KojiDude's proposal in of itself, but it does nothing to address the problem that I am writing about. I believe that many worthy editors are likely deterred from self-nom because they believe—not without justification—that there is a higher value placed on candidates nominated by trusted editors than on self-nominated editors. Eliminating nominations other than self will increase the willingness of these editors to step forward. I see this proposal as having a significant upside and I don't see the downside. Could somebody explain it to me? Unless someone is a proponent of maintaining control within a more-or-less exclusive group, why would you be opposed to this proposal? (And I'm sure there are legitimate reasons; I just don't see them.) Un  sch  ool  22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And on a flip side, I think the best candidates are often the one's reluctant to do so. I would not have run if it wasn't A) for my wife pushing me and B) getting somebody to nom me.  A lot of people want others to approach them about running.  "Hey, I've been watching you for a while, I think you'd make a fine admin."  While I have no problem with self promotion, sometimes *I* am reuctant to throw myself on the chopping block.  I think others are the same way, they would never run if somebody else didn't push/pull/drag them.  And these are often among the best potential admins.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is your wife also a wikipedian? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and admin long before me... she was tired of doing my dirty admin work for me. But she has since retired.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Balloonman, now that's a legitimate objection to the proposal (first I've ever come across). But I counter with this:  In order to proceed with an RfA, the editor needs to accept the nomination, does he not?  Well, you can still encourage him and prod him on his talk page.  The result is, I think, going to be the same:  Whether he does it on the RfA page or his User talk page, he's going to have to accept or reject your suggestion.  If he's really reluctant, perhaps it's better for all parties if that is made known before it goes to RfA.  What do you think?  Un  sch  ool  18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's like being a public speaker. When you are invited before a group to speak, you don't stand up in front of the group and tell them how smart and wise you are.  You don't tell them that you are the best thing since sliced bread.  That is the role of the host.  Some people have zero problem with answering questions, but there are cultural and upbringing issues wherein some people don't like to brag about themselves.  These people would NEVER feel comfortable writing an intro about themself---and lets face it, most of the intros on self-noms are god awful for that very reason.  Either the self nom looks like a braggart or an idiot.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks for making it. I'll now readily concede that both types of noms are needed.  (Thanks for not ignoring the point, or treating it like it was a totally stupid idea.)   Un  sch  ool  18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm opposed to this, as I think it would encourage those with a "levelling up" mentality and the drama-mongering Defenders Of The Wiki eager for a new weapon – of which we don't need more of either! – while discouraging the "normal" users. Taking myself, as the example I know best, there is no earthly way I would ever have considered self-nominating (and when Walton did nominate me, I was fairly certain it would fail), and I'd imagine that's a pattern repeated across most areas. To be honest, although it's an unfashionable view I honestly think the current system works quite well, and even the main drawback (the sometimes hellish atmosphere) is a net positive in filtering out people likely to snap at abuse before they're placed an a position where their talkpage is replaced with COCKSUCKING FAGGOT BITCH three times a day. –  iride scent  18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't ignore it Unschool... it was an intriguing idea... one that does have some merit. But I know *I* would have never run if I had to come before a group of strangers and brag about myself.  (Now among people I know, I have no problem bragging ;-) )--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why self-noms are ok, but noms by others are ok, too
Basically, it goes like this: the nomination statement is the start of the discussion. Like the saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Having a well-written nomination is important. I couldn't have written the nomination statement that Balloonman did for me, because I have trouble promoting myself. My nomination came close enough to failing as it was. If I'd nominated myself, I would certainly have failed. Now, even if you think I shouldn't have been promoted (which is ok, I have total respect for the editors who opposed me), I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that there are editors out there who are as qualified or more qualified than I am, yet would not write good self-noms. On the other side of the coin, there have been editors out there whose self-nominations were written just fine. So, both options should be available. Imposing a restriction either way seems pointless to me.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. I don't understand why editors don't seem to see the status quo as being acceptable. Trying to have hard limitations because of the failing/SNOWed RfAs is not only instructions creep, it also shows a form of impatience amongst the RfA crowd when they should be explaining to the failed candidates on how they should improve themselves. Just a few months before, someone actually said that all self-noms are power hungry. And now this. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I hate Speedy Deleters
I would love input/comments on my latest essay Why I hate Speedy Deleters.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The fault for a wrongly deleted article lies not with the person placing the tag, but with the person deleting it. It is designed to be a two person system, at a minimum, and the greater burden is placed on the person actually removing the article. By definition, that person is never the RfA candidate. Why the "tagger" is the only one that comes in for public shaming when that person never actually deleted anything has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Avruch  T 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one of my criticisms, there is no oversight. I just added (before reading this section) why it is important to get it right BEFORE running... basically, IMO, it boils down to, you need to show me ahead of time that you can get it right before I am going to give you (the CSD'er) the power to delete.
 * (ec) That's a fine essay, and nice to hear it from a cabalist ;) The sentiments expressed go a long way towards explaining why experience in content creation—which at first glance is unrelated to block/delete/protect—is so important in RfA candidates. It might be an idea to add a section with suggestions for well-meaning patrollers; the essay comes off quite strong in places, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to drive off or discourage potentially great admins any more than you want patrollers to drive off the next great FACist. Skomorokh  06:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point... let me double check that i mentioned that in the essay--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A year ago I used to work in these areas like a garbage man where few found it pleasant to work, and I thought I would like to share some bit of history and context here. The current CSD criteria is considered a relatively liberal expansion of criteria (notably, A7) for the reason when the then AfD began to crumble under the sheer amount of nominations and the number has got to become drastically reduced. From experience, I did notice that interpretation of the criteria gets stretched when the backlog of CSDs needing deletion start to pile up, while in the old days before the expanded CSD admins tend to follow the CSD is a rather policy-wonking matter (which I used to, and it's not particularly appreciated in this era). Of course, the correct way to deal with articles that fall rather short of CSD is just to send it down to Prod/AfD.
 * Trying to explain things to the article creators varies from editor to editor, though I would like to point out that about half of newly created articles get deleted daily with literately hundreds of A7s. It takes patrollers some bit of experience to tell which articles look salvageable or not, and even so if they have the patience to actually improve for it. With the tightening (and calling for, see AC2008) of BLP policy, I also have the feeling that patrollers these days are rather less inclined to try and salvage marginally-notable ones. We have to consider the possibility that the deletion system (CSD, AfD) is under pressure from less editors helping out, those in there are feeling the heat and we certainly don't want to put much more in them. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagging an article for AFD isn't much more work than CSD... IMpersonalO, I wish there were two levels of CSD. The first level being for the articles that needed to be deleted now without question---attack pages, BLP issues, and copyvios.  Everything else, I would love to see an hour lag.  Once tagged, give the originating author a chance to salvage.  If they can't do so in an hour, then delete it.  It's crazy when an article can be created at 12:01, and by 12:02 it has been tagged and deleted!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel it is the deleting admin's responsibility to ensure that the article wasn't created only two minutes before he deletes it. An hour lag time would probably make CAT:CSD into a sizeable backlog, but some time does need to go by. Useight (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * we're getting way off track here, but in my utopian world, the second category wouldn't pop up on the admin's screen until the hour passed. This wouldn't create a back log, it would just delay the non-critical CSD's from showing up for an hour.  But that would be a whole new can of worms for the programmers.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. CSD is currently taken as "delete-on-sight". We have prod there for these not-so-obvious CSDs. We can try to modify the system to have second-level articles to one hour lag, but I suspect this will need an overhaul of the current CSD system. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the problem right now, it that it almost has to be a delete on sight issue... if an article is tagged, the admins have to respond immediately. If Admin1, says "oh wait, it's only 1 minute old." Then Admin2 says, "oh wait it is only 2 minutes old." Then admin3 says, "Oh wait, it is only 3 minutes old."  Before long you have lost a ton of productivity.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with a lot of CSD'ers is that they aren't doing it with Wikipedia's fundamental values in mind. They don't see it as cleaning up/doing maintenance - they see it as experience points that add to their resume that they will inevitably bring to RfA. They are under the very mistaken impression that editors will support them resoundingly because of how many CSD's they placed, and not the quality of their work or the caution used in calling it right. They seem to think that adminship is a position of respect and honour and the next level of WikiLife - they see it as a badge of a great editor of Wikipedia, and not as a sign of a trusted and experienced contributor who does a bit of maintenance work here and there. One time I removed a vandalism-speedy tag from an article that probably shouldn't even be deleted, even via AfD. It's this kind of careless CSD tagging that could potentially scare off newcomers who tried to do something productive for the project.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are also overlooking a point that will raise hackles with some people: we have some admins who just love to delete anything and everything, even if it doesn't deserve to get killed, and some of them haunt the CSD corridors. I am not naming names, of course, but I know of at least one admin whose Talk Page (when I last checked it) was nearly one-third full of complaints of reckless CSD deletions. I've stumbled over situations where these admins deleted articles that had proper references and clearly cited the notability of the subject -- and then the admins got pissy and defensive when the articles' authors tried to plead for their return. That has occurred too often to be aberrations, too.  In those cases I discovered, I went out of my way to get them back online -- and the deleting admins weren't exactly ecstatic, trust me on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to echo Mailer Diablo's comment "I also have the feeling that patrollers these days are rather less inclined to try and salvage marginally-notable ones." You hit it on the head, and it circles back to the RfA argument on the value of content creation/enhancement as a key consideration for any future admin. The old-time U.S. congressman Sam Rayburn once said "Any jackass can kick down a barnyard door, but it takes a carpenter to build one." CSD needs carpenters -- and, for that matter so does Wikipedia as a whole. Of course, if I were a carpenter and you were a lady, would you marry me anyway -- would you have my baby? Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are some administrators who themselves are too willing to speedily delete an article - we don't want any more of those. RfA is the time to catch a careless CSD tagger before they can do that sort of damage.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

my essay
Several people have edited my latest essay, they all add the note, "I hope you don't mind." This is wikipedia, if I minded, I wouldn't have posted it here... nor would I have asked for input from others. I APPRECIATE the copy editing others do. So, if you've made improvement to "Why I hate speedy deleters" or any of my other essays, then I thank you for helping me out.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was all ready to really get stuck into you for this post, until I read the essay, and surprisingly agreed with much of it. There are too many editors (even admins!) who don't understand G1 and A7 in particular.  I often feel like I'm rejecting more improperly tagged CSD articles than I am accepting whenever I am cleaning out Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion.  Maybe I just interpret the A7 criteria more strictly than most.  The question I ask myself when on NPP or similar is "is there any doubt that this is speedyable?".  If there is, then I prod or AfD instead (which has led to plenty of early AfD closures due to the article being speedied anyway, but better safe than sorry).


 * So, in conclusion, a fine essay! Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC).
 * It is odd; I can understand speedy deleters getting it wrong, but admins? You would've thought the RfA process would have caught any bad taggers.Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone tagged hundreds of articles, it's hard to find those they mistagged. But they exist. I notice it sometimes that admins just delete with whatever tag that the article had instead of selecting the correct one. And you have to remember that we got plenty of active admins who were made admins in 2004/2005 when the SD page looked a bit different and not every admin bothers being up to date with them.  So Why  11:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is major, not a bit. I still remember the days of , NN bio. - ~  and having to leave it for a week. Today, it would have been binned right away without question. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? How many people actually review the CSD history of RfA candidates?  How many can?  Only admins can review the CSD work of an RfA candidate, and if they don't then a non-admin may assume everything is alright.  Looking at a candidates CSD work is a time consuming process.  (You have to open several pages to temporarily restore an article, and you can't look at the last version of the article, but the version that was tagged.  As for an article going to AFD before being speedily deleted, I don't mind that.  At AfD, there will be at least a few hours for the author (or others) to try to save the article.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true. Skomorokh  18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need/want/would sorta' like someone to look over a candidate like that, I'd be happy to help. lifebaka++ 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Users interested in this discussion might also want to read the same over at WT:CSD, where it's receiving largely positive response as well. Cheers.  lifebaka++ 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-admins can partially review CSD noms, but only if the nominator templates the creators talkpages. I take the view that if a candidate has notified dozens of editors that their articles have been nommed for deletion, and those articles are now redlinks then they are making the right call as to whether things should be deleted or not. If the reason for deletion was wrong and admins are deleting things under a different code then that's not ideal, but if they are sufficiently close calls that the deleting admin isn't bothering to inform the editor then so far I've not been greatly bothered. Perhaps I'm naive about this, and I wonder how many of my own CSD noms are correct, but IMHO we should not be waiting for RFAs to inform editors that their understanding of CSD is wrong, it should be part of the CSD process (ideally with some sort of script that automatically informs editors when one of their CSD noms has not been processed as per their suggestion).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indents on lists
Hi folks, I have no idea how to fix the problems with the identation on the "support" lists. One at least 2 RfA's there are indentations that have messed up the numbering on the lists. Can someone with better skills than I fix these? Bearian (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed one of them, came here before seeing the second. But the trick is that you need to have a number sign and colon to get indents without messing up the numbers.  EG:


 * 1) will be produced with a "#" at the start of the line
 * 2) will be produced with a "#" at the start of the next line
 * 3) will be produced with a "#" at the start of the next line
 * will be indented with no number with a "#:" at the start of the line, which allows for
 * 1) continued numbers without break when you put a "#" at the start of the line.  However, if you
 * forget to put a number sign, such as starting this line with a ":" instead, then

To see the edit behind the above click here, it might help clarify what I am talking about.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the numbering gets all messed up when you retun to the "#" at the start of the line.
 * 2) The way to fix it is to add a "#" at the start of the line before the numbers starts over.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to become an administrator.
I want to edit and help Wikipedia edit out fictional an inappropiate comments and articals, and also would like to help make sure that all guests of Wikipedia get good information. I already started deleting Rangersarecool day edit out. please, I want to become an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknesswolfs (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst we currently do not place official requirements before you apply for adminship, you would not currently pass an application as you have limited experience and a very small edit count. Your best bet is to read this and continue to edit as you are doing for a few months, then come back and apply. You should get yourself involved in some admin areas to show the community you can handle such tasks when you finally pass. Keep up the good work. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though please do keep in mind that it is not the size of your edit count, but how you use it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what she said. --Charitwo (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what she said was deleted a while ago. X clamation point  21:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite brutally, in fact. :-( Hiberniantears (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats what she said. xD UntilItSleeps PublicPC (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an administrator to do those things. With a few exceptions, all articles are open to editing by all registered editors, and almost all articles are open to editing even if you aren't registered.  If a non-administrator thinks an article should be deleted, the proposed deletion and articles for deletion processes are available.  In certain situations, such as articles created for the sole purpose of attacking other people or articles which were created with only copyright-violating content, the speedy deletion process is available.  All of the deletion processes are intended to have at least two editors involved:  One to request the deletion, and the other, typically an administrator, to say "yes, that's a good idea" or "no, it's not a good idea."  Non-administrators serve an important role in saying "no" to over-zealous speedy-deletion requests and proposed-deletion requests, and they serve an important role in forming a consensus in the discussion of articles that are up for "articles for deletion" discussions.  The only additional role administrators have for deletions is in saying "yes" to a speedy-deletion, making judgment calls on "close" articles for deletion discussions, and doing the routine custodial work after an uncontested proposed deletion or after a clear-cut articles for deletion discussion.
 * In other words: If all you want to do is make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, you don't need the tools.  Every minute you spend doing administrative work is a minute you don't spend doing editing work.  If you want to "give back" and take on a generally thankless task, and you have both the knowledge and the stomach for the job, then maybe you should step forward.  Remember, wikipedia administration "is a dirty job, but someone has to do it."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

draft essay for new Wikipedians asking to be administrators
Please comment on User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and add suitable pictures and make other changes if you think it would help. Thanks.

This is intended to suppliment WP:NOTNOW for new Wikipedians. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be is project space? :/  Garden . 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is a short essay wherein he is the principle editor, there are essays that belong in the project space and others in the user space. BOTH get tagged, but they are routed differently.  For example, "Why I hate Speedy Deleters" and My philosophy on admin coaching are in MY Talk space.  The essay on how to nominate somebody for RfA and how to pass an RfA are in the Wikispace area.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no, no, it's in article space now.  Garden . 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Balls, it was in article space when I wrote that comment.  Garden . 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion, I mis-titled the essay and for a few minutes it was in article space rather than user space. Slap me with a trout or something.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that this should stay in userspace over project space. I do agree with the essay's content, though. Good show, David. Glass  Cobra  12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to alter the RFA template to require candidates to read up BEFORE self-nominating
Above, under the heading, I proposed altering the RFA template to make it clear that the nominee should be thoroughly familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting their request. The four editors who responded were all positive, but considering the amount of traffic this page gets, I'd like a bit more input before I go ahead and change the template. I would propose altering the line where the candidate accepts the nomination to read something like: "I accept the nomination, and affirm that I have read the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship." I am, of course, open to other changes which would accomplish the same thing. The purpose of this is to hopefully deter a few more WP:NOTNOW candidacies.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support such a change. I think it's worded fine and, as previously stated, I like the idea of trying to deter WP:NOTNOW candidates. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The two are on different levels and shouldn't be linked in one statement. Only acceptance is required, the other is not a legal disclaimer and even in that case would be a separate question. I'd consider either a small acknowledgment note or a broader fourth default question where the candidate comments on the material and other preparation if we can me it without it appearing as in school. ("Did you study? Alone or with a coach?") And we shouldn't restrict it to self noms in any case.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The defining characteristic of NOTNOW candidacies is that they don't read up on what is involved in adminship and what it takes to become an admin ahead of time. I imagine that this includes not reading the details of the RfA template. I don't think much benefit will come from including more notices, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try. For some perspective, though - there have been "NOTNOW" style candidacies all along, and they aren't disruptive to the RfA process or the wider community. The reason we think about these is to limit the backlash the candidates get and to encourage them to keep contributing. Given that, perhaps we should be focused on how we respond to these noms rather than on how to prevent them. Avruch  T 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the wording as such, but Avruch is exactly right in regards WP:NOTNOW. The sole intention of the essay was to try and provide a more moderate and constructive link than WP:SNOW (snow itself simply being an extension of WP:IAR) when commenting on RFA's that are clearly premature. The only reason was to ease the (perceived/possible) bitiness of saying "your RFA hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell" to newbies). Perhaps NOTNOW could do with some links to the reading lists at the bottom, so I'll take a look. Pedro : Chat  16:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. The admin reading lists should be linked from NOTNOW if they're not already. Glass  Cobra  16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done a few - please add anything I've missed. Pedro : Chat  16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The same people that tend to have their RfAs closed per WP:NOTNOW are the same ones that tend to not read things, regardless of what we do. I've seen plenty of RfAs where the candidate pretty obviously didn't read Requests for adminship/nominate. Sorry, but I have very little faith in anything we do having any impact. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, starting an on-line encyclopedia which any fool can edit would prbably look like a pretty silly idea. In fact if I was to go back to say, 1999, and someone had suggested it, I'd have told them not to bother, as anything like that is likely to have very little impact. Pedro : Chat  19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Time for a category "Request for Adminship"
With all the essays, policies, guidelines, status reports, templates, etc. floating around, it's time to have a category "Request for Adminship." Your thoughts? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished there isn't one already. // roux    20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Other matters related to requests for adminship Pedro : Chat  20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [ec] You mean something like Category:Requests for adminship, which has existed since July 30, 2006? ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that one! Sorry, I thought Davidwr was specifically talking about the essays, reports etc which kind of belong in the "other matters" cat. whereas temaplates, headers etc belong in the main one. Pedro : Chat  20:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shot DOWN!!!-- Koji †  21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Finding nominators
Is there an easy way to find who are the most active nominators and the most successful nominators? I believe that it would help potential admin candidates in seeking out people who have good vetting experience/ enjoy the trust of the community/ evolved strong guidelines for nominating people for RfA. TIA. --Gurubrahma (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You could check individual recent RFA's at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). Very active nominators include User:Balloonman, User:Wizardman, User:Bibliomaniac15, User:Dweller and myself (apologies to the many other active nominators who I've missed. You might also want to check the archives of this talk page for numerous debates about what value the nominator does (or does not) bring to the party. Pedro : Chat  11:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do it with a good cup of coffee and a few hours of focused work. Not the most efficient way, but fun. Kingturtle (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, any volunteers? ;) Seriously, I feel that there is a strong need for a page having details of all the nominators, just the way we have pages on people contributing the most to FAs and DYKs. --Gurubrahma (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't have time like that until after the holidays. Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Durin had done something on this sorts some years back. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gurubrahma, You are more likely to find successful nominators by reading Successful requests for adminship, of course not all successful nominators are on the lookout for candidates, but user:Dweller has said he is. Alternatively if you have interacted with an existing admin you could ask them to nominate you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks but no thanks, am an admin, and intend to stay one if I can. I've successfully nominated two candidates for adminship but this was in 2006 and I've been pretty inactive after that. --Gurubrahma (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * there is also the question of how are you defining a successful nominator? Are you looking for the person with the most raw number of successful noms, or are you looking for the person with the highest percentage of successful noms?  If the later, how would you compare the person who is 3-0 to the person who is 15-2?  I'm also not sure if I like the idea of recognizing people for their success at noming people?  To me that would add to the notion that adminship is controlled by a select few.  I want my secret cabals to remain a secret --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to be serious and whitter on about the skill of the nominator in highlighting aspects of their candidate that might otherwise be overlooked, and a successful nominator being one who nominates unlikely but successful candidates. But as I'm increasingly warming to the idea that anyone who isn't a self nom should be "Snowed per failure to wp:BeBold", I'll restrain myself and merely point out that for self noms it's easier  to differentiate between  successful and unsuccessful ones.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me the above is a joke. In most admins, "bold" is a synonym for "disruptive asshole". The best admins are the ones you hardly ever notice; todays "bold decision" is tomorrows RFC/U. –  iride scent  15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Iridescent, I'll concede tongue in cheek as I suspect that self nomming only would be one of my least popular suggestions for changing RFA. As for Bold v Disruptive as the policy says, in the words of Edmund Spenser, "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold". I consider Boldness as the positive diminutive of Reckless.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a likely future candidate, I'd be more interested in talking to 2 or 3 experienced nominators who have different philosophies, in the hopes they would give me a heads-up of the issues I am weak in before I go through the somewhat stressful (def.3) RFA process. If I have a blind spot and don't know that, say, jumping in on other people's talk pages in the middle of conversations is likely to derail a nomination, it would be nice to know that before I ask for a nominator.  Wikipedia needs an "RFA lite" screening tool, something akin to editor review but with an eye for behavior that is particularly important for would-be administrators rather than ordinary editing behavior. WP:Editor review is explicitly not for would-be admins, they are redirected to admin coaching.  If RFA is like a driver's test, admin coaching is like driver's-training school, but some of us just want a "pre-test" before we take the real test.  An experienced RFA nominator can give people like me a once-over and say "you look ready" or even "you look ready, if you want my nomination ask and I'll research you more then nominate you," "you might be ready but be prepared to address issues surrounding ... and ..." or "you've got major issues, including ... and ... and possibly more." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask people for a review. The list Pedro gave above of people who will nominate you will generally review you if you ask.  None of us will nominate somebody without doing some sort of preliminary review first.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break---Majorly's list

 * Stuff like "who's nominated a bunch of successful RfAs?" can be answered by some data-shifting over at User:Majorly/RfA/Stats. Use the "All" page, and sort by nominator; you can then either just browse the (massive) table or use your browser's Find feature to look up a particular nominator. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While there is good information there, it is incomplete. I've nomed 17 people in 2008, and that list only shows 6.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because it's incredibly out of date and incomplete from around September onwards. A lot of the time when there are co-nominations, I only put the first user down as the nominator - I don't believe co-nominations are important. However I'd appreciate it if someone could complete it, and maintain it. Adding in the other 11 people you nominated would be very helpful.  Majorly  talk  20:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noted that at least some of the others that I had nominated were on your list, just didn't have anybody in the nominator field yet. As far as you know, how accurate/reliable is it prior to 2008?  It might be another page worth moving to the wimispace and having more people trying to maintain/update it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is accurate prior to around Sep 2008 in that every successful RFA ever is documented there. The information is not complete though, but unlike late 2008, there is at least a record for every request.  Majorly  talk  22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, it looks good from what I saw.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My nominations aren't on Majorly's list; maybe that's because it has been reported that Majorly isn't fond of me :-)) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a two part reason: 1) the list isn't complete when it comes to nominators and 2) Majorly didn't include co-noms, which limits the effectiveness of the list. From what I recall, you've never nominated a candidate on your own---they have always been in the form of a co-nom.  Thus, I'm sure it isn't personal.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, of course it's not personal. It's just you often do co-nominations, and in the list I originally only included the first user listed, so it wouldn't take up so much space. Please feel free to add yourself. In fact, it should be moved into the Wikipedia: space, so that more people feel they are able to update/maintain it.  Majorly  talk  17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's out of date because not all of the 'crats add RfAs there as they close them to the list (either because they don't know about it or because they forget). I've got a point-by-point list that I always refer to, so I'm pretty well represented on the list. :) (well, as well represented as I can be with my fairly small RfA closes) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most 'crats didn't know about it or thought about adding to it. I know that I heard about it a while ago and didn't give it another thought.  The question becomes, is it a list the crats see as being worth keeping?  And are they willing to add it to their paperwork when passing successful RfA's?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait...Majorly had something that we need to fill out too? Damn. Tables can be a pain.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we call it a beaucracy and you guys crats ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I get some time, I'll update it. It's quite a bit to update each time for bcrats.  Majorly  talk  15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as we have a policy for administrators, checkusers, oversighters, rollbackers, and IP block exempts, why not write a WP:CRAT policy describing the process for closing RFAs, the approach used in renames, the supervisory role of bots?  MBisanz  talk 15:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have one here. It may not be marked as policy, but it's still used as such.  Majorly  talk  15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Is this where I request adminship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firio (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Majorly  talk  20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the project page is, not this talk page. --Tango (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, but before you apply, make sure you are familiar with the current "unofficial" expectations for Adminship. Right now, you would have no chance of passing as you have fewer than 100 edits and have only been here for about a month.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What has this editors chances of passing got to do with their question? They may be asking on behalf of someone else. Pedro : Chat  22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "I" suggests otherwise. Still, assume good faith and all.  Garden . 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I have requested adminship for several editors as a nominator. Pedro : Chat  22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then. I do feel the question will have been phrased different if that were the case, but that's neither here nor there - the question is answered, let's leave it at that.   Garden . 22:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to "adminship is no big deal"?... :o) - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement became "no big deal", I believe.  aye matthew  ✡ 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhere along the lines the "no" got lost as well.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perversely, "no" is all that may have been preserved... --Izno (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it became "Adminiship is a known big deal: ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, truth be told, any time your peers vote, er, make that !vote, 70+ percent to say you are a trustworthy guy, and they are known for not handing out such a distinction to just anyone that asks, it is a big deal, psychologically speaking. It's just human nature, we have an instinctive need for peer affirmation, and it's human nature to be hurt when you are actively rejected by your peers.  It's literally better psychologically to decline an RFA nom than to have it rejected.
 * Life might be easier and less big-dealish if there were some informal checklists that people could read, so they know if they have most of the items on the checklist and few or no items on a "blacklist" then they would be very likely to be approved. One of the goals of RFAs should be for nominators, especially self-nominators, to do this pre-screening and not nominate people who are reasonably likely to fail, and not nominate people who are somewhat likely to fail unless there's a demonstrated immediate benefit to the project to them having access to the tools now rather than waiting a few weeks or months for them to address the issues that might tank their candidacy.
 * This is where admin coaching comes in: An admin coach can tell if an editor is doing work that, if he had the tools, would benefit the project immediately, say, a person who spends 25% of his time on New Page Patrol and who rarely has a speedy-request declined, or an editor with many ANI requests, almost all of which are granted.  A coach can tell such a person what areas will likely stall his RFA and what can be done about them and can nominate or co-nominate and point out the benefits of granting this person the bit now rather than waiting.  If the person is not working extensively in an area where adminship is useful, the coach can work with the candidate to improve his editing, then watch the future candidate "go solo" for a few weeks to make sure the lessons "stuck" and that the future candidate isn't quote-editing for RFA-unquote, then nominate or co-nominate him.  I used "quote/unquote" because real editing for RFA is the same as good editing by people with no interest in becoming administrators, with the possible exception of deliberate editing across the project, especially in discussion pages.  People with no interest in adminship may almost exclusively edit in article space. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep (to all of that). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A new criteria for opposing
Bad idea... killed in record time--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, I just added a new criteria for opposing to my RfA Criteria page. Basically, it is this. I will oppose people who have had a name change in the previous 3 months. Why? Because name changes can be used as a means to hide from one's past/mistakes. I recently encountered a exchange wherein somebody whom I know is interested in an RfA pissed off a powerful member of the Wiki Community. That person will undoubtably oppose this person if he were to run for adminship. Shortly after pointing this out to the member, the member changed his name. I know about the name change, but the person who would have opposed doesn't, thus may not realize who the person is. Even if the old name is disclosed in the answer section of the RfA, people who aren't regulars here won't read that. Thus, anybody who has changed their name in the past 3 months, will get an oppose from me. Thought?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds prrretty ridiculous to me. What if the person changed it for privacy reasons? Or just fancied something different? Why are you assuming the worst of people who change their name? What happened to Assuming Good Faith? Your criteria are what helps make RFA as crappy as it is. Don't add another useless bit of criteria, it's just asking for trouble. 86.29.235.46 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) That is completely short sighted, and will deprive the encyclopaedia of competent administrators without justification. Skomorokh  15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * <ec>They're your criteria of course, but it seems a bluntly one-size-fits-all approach for a process that should be about assessing an individual on his or her merits. I'm not sure how much weight I'd give such a !vote - I'd need to see it in action - but my initial response is that it's a pretty weak reason, taken alone. Final thought - anyone trying to hide something at RfA is usually found out pretty dramatically... a username change would be a rather clumsy and ineffectual tactic. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a chill pill, Mr IP; it is a change to his personal criteria, not those of everyone. I feel it is a bit pointless to be honest; if you are aware of someone changing username it normally means you know their previous username, which means picking up on any mahusive mistakes=easy and the criteria is not needed.Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've had about enough of such stupidness on RFAs. Balloonman should know better than to think of something so ridiculous. MBisanz's point sums things up quite well I think. 86.29.235.46 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was renamed 29 days before I was sysopped. I was renamed from User:Mbisanz to User:MBisanz.  Would you have opposed per your new criteria?  MBisanz  talk 15:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Up to you, as it's your standards but I think you'd get balsted at RFA for it. I had two name changes before my request (although I think the last one was > 3 months than running). One was to do with privacy concerns, and one was to usurp Pedro from Pedro1999a 'cause it's simpler, easier and fitted my sig. Neither rename nor usurp seem to me to be a good reason to oppose RFA if you look at those type of contexts. Pedro : Chat  15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are always free to add any criterion you wish to your list, but this one looks like another hoop to jump through - with little benefit. The community is pretty good at ferreting out the bad-faith name changes and similarly, at recognizing those which are perfectly harmless and good-faith. Frank  |  talk  15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec x 6!) Surely it depends on what the name change is and why? I can think of at least two recent name-changes to shake off RL stalkers with no intent to "deceive", and there are plenty of obvious no-intent-to-hide name changes such as Shalom&rarr;Shalom Yechiel or my own Iridescenti&rarr;Iridescent (right before my RFA). (Giggy/DHMO has gone through at least three usernames I can think of, but it's obvious there was never any intent to deceive.) I think a hard and fast rule is too rigid. Anyway, if you have that much history with an editor, chances are you're watching their talkpage and will see both the rename and the RFA nomination. –  iride scent  15:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's enough feedback, which is what I was looking for... I'll rework is to indicate that I will take a very close look at the edits surrounding a rename.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wouldn't make this an official requirement, but it would be good to have a disclosure policy. I know I've had strong opinions on people and yet I completely missed voting them on RFA because I didn't track when their username changed. To me, changing a username is like operating a sockpuppet, in that I wish we were a lot more strict about both. -- Cyde Weys 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Had this gone through, I would've called it Mercury's Law. SashaNein (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dating of failed RFAs
First, a request: When removing failed RFAs please wikilink the failed RFA in the edit summary. Most of you do this already.

Second, I think User:NoSeptember/List_of_failed_RfAs_(Chronological) should be moved to Wikipedia space, alongside Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the second one should be brought up on the BN board, because it should also be included in the BN instructions for closing failed RfAs. I closed a number of RfA's as NOTNOW before I realized the chronological list was available.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)  I went ahead and moved the list to List of failed RfAs (Chronological) as I agree, it should be in wikispace, not user space.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't see why it needed to be moved; NoSeptember has lots of other RfA stat subpages, and I think leaving it in place was just fine. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, IMO, it has grown beyond a single user and become a larger part of the project. When it reaches that point, it should be in a common space.  Technically speaking, he could have requested the page be speedily deleted as it was his subpage.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The successful RFAs are listed by date. Wikipedia: space needs a similar article listing unsuccessful ones by date.  I am a bit surprised at Balloonman's bold move before there was time for discussion.  If the consensus is "no, it should be in User space" then I hope he doesn't mind if it gets moved back.  Of course, I hope it, or some replacement for it, stays in Wikipedia space.   Some of the other articles in User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project also deserve discussion about moving them to Wikipedia: space. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the nice thing about WP, almost anything done can be undone... and this page IMO, definitely more appropriately belongs in the community space as it is maintained and updated by the community. Other pages, that are maintained and updated by individuals, it is a different story.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason for the first request? I sometimes remember to do it, but really, it's not that important; if someone is curious to read the RfA, they can copy the line out of the diff and plug it into the search box. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A little work on the front end by 1 editor can save many, well, okay, a few editors the effort of copy-and-paste. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have been polite to note this section to NoSeptember and ask him his opinion before moving a page in his userspace. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct, I'll drop him a note.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I should've pointed this out to him when I made my initial proposal. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with any or all of my pages being moved as the community decides based on the merits of the situation. See About the NoSeptember Admin Project for my stance on this issue. p.s. look through the project and adopt a page for yourself - there are several good pages that I have not had the time to update ;-). Cheers, NoSeptember  19:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is politicking allowed in RFA and RFB context alone
Can Candidates email those opposing them or ask the friends of those opposing them or neutral to explain the position instead of doing it in the RFA or RFB itself or there talkpage.Further can a candidate canvass upto one person in a RFA and RFB as it technically seems that WP:Canvass applies only if it done to more than one editor.While this appears to be allowed in the Arbcom elections email context   Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that a candidate can ask a user, whether on the RFA page or via email to further explicate their position. The fact is, opposes should not only seek to provide a clear reason why the candidate might not be trustworthy enough to get the tool, they should also explain how to improve from their current situation. If an oppose isn't helping them give ideas to improve their editing, then a candidate should definitely ask. As for canvassing up to one person, whenever you have to use the word "technically," chances are you're thinking of gaming the system.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A person can communicate with somebody about their RfA after said person has participated in their RfA without violating Canvass. It is actually one of the loopholes that makes Canvass kind of weak in this setting.  For example, suppose UserX is running for admin.  UserX gets a strong support vote from a respected member of the community.  It is now perfectly acceptable for him (or anybody else) to go to the respected member's talk page and discuss the RfA.  While the intent may be innocent, the effect is that by going to the respected members talk page thanking him for the support, other people might come and support the candidate based upon the respected member's statements.  Similarly, suppose somebody opposes UserX.  Somebody else, who wants to see UserX fail, could go to that opposers page an make a comment there labelled "UserX's RfA."  The comments don't have to be infamatory, but in this case people who might oppose UserX might be alerted to UserX's RfA via the opposers talk page.  Both of these scenarios are not uncommon and are technically legal.  They are, however, the reason why (when somebody had the questionaire a few months ago and there was all of that talk about RfA Review) I said that canvassing already occurs.  We don't label it canvassing, but the effect is the same.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Biblio on this one, if you have to split hairs and call it "technically okay", then you're following the letter of the rule, but not the spirit of it, which I think is more important. Useight (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Balloonman: I wish I'd known about the "allowed to thank people for support" exception to WP:CANVAS before I'd gone through RFA! I wanted to thank people for their support right away, but feared that I'd be violating WP:CANVAS if I did that, so I waited until after the RFA.  (Mightn't have been such a close RFA if I'd known that...)--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 15:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * RFA is the very last place where you want to act in a "technically acceptable" manner, so if a candidate asked my advice, I'd suggest they not say anything during their RFA unless someone appears to have made an honest mistake, and no one else has jumped in to correct it. One of the reasons that User:Eastlaw's RFA had a tough time was that he believed one of the opposes was saying things that were inaccurate, and he went to someone else's talk page and talked about the inaccuracies.  The typical RFA candidate who gets even 50% support will have a lot of goodwill on their side, and people will try to help them along; so if a candidate starts to say things that don't sound right, they'll get pretty quick feedback.  But if the candidate starts discussing things on other people's talk pages, then by the time we catch it and jump in to help, it may be too late; the damage may already be done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biblio, but let me add that if a candidate thinks there inaccuracies, it's certainly okay for the candidate to approach the opposer and point out the correct facts. This happened with me during arbcom elections and I simply posted on the person's talk page and he quickly corrected it--it was easily verfiable. The community also accepts candidates asking people something like "do you have any concerns I can address" or "can I clarify something". <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

uContribs for RfA candidates
I'm going to try running my uContribs 0.3b2 tool on a semi-regular basis for new RfA candidates, first try is for Undead warrior, linked here. I put the sub-page into the WT-space. It's 47K in size, so I thought it best not to put the output directly on the candidate talk page.

I realize the dangers of editcountitis and do try to warn against the disease, but I think that the unique features of including article ratings; combining page and talk-page counts; showing "recent" edits; and especially grouping edit "families" together, can provide some valuable information.

If anyone wants a copy of the software to run on a more timely basis, email me (assuming you drink the poison of the Windows O/S :). Any feedback on the parameters, content, organization etc. are welcomed, as well as whether it's useful at all. Also, any ideas on how to better integrate with Interiot's output to give a compact and useful presentation of information. Franamax (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very helpful. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you put that up on a web site somewhere so I can make my own and update it every month or so? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, copies only by email so I can get you to agree to license terms (don't redistribute, stop using if asked by me or WMF, don't use it to hurt the servers) and keep track of who has it. Also it won't run on the toolserver atm, it's a Windows executable :( Franamax (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Announce: Proposed minor change to Template:RFA
See Template_talk:RfA. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - please revert it immediately and discuss it on the template talk page if it causes problems that you can't easily fix some other way. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on Village Pump: Editprotected as an access level
See Village pump (policy). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Radical suggestion
Concerns are routinely expressed about the RFA process. It's too unfriendly; it's too bureaucratic; it tends to privilege vandal-fighters over content contributors. These same issues come up repeatedly. An idea just occurred to me. Perhaps it would be unworkable, but I think it is worth considering.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a high-quality, free encyclopedia. To that end, the most valuable of all contributions are featured articles. We simply do not have enough featured articles. Each one often takes substantial time to craft, and they usually turn out to be primarily the work of one particular editor who takes an interest in them. We need more FAs, and we need FA contributors to be treated with more respect.

So: I propose that the existing RFA process be abolished, and in its place, anyone who successfully brings an article up to FA status will be asked by a bureaucrat if they wish to become an administrator; and if so, the FA author will be promoted. No morale-sapping discussions. No !votes. Just a return to the old system where any trusted content contributor could become an administrator.

I would rather recruit new admins from the ranks of FA contributors than from the ranks of people whose primary qualification is to do a couple months of mindless vandalism fighting, inside baseball, and avoid making enemies. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 19:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. I see where you're coming from, but ability (and time!) to write an FA is orthogonal to admin skills. I mean.. based on your criteria, Giano would be invited to be an admin and automatically made one if he said yes. Yes, he's an extreme case, but I'm sure you see my point. Yes, the current process is rather broken, but I don't think that your suggestion solves any problems--it just creates more. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #614051;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;color:#614051;">  19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Roux. Also, who decides how much participation is necessary for the FA article - do you have to write the entire thing? Most of it? Just be involved? And how does this pertain to adminship - AfD, AIV, RFPP, etc? Tan   &#124;   39  19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are aware this has been suggested before, in 2006 or so? I appreciate we need more admins familiar with the content side of the pedia. The problem is, the best content contributors I know scoff at the article rating system. FA is about formatting and obsessing over layout details at least as much as about content. Also, as pointed out above, most FAs are very much collaborative efforts.   --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why tell the crats how to do their job? Let them promote whoever they think is appropriate, without some set-in-stone criterion.  And yes, the point that article writing is a different skill set than admin work is very valid.  But, the crats have been reluctant to expand their responsibilities this way, and the community has been reluctant to give them a clear mandate to do so.  So, we're stuck where we've always been.  Friday (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) As an FAC regular, I also oppose this plan. A lot of featured articles are not the result of one person's work, although only one person may be listed as the nominator. Many times, others "save" the nomination by helping the nominator figure out what to do (or fixing the problems for them). There are always instances where I wouldn't trust a particular successful nominator to understand all of the content policies/guidelines, much less those that deal with other parts of the encyclopedia. Plus, I would worry that this would flood FAC with a bunch of unprepared nominations (and clueless reviewers who would help those pass) just to get people the bit. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a good idea. It would change FAC and inevitably lower then standard of Featured Articles. The real problem is WP:RfA is so inhospitable-it's horrible what candidate admins have to go through there. Graham Colm Talk 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll ever write an FA - writing large amounts of encyclopedic prose just doesn't really appeal to me, and I am after all here to enjoy myself. But it is important that I, and anyone else who doesn't actually write big chunks of quality content, understand why it's important and how much effort goes into it. It's so easy to lose sight of the encyclopedia itself amid all the processes and policies, but there are plenty of ways to understand and appreciate something without creating it yourself. I'm strongly of the opinion that FA-collectors, wikignomes and WP-policy-wonks all have their place with admin tools: the threshold has to be trust, maturity and clue, rather than an arbitrary criterion. RfA is flawed but I don't think this suggestion is an improvement. ~ mazca  t 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely and wholeheartedly endorse the heart and center of this idea. As an FA writer, the integrity of content is much more important to me than civility. I am, however, always civil. But when there is a question about which should be a higher priority, content always wins. tags offend me more than someone calling me a douchebag, which I know all of you do. To have admins understand the time, effort, and sometimes money that goes into creating an FA is quite a very useful component and was for a while a good idea to ask prospective admins to do. Unfortunately, what occurred was that admins-to-be who were interested primarily in vandal fighting to AFDs were asked to bring an article to FA. They apparently did not have the interest or dedication to do it, so their attempts were rejected for poor quality. They were frustrated by the process and bad feelings were all around. Simply, it is not feasible to ask volunteers to do something they have no interest or passion in doing. That's a drag. Nonetheless, I wish there were a way for all admins to realize the effort in an FA, really I do. My own lack of creativity in this conundrum is disappointing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Amend: There are a few FA writers who I would not wish to see as admins. Research and writing does not preclude an editor from being also vindictive and at times, offensive. Admins should have either an appreciation for the differing tasks that take place throughout the site, or a willingness to develop that appreciation. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen of RFA, especially in the last few months it isn't vandal fighters who are favoured its content creators. When was the last time that a candidate with some FAs under their belt failed RFA providing they also had a bit of other experience and a clean block log? From what I've seen its the vandal fighters, new page patrollers and AFD aficionados who get the roughest time at RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)And IMHO rightly so ;-) The climate is much more tolerable to content creators than it was a year ago when compared to vandal fighters.  Right now, you don't have to have any AIV reports or AFD experience to pass an RfA, but you had better be able to show some content creation---not a lot, but some, or your RfA may be tough. As for the notion of giving a free pass to people who get articles to FA... lousy idea.  It would reward people who are naturally gifted writers and/or SPA accounts, not people who are dedicated to the project.  When I got my first FA, it was because I was essentially a Single Purpose Account.  I worked on a few other articles, but 90% of my effort went into one subject.  I got my FA about 3 or 4 months after I started working on WP, but it wasn't until AFTER I got the FA that I realized there was more to the project---in fact, I didn't care about WP, I just wanted to get my pet article to FA status.  If somebody with my credentials when I got my FA ran for admin, their candidacy would be closed per NOTNOW.  Similarly, the second article I take credit for helping was really driven by another person who was a SPA.  She pushed the article through, but did very little outside of that articles subject matter.  If she ran for RfA, at least when she got her FA, her RfA would be speedily closed per NOTNOW.  FA is just one aspect of the project, and while it is an important one, it isn't anywhere close to be the most important one!  Finally, do we really want to burden FAC with the dual job of vetting candidates while vetting articles?  FAC is about the article, not the candidate, but if it were made into a backdoor route to adminship, political debates would spring up about the nominator or who gets credit for the FA and thus the automatic bye into adminship.  Does Sandy/Raul really want to have allegations of "The only reason why you didn't pass my FA is because you didn't want me to be an admin?"  Do they really want that to even cross their mind?  "Gee, is this article worthy of an FA?  The guy who wrote it has proven to be an insurmountable ass, do I really want to give him the bit?"  Does the FAC community really want scores of people chiming in at FAC with assinine comments, "Support article as FA" not because they even have any clue about FA standards, but rather because they want their buddy to be an admin---or "Oppose, doesn't meet my standards for admin FA." No, it is best to leave the two processes completely separate.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. --Charitwo (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. "Number of FA nominations" is no more suitable a criterion than sysopping the top 1000 on WP:WBE. Many, probably most, admins have never touched an FA – I certainly never have submitted anything to FA, as I think it's a process that values slavish adherence to the MOS above readability and usefulness, and being readable and useful is what we're all about, not spaced em-dashes and forced image widths. Besides, while WBFAN includes many of out best contributors, it also contains some of our most notorious cranks, crackpots and drama-mongers. –  iride scent  21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TL:DR version - 1FA. Good luck with your proposal. Once upon a time, I was shot, hanged and garrotted for proposing that. - Mailer Diablo 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned about the "bureaucracy only" admins that spend more time with the mop than the pen, but I guess they're a necessary evil. We discussed a similar proposal above (GA not FA whatever), and the conclusion was that many of the admin tasks (e.g. user name changes, blocking of vandals, et cetera) have little or nothing to do with actual articles and are more about making the project function.  Ability to pass a GA or FA or whatnot shows that they are capable of playing well with others, but I think that's a requirement that comes with having enough support to get past a WP:SNOWBALL fail.  SDY (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

- :::That's the thing about WP though, it is a big enough project that there is enough for everybody to do regardless of their intrests. People could contribute here for years amass 30K edits and NEVER run into somebody else who has been on the project for years with 30K edits. One size does not fit all.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Agree completely with Iridiscent. FA is highly overrated. Plus, the idea that only the nominator contributes to an FA is a perpetual misunderstanding, and I've heard it referred to as "gaming the Wikipedia credit system". Also, writing a FA on some remote event or historical person is quite different than contributing to the more heavily-read articles. The latter is much more important to the encyclopedia at the moment. I have more respect for people who work throughout the encyclopedia on important encyclopedic topics (history, science, agriculture, ect) than those who write FAs on relatively less important subjects. Bringing articles up to FA is not worthwhile for people who have broad interests and tend to edit based on what they're reading at the time. II | (t - c) 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FA is highly overrated makes my head hurt. Seriously. I don't know what else to say about that. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But on a similiar platform, we voted this year the content-writers in to Arbcom. Only time can tell if FA is highly overrated by looking at how they actually perform for the next few months. - Mailer Diablo 21:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't let FA is highly overrated pass without comment. For goodness sake, FA sets the standard for all editors to aspire to. Graham Colm Talk 21:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, but I read that as "FA as it is actually practised, with its MOS fetishism over actual content and readability issues, is highly overrated", and not "The ideals of FA are highly overrated." // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;color:#00009C;">  22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the 199 FACs I have reviewed this year, I cannot recall one that has not "passed" solely because of MOS issues. Graham Colm Talk 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought FA set the standard for all articles to aspire too. Maybe we need something called "Featured Editor."  I'm sure the equivalent concept is somewhere in WP:AWARDS or a related page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will happily put my head over the parapet and say that FA does not set the standard that I aspire to; while it's valuable in that it provides an unofficial flagged-revision point, there are many cases – particularly in articles that rely on images – where taking it to FA standard reduces the quality of the article. (IIRC, this is exactly why Giano no longer submits anything to FA). –  iride scent  22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for voting good content-writers into ArbCom, like Casliber. But I'm not really into this whole idea that Giano II is holy to Wikipedia because he likes to write about architecture. Yeah, it's cool, but it's not that cool. Neither are the articles that Cla68 writes on the military. Cool, but you're not a God -- these articles are not that important. For example, I notice User:Moni3 brought the Everglades to FA. In the first sentence, it notes that the Everglades is a wetland (yet the article, inexplicably, does not wikilink wetlands). Glancing at wetlands, it has 5 references! II  | (t - c) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that important? What are you talking about? This is a MAJOR part of our history and heritage (it's the Second World War for crying out loud), no matter if you are from the U.S., U.K., Australia, or Japan -- and Cla's articles are some of the best overviews of these battles that you will find anywhere. Please don't smack people down just because you don't like what they are interested in. I.e. I really don't care if you aren't interested in the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36), but don't pretend that it isn't "cool" or "interesting" to no one. Cheers,  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have, tragically, allowed Everglades to languish at GA, because I am a slacker, and there is still some serious work to be put into that article before it is nominated for FA. Were you referring to one of the other 4 articles about the Everglades that I wrote that have been promoted to FA? Is it the onus of an FA or the FA process as a whole to be responsible the ongoing discussion about overlinking, per your wetland example? I'm not sure I understand your connection between Everglades and the amount of references in wetlands. Can you clarify that point? --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really kind of getting off topic for discussions about criteria for RfA's. SDY (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was hoping Imperfectly Informed had a larger point that needed to be clarified. Regardless, it is disturbing to find a discussion on the RFA talk page that may pass judgment on a significant focus of a group of editors. Although my primary work is with FAC, I would not be exhibiting good faith to malign vandal fighters, new page patrols, AfD participants, or some other realm beyond content improvement. I recognize a difference in opinion between Iridescent's view of FA purpose and mine, but the focus of the thread here, to me, is how content contributions are received at RfA, and by working admins. Having disparate groups of admins with views of other editors that state their contributions are overrated is not beneficial to the project overall. It concerns me that this may be the culture of existing admins, or may affect new recruits. --Moni3 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea is not to denigrate FA contributors, but to put them in perspective. You say you don't malign vandal fighters or what have you, but most of us are aware that there is a totem pole of Wikipedia status, and we all know that featured content contributors are high up, right below admins and arbitrators. Yet I don't think they are necessarily the most important content contributors, and they should not be put on a pedestal, which is what this thread was based upon. My point was exactly how it sounded: I'm not inclined rank people's content contributions solely by how many featured articles they've wrote/nominated for several reasons. First, different articles have different amounts of importance in the grand scheme of this encyclopedia. Second, on a collaboratively written Wikipedia, it's difficult to assess how much they did. Third, there are diminishing returns to getting into the nitty-gritty details of a subject, and even further there is an opportunity cost associated with getting into the nitty-gritty details. This encyclopedia is here to serve its readers and provide greater knowledge to humankind. Therefore, I put a priority on useful knowledge, broad overview topics, controversial, heavily-trafficked topics, major events, and so on before less major topics. We're all entitled to our opinions, and that's mine. People who get extremely important articles to featured, like TimVickers's work on Bacteria (IIRC), impress me a lot. And just to clarify: I don't have anything against Cla68 or Giano II, and on the surface I'm impressed that they're bold enough to challenge people in powerful positions. I just occasionally hear people say they're entitled to challenge authority because they're "some of our most important contributors", and I strongly disagree. Everyone's entitled to challenge authority if they have a good reason, and the fact that Cla68 and Giano II rank high on the list of featured article nominators is not even prima facie evidence that they are some of the most important content contributors. On the topic of this thread, I probably don't need to restate what other people have already stated: nominating featured articles does not necessarily indicate good judgment and a calm, self-controlled personality, which are the most important criteria for admins. Plus, people who are important content contributors are only going to be distracted by doing the more tedious work of admins. II  | (t - c) 03:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, there are totem poles only for those who insist on existing on them. I do not exist on a totem pole or any other kind of hierarchy simply because I refuse to do so. My contributions are no higher or better than a vandal fighter, no lower than an admin or bureaucrat. I agree that writing FAs does not indicate better social skills, and have stated so above. However, to have admins denigrate the time and effort that goes into an FA is potentially problematic. FAs and their contributors are not sacrosanct, but having admins believe that it's a natural community function to deteriorate the quality of an expansively researched and cited article that stands with the best literature on the topic available anywhere is counterproductive for the entire project. It worries me that many editors appear to care more about civility, and I wonder if that is because incivility is much easier to spot than to wade through content disputes about unreliable sources and POV claims that are not so black and white. I do not believe this gives any editor the right or cause to be uncivil, but you will not find a bigger pussycat than I around here, and more than once I have been howling and furious because a particularly stubborn editor has made it a cause to compromise the quality of an article I have spent months working on. I understand that some editors lose their patience with a cadre of admins who do not appear to value the work that goes into maintaining high quality material. It's a cultural difference of priorities that should be addressed. It is being addressed, actually. This is what we're doing. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad, bad idea. Reasoning: 1) getting something to FA does not show skills in tool-related areas or much to do with temperament 2) It is difficult to judge who has done what in an FA and where to draw the line 3) it rules out useful wikignomes who could actually use the tools 4) Automatic promotion means we will (eventually) let some crackpots through (although some might argue we do that under the current process) and 5) although it isn't a specific point; if you assume that writing FA's means you are the wiki's "best article writers" (not a view I follow, but what the hell) you're going "right, you write good articles do you? As a reward, here's a load of shit to do that will lessen the amount of time you have to do so." If they follow that line, we have less FA-class content, if they don't we have admins who don't use the tools. Ironholds (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Recall that the purpose of administrators and other tool-bearing editors is to do the necessary cleanup work that cannot be done without access to special tools.
 * In a janitorial capacity, administrators basically do the following:
 * double-check and execute deletion requests, be they speedy, proposed, or xFD
 * Restore prodded articles on request
 * block disruptive users
 * In a decision-making capacity, they:
 * Make decisions on "close" xFDs
 * Make decisions in cases of non-obvious disruption, and by extension, make decisions on the appropriate length of time for blocks of disruptive users.
 * Take other actions, such as userfying deleted content, that require the use of tools. This typically requires a judgment call.
 * In a leadership role:
 * Participate in admin-only mailing lists
 * Tactfully explain to editors why their content was deleted or why they were blocked
 * Listen to and act on appeals
 * Along with other experienced editors, answer questions from random users
 * If a candidate looks like he can do some or all of these well and will not do harm by having access to the tools and mailing lists or the title "administrator," then it's a net good if he has the tools. If a candidate looks like he won't be able to do any of these well or giving him access to the tools, mailing lists, or the title will cause more harm than help, then it's best to say "no" or "not yet."
 * There will be people who should be given the tools just so they can participate in the administrative mailing lists. There will be others like the recently minted  who need the tools just so they can do page-move-over-redirects, obvious speedy-deletions, and other editing tasks in their areas of editorial expertise without having to waste another administrator's time. There are others who have experience dealing with "problem editors" and, if given the tools, will be able to block and unblock editors or close contentious borderline-consensus xFDs with grace and civility.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I shudder to think of promoting someone who understands the integrity of content but cannot maintain their own. I do not believe we can survive without the stagehands that move the play along.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nail on the head. Not everybody is--or should be!--an actor. To mount a production you need a gamut of staff from lead actors to extras, stage manager, lighting operator, costume and set and sound and lighting designers, orchestra, ushers... the notion that all lead actors should be automagically offered jobs on crew is silly. Sure, some of them would probably be very good. And some of them would probably drop lights on the other actors, forget to turn on the mics, and paint the set the wrong shade of purple. Likewise, many stage managers have no business--or interest--in being in the spotlight; they can fill in as Person In Crowd #3 if needed, but their talents lay elsewhere. Wikipedia could be well described as a community theatre production. Everybody pitches in where they can, but everyone definitely has areas where they contribute best. (And we certainly have the requisite overbearing divas.. anyone who has ever worked in amateur theatre knows exactly what I'm talking about.) Why denigrate an actor because he can't sew a costume, or a carpenter because he can't sing 76 Trombones? We need the actors to put bums in seats (write content), but nobody sees the actor if there's no lighting operators to run the lights or stage crew to put things in the right places. //  roux  <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;color:#00009C;">  04:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The assistant stage manager in me just fell in love with both of you. A more perfect analogy could not be crafted. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 07:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The former LX designer and stage manager in me loves you right back ;) Theatre is the perfect analogy for most human endeavours. And srsly, why the gibbering hell can't those actors hit a freaking mark picked out in two foot wide strips of glowtape? //  roux  <span style="border:1px solid #801818;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;color:#801818;">  07:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because actors are idiots. (that will probably trigger a NPA response from anyone that doesn't do tech. I don't care; it's true, and when I usually say it, there are a few more choice words in the phrase) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 07:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Way back in the mists of time (high school)... middle of hell week, 2hrs sleep a night. I was SM on the show, we'd just laid out what seemed like a hundred km of XLR. Decided to break for dinner. One of the actors wandered in while we were out, and 'thoughtfully' 'tidied' up all the cables laying around because they looked messy. I had to be physically restrained by my ASM and the director from using the kid's intestines as rigging. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #355E3B;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;color:#355E3B;">  07:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rarely works on absolutes, and this is no exception. Adminship isn't all about being a secondary prize of attaining some content trophy that has moving goalposts (I exaggerate, but the basic premise still applies). — kur  ykh   03:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. Making an FA hardly correlates with regular admin work. There's a ton of people at WP:WBFAN that shouldn't become admins. We should praise our best content contributors, but giving them all the mop isn't beneficial for the encyclopedia. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 08:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Horrible idea. Not all of us are prose machines who crank it out on a daily basis.  Sam  Blab 13:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea per all above. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)