Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 186

What about the admins-to-edits and admins-to-editors ratios?
At first the threads about the decreasing number of admins and admin actions worried me, but now I'm not so sure, because I found a plot (which I won't try to reproduce) showing that the numbers of editors and edits peaked in 2007 and have been decreasing since. What really matters, assuming a constant quality-of-average-edit, is the ratio of admin actions to edits, and it isn't clear to me that this has been changing significantly. For the record, based on my own experience I think it would be good to have more admins, but I'm not sure whether the decrease should be seen as a crisis or just a decrease in the "sexyness" of Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As it has been demonstrated above, there's no real reason to panic yet. Statistically speaking, there is a net loss of administrators, but we are not sure on the actual impact of that. @harej 03:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'm going to continue to panic. I love admins. The more the better. If the number decline gets any worse we may have to close their IRC chatrooms and disable their e-mail so as to keep their focus on the most urgent of on wiki affairs. Desperate times call for desperate measures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, that old saw is getting tired. Its not that I disagree that such problem admins exist, I just disagree with the contention that their problematic attributes have anything to do with their bit. What exactly makes people believe that shutting down IRC and e-mail and so forth would actually get anyone to concentrate on anything else? People work following their own values and priorities, not just what happens to be around.--Tznkai (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why I'm glad you asked. Lately, since I've been able to devote a bit more time to the project, I have also become more aware of a sense that more and more of the actual "nuts and bolts" of the policy decisions are made "off-wiki" as it were. Of course there has always been the cliques of editors who are willing to "gang up" on particular issues. I don't expect total transparency in every aspect of policy on WP, particularly where say, foundation issues are concerned...but surely when basic concepts like AfD, and RfA's are being discussed off wiki. The term "Star Chamber" gets bandied about so much that it looses some of its impact. This concept goes directly to heart of the matter, so having said that, I shall leave this with you as is.Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea that the WMF could "shut down" someone's email. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters. Almost all of the articles that people would want to read have been written, so what's left is polishing, fixing occasional errors and juvenile vandalism, maybe filling out the complete list of 15th century Italian clerics or whatever. Not very exciting. So people start or perpetuate internecine squabbles to get their mojo working. Having more admins or fewer admins wouldn't change that picture. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree with you more SBHB. There are lots of very notable subjects that don't have any articles at all and I'm regularly surprised by how poorly written and inadequate other ones on major subjects are. There is a massive amount of article work to be done. Effective dispute resolution to cut down on the frustrations and endless squabling might help, even if I can't unilaterally close, or at least open up, the private admin communication channels to encourage fairness, transparency and accountability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a reason only 0.09% of our articles are featured. Only 3 million more to go, and by the time they're all featured ther ewill be even more articles.--Patton123 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight, oversight is very urgent, which is almost always coordinated via email (sometimes IRC, as well). These 2 ways of instant communication are what editors use to help Wikipedia. Regardless, WP has no direct control over IRC or email, as they're independent from each other. The foundation cannot "shut down" a channel, and, as for email, no one can disable another's account like that. Trying to put an end to outside communication would greatly harm Wikipedia and discourage collaboration. Also, many of the most important things would never get done without mailing lists.  hmwith  ☮ 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we were meant to be collegial and collaborative on Wikipedia? Instead I see that the rein of censorship and intimidation has encouraged the popularity of external venues for policy discussion and collaboration all of which creates real problems as far as accountability and transparency are concerned. But I concede that disabling IRC and e-mail isn't going to happen and might not be the end all be all. It was just a crazy idea I had, totally impractical. :) A coup of some sort with a temporary period of martial law in order to restore order on the other hand... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, having OS discussions (for example) on-wiki would entirely defeat the purpose of oversight.  hmwith  ☮ 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates section updated by SoxBot [RESOLVED]
Might be my computer (Win XP running on an elderly triceratops with latest version of Firefox) but a comment in the third line doesn't seem to be wrapping and is skewing the page. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not Firefox, XP, or your dead three-horned computer. I am having the same problem on Vista across multiple browsers.  I'll see if I can pinpoint the cause. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/The ed17 2 didn't have a nomination statement so I added one.  Gary King ( talk ) 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've revised User:X!/RfX Report so that it is capable of wrapping long cells such as that one to the next line. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just a temporary fix since the page is recreated every time it gets updated, FYI.  Gary King ( talk ) 06:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that the bot rescripts the entire page? Hmm.  I'd better put in a request to the bot owner then. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found the code needing changed and put in a request on X!'s talk page. Unfortunately, he's on WikiBreak until he can rediscover the excitement of Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've emailed him, just in case he doesn't check his talk page due to the Wikibreak. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 11:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * X! has updated the code as requested. We're good now. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A challenge
We've been going on for days now about the lack of admins. I now challenge everyone to go out and find a suitable candidate. Let's see if we can promote 5 more admins by the month's end. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. ;) I do have a few editors in mind, although I might not nominate. According to Successful requests for adminship, though, we should be promoting another 7 admins or so by the end of the month. Jamie S93  18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to encourage nominations just to meet a number goal someone just came up with. That didn't work for planned economies, and it doesn't address the problem that people avoid RfA because if its reputation as a toxic place. For an alternative, please see . &mdash; Sebastian 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but if there's some good candidates, and I know they're out there, now wouldn't be a bad time to consider nominating. My "should" comment was purely a numerical observation. FYI, I was curious as to who our most active (successful) RfA nominators are, and some 2009 data is located here. Jamie S93  21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize I'm late to the party, but what is the evidence that we lack admins? (Probably easiest just to point me to earlier discussions). That's not to say we shouldn't encourage people whom we think would be good candidates. And we certainly lack admins with specific skill sets (for example, Arbitration enforcement and effective oversight of chronic trouble spots). But do we really have a global lack of admins? MastCell Talk 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but if we're here fretting about admins, whos working on the backlogs?Abce2 | This is not a test 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @MastCell: See the amount of admin backlog, that's why all these editors are frantically trying to find candidates.
 * @Abce2: That's the irony of all of this.--Giants 27 ( c |  s ) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What backlogs? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:Administrative backlog.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants <font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27 ( c |  s ) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, what backlogs? The only thing there that appears backlogged is the temporary wikipedians pages. We've discussed this above, and it's recognized this is a minor area and could readily be performed by a bot. So, what backlogs? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see more than the temp pages in that category. FFD, PUF, and DYK, to name a few. Shubinator (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FFD; 39 backlog, and 22 of that is the most recent one (just coming due). PUF; 24 backlog. DYK; maybe I don't understand, but I don't see how DYK is or needs to be an admin queue. None of these are serious backlogs. Just minor ones. Post a message to WP:AN and I'm sure these little queues would be cleaned up post haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am too busy at the moment, but if you haven't found any candidates in two months, I will volunteer ;-) --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm available if anyone's looking for someone to nominate. :) Tim  meh  ( review me ) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway
Despite this mess, I've asked Looie496 and Franamax, any comments?  ceran  thor 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone mentioned this (I've been very busy lately), but you can comb through WP:ADCO/RFC for people at least willing to go through RfA in the future. Some aren't ready, but others might be.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 15:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a problem. We've had a clutch of excellent candidates this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The primary reason I am running is because someone recommended members of WP:HAU try running since there is recent evidence of the lack of nominees. I have other reasons, of course, but without this awakening, my self-nomination would have been delayed possibly a few more years.  I would not be surprised if the others running were inspired (or nominated) for similar reasons. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly, or possibly not. I don't think it's the case for The Ed17, who is a repeat nominee who did good work since his last RfA and is now running to general applause.  Glad to see you participating here, Bob, if you are familiarizing yourself with these pages, you should hit the ground running!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Wehwalt, yes there is still a problem. Until the drought of the last 18 months we were on average appointing an admin a day. We currently have five candidates in the Green which is the best its been for weeks. But this spike in activity has taken a lot of work to achieve and is still a little below the 2006/2007 average.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's said it yet....
OMG there's NOBODY running for anything right now!!!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick, someone desysop me, so I can run again! Oh wait, never mind. I couldn't pass in today's climate. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * historical, anyone? BencherliteTalk 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You think you'd never pass .... Pedro : Chat  22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never written FAs, for example. Apparently that matters now. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you would pass, fwiw. Dekimasu よ! 07:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * O tempora o mores! - which would, incidentally, seem ripe for a refernce or two... Pedro : Chat  22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This just means I get the next week off. --Deskana, (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know Dan, someone might be reading this, and run for RFA, just to give you something to do.... <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, wasn't I suppose to nominate you at some point? My email gets a bit heavy but I could have sworn I needed to do that. Maybe we can throw the feeding frenzy a bit of Steve C. .... let's chat. Pedro : Chat  22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, these threads are getting old... :P – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Like me :) Pedro : Chat  22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This thread isn't all bad! It helped me notice a stray comma in my signature. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You only just noticed that? I've noticed it for ages.... <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... we weren't gonna mention it, but that's the kind of carelessness that keeps someone from getting admin rights, Desk. -GTBacchus,,,(talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC) ;)

Do we really need this? It's kinda obvious no one is running at the moment... Tavix | <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;"> Talk 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to engage in irrational panic about how the end of the world Wikipedia is nigh though! Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Exactly, it is our bi-monthly ritual to unwind... and relax. People routinely think this is a sympton of what is wrong, not realizing it happens several times a year.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus!

Why do people feel compelled to create useless joke threads like this over and over again? We get it, it's happened frequently in the past. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's all in good spirit. Way too much discussion here is taken too seriously. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To keep this page going while we wait for more RfAs, perhaps Pedro, Balloonman and Julian can simultaneously run for 'cratship. It will give us something to do in the meanwhile. Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we'd have multiple passed RFBs in the same week, something that hasn't happened since 2007. Useight (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, of 36 successful RfB nominations, there were two occasions where three passed on the same day. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps Pedro, Balloonman and Julian can simultaneously run for 'cratship. now I see a lot of red with those nominations...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shall we start WP:RFS; Wikipedia:Requests for Scroogeship with Wisdom89 as the first nominee? ;) (all in jest Wisdom, all in jest) --Hammersoft (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have that. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris ask why Wikipedia have no WP:Request for Commissar, offer himself as servant of people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In soviet Wikipedia, RFA find you! --Hammersoft (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No one's running? EVERYBODY PANIC!! RfA is gonna die oh noes! :O Wizardman  02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given how apparently easy it was for a snake like Ecoleetage / "Pastor" Theo / Wolpoff to get adminship, maybe it should be more difficult, not less, to get there. Meanwhile, what about the reported hundreds of inactive admins? Maybe they could be contacted and asked if they could help out? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't nominate it for WP:MfD yet! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we MFD User:Wisdom89? <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A user MFDing their own page is equivalent to a, if you do that you will get a speedy result! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find this an lol situation: like a star in space, this process has finally reached critical mass and imploded into itself :) More seriously though, this is a self-correcting situation; it will not be long now before a new nom gets added and this will pass us by. It would be an amusing story for the WP:POST though, if someone were of the mind to write it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're equating RFA to a brown dwarf? Sounds reasonable. Somebody flush the toilet please... --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG THERE'S STILL NOBODY RUNNING!
In somewhat serious manner, this is approaching a record... usually when there is nobody running, that condition is remedied within a few hours. I don't think we've ever gone this long without somebody running.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Omg. and sorry bout the misclick. sonominate someone. <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder what the record is for lack of active RfAs? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have never had a full day without a candidate... but I don't know if we've ever had a full 24 hour period without one. A few months ago, somebody did an automated search, and confirmed that there was always at least 1 candidate every single day for something like the past 3 or 4 years.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As of your above comment, we were officially at 24 hours without a nomination for either RfA or RfB on the page. We're now at 27 hours and counting. History in the making :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the day finishes without somebody transcluding an RfA, then that would be worth a mention in Signpost...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we should protect the WP:RFA page to make it so only admins could edit it ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IIIRC there was a period of about 5 days in Janurary when there wasn't a single nomination.--Patton123 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true, there was at least one person running every single day in January.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, must have imagined a couple of hours as being 5 days :P...--Patton123 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you might not have seen one at the end of January... for some reason while it was active, it's been blanked so all that appears is "this page has been courtesy blanked".--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick, we must keep the page history counter from dropping below 350kb. Skomorokh 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe WP just crossed some kind of "hump." It could be that the hoops that prospective admins have to go through these days just scares the majority of likely candidates off. Since I hardly ever post to this page, let me add another two cents. It isn't about the amount of edits, or where the preponderance of edits take place, but the quality of an editors work, and an ability to intereact in a decent, socially responsible way towards other editors - this should be of greatest importance in nominating/selecting administator candidates. Almost every single admin candidate that I have opposed and who recieved the buttons anyways have been de-opped since. An editors work before their nomination generally is the best indicator of their future success as an administrator. Just one more opinion. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may comment, User:The ed17 has saved the day!! -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 02:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's grounds for an oppose... Oppose user transcluded on the 18th before we went a calendar day without a candidate.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh c'mon. I should be getting an award ... at least a pat on the back. ;-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, it's weird... the time stamp on the history page says you transcluded on the 18th, but every place else the stamps say the 19th... including here--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When they upgraded the system earlier this week, it broke a number of people's time settings in Special:Preferences, check there first.  MBisanz  talk 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We went from 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) to 05:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC) with no serious nominations for adminship. This period of nearly 36 hours with no RfA nominations is longer than the recent one. I don't count this edit as a proper adminship request. Graham 87 12:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider that to be a legit request either, but I would consider this to be one despite it being slightly malformed it did run and was closed per SNOW. Which means that on 12/31 at 22:03 there was an RfA.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That RFA was the one that ended the drought that I mentioned in my previous message. So I guess we're all confused by time zones, or something. :-) Graham 87 08:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reason nobody runs is because the voting process is nothing more than a popularity contest. Anyone who is well-known will be shot down, while seemingly-well-behaved snakes like "Pastor" Theo will get the power. The process is flawed, and not likely to be fixed anytime soon. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with What's up, Doc?, new users wishing to nominate themselves for RfA could be looking at other nomination in process before submitting their own, to see how things work. They could end up putting themselves off wanting to submit a nomination, knowing that they are going to be "shot down", which can be discouraging to them.  In a so-called democratic society that we live in these days, democracy is fading in some of the negative comments posted on users nominations.  I've come across this myself, I will admit.  I have a nomination in progress, and some additional questions were put forward to me, but before I was given the chance to answer them, my nomination was closed down rapidly, which seemed to be unfair and unjustified.  I did lodge an appeal towards the person who closed it down, and they took on-board my opinion, and re-opened the case, thus allowing me the chance to argue/answer questions and comments put forward to me.  Even now, the number of 'opposes' which have comments attached saying 'too young', 'too premature', 'not enough edits', can be discouraging.  However, I'm not the kind of person to be discouraged, and have answer back to all those critics who have opposed.  Decision should be made based on a users ability, and not just their edit count status.  A user with less edits, can easily be a good admin, as oppose to one with tons of edits and a lack of admin knowledge.  Edits don't really prove a point.  Something similar is used to determine a persons promotional stature with the UK public sector.  They no longer look at how long a person has been within the company, they now look at what qualities they have, and if they fulfil the criteria to make a good candidate.  Stats are nothing but just numbers; a persons ability, qualities, and talents, are the main factor here. Pr3st0n (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What I discovered, as I had been warned about, is that there is a cadre of editors who make a hobby of going to RfA's and doing their best to stifle anyone they've had any kind of disagreement with. Someone asked me if I wanted to try again. I know I would make a good and fair admin - and my supporters know that too. But you couldn't pay me enough to run again. The process reveals the ugly underbelly of wikipedia. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though there is obviously some sort of procedural guidelines that admins have to follow to review any RfA nominations - to which I don't really blame them for following. There surely does seem to be a lack of decorum used when leaving a comment on the nominators review board.  Some people out there have very sensitive personalities, and negative words of discouragement, could only push them over the edge, and make them feel more worthless then they already feel.  We shouldn't be discouraging to new applicants, on the contrary we should be leaving constructive criticism, which is a lot more easier for anyone, even the sensitive ones, to swallow.  Focus more on qualities of a person, rather than the quantities.  For its quality that is more important in the long run... better have someone who can do a job properly, than to have someone who is going to rush through it for the sake of boosting up their stats record. Pr3st0n (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Constructive criticisms are good. Some of the criticisms on my RfA actually had merit, especially those coming from other admins, and I've worked to correct the issues they raised. The criticisms that were bogus, the ones leveled by the RfA hobbyists, I ignored. The process was brutal, but worthwhile. The secret is to not have your heart set on the job. I ran because someone asked me to. I have since observed that being an admin can actually be a handicap. Being a normal editor has many advantages. And AIV still works. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can wholeheartedly, say that with strong biased opinions can be very off-putting to some. And at first I took them with a pinch of salt; but now, deep down truth, I can hand-on-heart say that it is strongly deterring me to ever want to submit a nomination in the future; for fear of being subdued to negative comments again.  If I was one of those people who have a low self-esteem and suicidal tendencies, right now I would have given up on the whole meaning of life, and quit it all.  Luckily, I'm not one of those kind of people, and no matter how many times they wanna knock me down, I know deep down that I have the qualities needed to become good at the job I love to do so much.  I don't have 14 years of admin skills under my belt for nothing.  One persons loss, is another persons gain! I'm not bitter, nor sour - pissed off right now, I'd say 5.5% At least I know the ones out their who believe in me, and know that I have what it takes - to those I thank! The critics!? well, I'll leave them to negatively criticise others poor souls. Ciao for now! Pr3st0n (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Pr3st0n, just to respond to your previous point. It isn't just admins who !vote in RFAs and you have admins and non admins amongst both your supporters and opposers. But there is no current agreement as to what level of experience and in what areas is needed to pass an RFA. Personally I consider that we should try to synchronise our differing RFA !voting criteria if only to make the process a little less of a battleground and a bit more focused on whether this particular candidate is ready for the mop; but that idea seems to have falle on barren ground.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To do this more scientifically, it would be useful to review some representative admins that are considered good after some stretch, like maybe a year; and some representative admins that were defrocked, especially, to see if there were any warning signs that were overlooked during the RfA process. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree to that idea that Baseball Bugs has come up with. an appraisal period could be given every 12 months, to assess what each member of the team has done over the past year. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the RfA tally? It currently lists four requests, all green, all over ninety-five percent. I checked the opposers out and they seemed to be suspiciously civil, willing to engage in good-faith discussions and open to changing their minds. These omens disturb me because RfA is toxic, broken and unfixable; I am concerned that we might have been subject this week to an elaborate hoax, checkuser please. Skomorokh 05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrrrrgh!
Avast! It be International Talk Like a Pirate Day and ain't no scurvy dogs been a-nominatin' themselves fer ye ol' powers. Have none of ye scallywags the courage to be swashbucklin' o'er the high seas of RfA? Put yerself forward, me hearties, and see if ye find the booty, or if ye're sent to the depths. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Fantastic. :) I needed that laugh. <font style="color:#4682b4">Javért <font style="color:#50C878">☆ 01:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrrr... I would be applaudin' yer speech, brave soundin' enough for a land-lubber, but my hook's only good for typin'. AND PILLAGING YER HOMES AND WIVES!!! -GTBacchus(talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well shiver me timbers and poke me other eye out if that ain't a call to duty! Aye shall put me best peg forward and test the seas now, why wait fer me mates to nominate me?  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not enough grog. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All hope abandon, ye who enter RfA. Ye be lucky if ye make it out alive without being forced to walk the plank. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Boris, when Aye take command of me ship, I'll have ye walkin' the plank fer yer scurvy commentatin'. ;) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Pmlineditor  Talk 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yarr, tis be a good idea Cap'n! Arr!  So Arr!  Let go plunderin! 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping up, moving on
The discussion on pros and cons of "admin-lite" was considerably better than previous discussions, on all sides; we're confused on a much higher plane now :) I think it's safe to say that there's no consensus on a single proposal to proceed with at this time, but there hasn't been significant objection to the idea of unbundling one or more admin tools (yet).  OTOH, I've got an objection: if you unbundle some buttons, many editors will see those buttons as desirable and divert time into getting them, leaving less time for critical tasks like deletion tagging.  If any other buttons get unbundled, my guess is it will be a net negative if we don't unbundle the delete button, too.  Two immediate problems there: User:MGodwin and others don't want non-admins to see deleted pages, and that's one of the most dangerous tools to unbundle.  I initially thought those were stoppers, but I've asked some CSD people for advice and I'm getting good feedback. I don't want to divert attention from the recruitment drive above, so I'll start writing up what I'm finding out on my talk page if anyone (including Hammer, and anyone in opposition) wants to put their two cents in. There are some technical problems that might turn out to be stoppers, and I don't want to waste people's time if that's the case. - Dank (push to talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical question: Is it possible to unbundle the "delete" button without giving the ability to see deleted pages, or vice versa? Would it be possible (for example) to create a class of XfD-closers who can delete pages if there's a consensus, but not see the deleted material; or a class of DRV-reviewers who can see deleted material, but not perform deletions themselves? Unbundling the ability to block strikes me as essential for any such sub-admin janitorial position.—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally we would expect someone to be able to undo what they did, so someone with delete, should be able to undelete, or restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If necessary, can the rest of the tools be given out without the deletion stuff? If it came down to being able to coach people who just want to work at AIV, or page protection, can we unbundle those? I haven't read the perennial proposals in a while so there might be good reasons why this hasn't been done already. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Graeme. Update: User:SoWhy has given me some good reasons it would probably be too difficult to train people who couldn't otherwise pass RFA how to handle a deletion button; unless I get some new data, I'm not going to pursue that.  The usual reasons for not unbundling are variations on the reason I gave, namely: either you're unbundling the userrights that don't account for a lot of admin work, but then people will spend time trying to get those buttons and be diverted from the stuff that admins actually need help with, or else you're unbundling the hard stuff ... deletion, blocking, protection ... which go together to some extent, and by the time the community is ready to trust someone with those, they're ready to trust them at RFA.  I still like the idea of trying to find out some way to significantly help admins with their workload, and hand that out as some kind of userright, that has a lot of other benefits.  Another idea, don't yell at me if this is dumb because I just thought of it: how about if we take away the right of all editors to tag any page for CSD, and make that a special userright that we hand out at PERM?  It wouldn't "disenfranchise" anyone from being able to nominate pages for deletion; they could do that under any of the 7-day deletion processes.  It would just be a way of saying that CSD tagging is hard, and it wastes a lot of admin time when we have to stop and explain why something isn't CSD, and it alienates good contributors to have their pages mistagged. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see the appeal of that at times *grin*, but unfortunately the well-tagged pages will just get pushed into the prod/AfD system. I don't think that's as serious a problem as some people claim, but my fear is it will encourage people to create pages like "Jenny is pretty and I hope she notices me" or "Our band will be a big hit once we learn an instrument" because those will be less likely to be speedily tagged. Although if it was handed out and taken away as easily as rollbacker, that might work... -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're saying that people would create pages that fall just outside the CSD criteria in the hopes of surviving AfD? I don't see pages like that a lot.  Also, the usual objection to turning anything into a userright is that you reduce the pool of people who can do the work, so less work gets done ... but I'm pretty sure more CSD tagging would get done, because this button would be seen as a useful step on the road to RFA (and rightly so, this is one of the main things that trips people up at RFA, it would be so much better to deal with these issues in a less unpleasant forum, before the RFA).  In particular, we'd have "licensed" CSD taggers trolling PROD and AfD looking for pages that qualify for CSD so they could tag them.  But I don't want to go too much in depth into the CSD issues until this moves to WT:CSD, because I think a lot of people who watchlist CSD would get a little grumpy if this CSD issue were in effect "decided" at WT:RFA before they have a chance to rake it over the coals.  How about the issues of reducing admin work and providing a more pleasant, intermediate step on the way to RFA?  A confession: half the reason I enjoy doing userspace CSD work is that almost all of the tagging is done by experienced taggers.  For most CSD work, half my time is spent on the 10% of the pages that were mistagged, making sure everyone understood what was going on and why, and more time is spent responding to comments left on article talk pages that get deleted.  "Licensing" CSD taggers (making it a userright) would be a huge timesaving for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I asked FT about this by email, she says that was what she was saying and she does see it. I'm hoping that people with the CSD button will patrol AfD and catch these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood your email -- I don't think they'll create pages that might survive AfD, just create them that will survive the 7 days until an AfD closes. But as I said in the email, if Licensed Taggers(tm) doesn't wind up decreasing the good tags very much, I don't think this will be a problem for the 'pedia.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagging for speedy is merely a case of adding a template, and I don't see how ordinary editors could be prevented from using a template. Nor do I see a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia in doing so.  I like the fact that any idiot can tag for speedy; it puts an onus on the deleting admin to pay attention.—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't agree with any of those points, S Marshall (which surprises me because I usually agree with you). Ordinary editors could be prevented by a filter triggered when someone tries to add a CSD tag.  The benefit would be in saving 50% of the time that admins are currently spending on CSD work, which is a major part of the admin workload.  What would put a bigger onus (giggle) on deleting admins would be if the taggers were competent and bold enough to challenge the admins. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagging can be prevented if Deletion Queue is implemented. Ruslik_ Zero 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something Dank, how does that make sense? If we say only 50% of CSDs are correct, then 50% of the time sysops press "delete" and 50% of the time they press "undo" and write a quick summary.  If we needed WP:PERM to get CSD "rights," then alllll the crap that needs to be deleted but isn't found by a CSDer will get AfDed or PRODed, right?  In which case the result will be the same (sysop pressed delete) or worse (sysop removes tag after 7 days of discussion).  AfD doesn't need an additional 200 "Call 867-5309 for a good time" or "Talk:Why are some ants red but some are balck" entries.  Not to mention that a large portion of current CSD tags will go unnoticed for longer (I'm thinking of libelous attack and copyvio pages in particular). ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who tends to specialize in the CSD areas that get a lot of bad tags, it's not a case of just pressing undo and writing a quick summary. At least, it isn't with me. With any CSD, bad tag or not, I read the entire article, talk page, and edit summaries. I also do any relevant gsearches to see if the issues can be easily solved through editing. Then if I decline the speedy I remove the tag, write an edit summary that reflects why, and add any maintenance tags needed. Most of the time I then pop over to the taggers page and write (or template, if it's simple enough) the tagger an explanation of why I disagreed with them, along with what their options are if they disagree with me and links to relevant policies. Also about half the time I pop over to the article creator's page and tell them what the article is up against and generally what improvements are needed, such as better sources. I absolutely agree that AfD doesn't need to get flooded with crap, but bad tags scare away new editors AND waste a lot of admin time. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, and it's the same with me, although it's hard to match FT's diligence at CSD. The bad tags take much longer to make right than the good tags take to process, so drastically reducing the bad tags would be an enormous time savings.  I find, for instance, that tags by IP's are valid CSDs less than 5% of the time.  Also, many admins are hesitant to work in an area where everyone has a different theory of exactly what you should do, and getting presented with questionable tags day in and day out makes some uncomfortable ... including me, I confess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it does not have to take an Admin to save an article from speedy delete tagging, any editor including anons can edit and remove and improve. Perhaps we have to encourage the WP:ARS to get in there and do it, or the WP:Article incubator team to rescue more stuff.  Anyway if there was no request for speedy delete tagging option open, there would have to be some other venue to ask for deletes, which would still have to be patrolled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove? Do you mean remove the CSD tag? I understood it that editors were supposed to add hangon, discuss on talkpage and improve the article, before an administrator makes a decision. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone but the author can decline a speedy by removing the CSD tag, only the author needs to go through the Hangon route. In practice I get the impression that usually only admins and authors remove speedy tags, perhaps some of those potential admins who are following this page would care to try their hands at such article rescue?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some of that during the period between my two RFAs. Searching through speedy tags and removing the improper ones is a great thing for a potential admin to do. It helps you understand what admin work is like, in that you seen how many users fundamentally misunderstand CSD and you can also get a sneak preview of the amount of crap you have to put up with once you are an admin. Also, it helps reduce the workload for actual admins if the obvious bad taggings are removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Error in report
This is not right. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Backslash Forwardslash beat me to it. It was set for the year 29 instead of 2009, which the bot equated with 2029.  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Y2K anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What a fortuitous error. 7311 days for an RFA could be the solution, perhaps with tools handed out on a temporary basis to anyone who survives the first 72 hours and removed at the end of the RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 7311 days from now, we won't need RfAs. People will just buy adminship by the hour using whuffie. rspεεr (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You will never get consensus to reform RFA or to grant probationary/coaching/test drive adminship
Adminship is "no big deal." But opening up adminship to anyone who is interested would be a big deal for the project. Right now the community handles the sensitive, if mundane, issues of deleting, blocking, and protecting with almost a jury or mob rule system, presided over by executory figures who nonetheless lack independent decision making power. Of course "it's not a vote" (semantic, the term vote has connotations, some of which do apply), in fact despite the moniker I hold it is less bureaucratic than a typical democracy, and yet it works because of the scale and the venue. A chaotic human system on a relatively small scale naturally sometimes has hiccups, but like other beautiful self-regulating systems human and otherwise (natural selection for example) it all works out in the end.

Leave RfA alone because it merely represents the will of the community. There is no crisis of admins nor will there be; as we should have all learned since December 07, even the clearest trends don't extrapolate forever (and this was hardly a clear-cut one). Otherwise the world wouldn't be very realistic or interesting. Yes, in the past 2 years, the amount of active admins declined 10%. But this data point lacks context. For example, the stock market dropped a lot more than 10% and recovered a lot more than 10% during the recession. Additionally, these numbers really ought to be cross-referenced with data like the number of active users, edits, or admin actions as Chillum so astutely graphed above. It also fails to take into account that before declining 10%, the number of admins has soared since 2004 for example when I became one, and all growth bubbles slow down or burst eventually (though usually start bubbling again after a while).

In the end the most important indicator is that the encyclopedia is alive and well, the admin queue moves briskly and the backlogs are as backlogged as they ever were. Wikipedia is busy and growing, and there is no shortage of labor nor will there be anytime soon. Andre (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave RfA alone because it merely represents the will of the community. If you truly believe this, you clearly did not read this talk page. <font color="Navy">Law <font color="Navy">type! <font color="Navy">snype? 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOMORE? I can certainly believe that the subset of people who read this page could come to a different conclusion from that of the community as a whole. Presumably, as has been mentioned, any possible changes here will be headed to the village pump. Dekimasu よ! 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Andre, self regulating systems most certainly dont work out in the end!  Nature is cruel and prodigious beyond measure and  countless species have become exstinct.  Switching to human systems, the  great crash  of the 20th  century occurred at time when the "leave it alone" or lazzie  fair attitude was dominant,  and economic chaos dragged on for a decade, ending only with WWII.   The 2008 crash was reversed quickly because of  massive  government intervention and use of Keynesian stimulus – a managed response  undertook as leaders understood they couldnt expect the market to fix itself.   Crucially, the response had been prepared in advance before the need for it became obvious to all. If it hadn’t, the current recession would have been considerably more severe. Getting back to RFA,  the current design reflects the communities will as it was some years back – things have changed since then, and we’re find out if the community wants the rules governing RFA updated when we take this to the Village pump.  That is if the current recruitment campaign doesnt turn out to be enough to turn things around. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By saying that it reflects the "will of the community a few years back" you would be implying intelligent design :-P . For some reason a combination of inertia and unwillingness has resulted in a system that sort of grew and that really doesn't work according to any design whatsoever. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is "no big deal"? (Andre 06:32, 18 September 2009) - only an admin could say that! I've seen outrageous blocks, and incivility from an admin that would get a non-admin an immediate block. From a non-admin's point of view, the first question at RfA is "Am I absolutely sure I can trust this person?" - if not absolutely sure, oppose. There problem is that there is no effective way for non-"officials" to get admins suspended or de-sysopped. Sure, the case can be taken to ArbCom, but that takes too long. The remedy must be as quick and severe as the harm done by the admin who is at fault - e.g if an admin makes bad block, the admin should be suspended within a day and remain suspended until the case is resolved. You may not like it, but until that happens "voters" at RfA will want to pick over candidates' histories to see if there's anything that causes them concern. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have that one on the agenda for the day after the Cubs win the World Series. Or is it when we return from Harold Stassen's Inaugural Ball?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe Dougstech was right after all. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We're making some basic mistakes with RfA ... that is, we're actively throwing up barriers that hinder good RfA candidates: we don't recruit, we don't train, and we don't give them feedback they can use. WP:ER and failed RfAs are held up as the standard for providing useful feedback ... but that's wrong, ER feedback is completely unrepresentative of what people encounter at RfA, and a big, scary, failed process is what you do if you're trying to discourage people, not encourage them. Also, it's useful to try to do something hard every now and then, it invites people to put in more thought than the minimum, it tells us where people's heads are, and it gives us tougher conflict-resolution problems to solve. Also, even though some change in RfA itself has always failed in the past and probably will fail this time, the discussion has spun off a variety of useful ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC) RFA is perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it apart from the community's standards atm. All this fuss about us not getting enough admins will heal itself. It willc ontinue to get worse for a while from now, then people will start to think we need more admins and go easier on RFA. This will make more candidates pass and in turn attract more candidates. Eventually after a high year or two (2010-2011?) we'll end up back like this again with apprent low numers of admins. It's a cycle. It's like Peak Oil, except never ending. It's Peak Admin.--Patton123 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, the day will come when RfA is put up for MfD, or something similar will happen to it. RfA reform can't and won't happen. Since it can't heal itself and change with the changing times, it's doomed to fail. It's just a matter of time. I don't think that time is yet, but it's coming. A little (revolution), now and then, is a good thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the problem there is that we haven't discovered any new reserves of editors since we began Wikipedia. The only reserve we have is the human population. We need to start recruiting martians! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Patton, I admire your optimism but sadly don't share it. We are now 18 months into the drought with no prospect of change, and nothing in the history of RFA to indicate that such a prolonged drought will ultimately correct itself. I fear we are more likely to get into a negative feedback loop.
 * Fewer admins spending more of their time doing admin stuff and correspondingly less of their time doing general editing stuff as ordinary members of the community.
 * More and more of the speedy deletions being done by those who can flick through and clear the whole backlog in the time others might spend declining and saving a couple of speedy nominations.
 * Non-admins getting more and more pissed off with admins as a different separate caste who don't do enough non-admin stuff to be part of the wider community.
 * Adminship becoming a less and less attractive chore both for the existing admins who we want to retain and the prospective admins who we want to recruit.
 * I remain convinced that whilst RFA is broken Wikipedia isn't, and so as long as we keep demolishing arguments against change, eventually the community will agree to fix the problem.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that people keep focusing on solutions that are ultimately not very helpful.
 * Trial adminship is too easily gamed, making it of questionable usefulness, and more likely a waste of time.
 * De-adminship processes are bound to be far too drama-laden, as people would most likely divide into camps and make increasingly ridiculous accusations.
 * Reconfirmation proposals are often just a rewording of de-admin proposals, setting up for the same drama.
 * In general, this community has generally become extremely resistant to change to begin with, and the recurring flawed proposals are just too easily shot down. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it supposedly "doesn't work" is because we're so bad at picking admins, opposing great candidates becaase they said to delete and article we thought should have been kept and stuff like that. It's not like that would effect their admin ability because they'd still have to take part in the AfD rather than jsut delete the article. The only good way to choose admins where that won't happen is to have someone pick new admins with absolutely no input fromt he comminity. Barring that this works well.--Patton123 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Random thought (probably suggested and rejected before, but prompted by comments above): what about making RFA more of a two-step procedure? The first step would be a friendlier "qualification" stage, the gist of which would be answering in a friendly way the question "am I ready? what else do I have to do/learn?" Only if the answer at the first step is "OK, probably ready" proceed to full RFA. As with anything there would be advantages and disadvantages; the key difficulty would be designing the first step so it works as intended and doesn't turn into the second. I'm totally open on what the design would be, but the first passing idea is needing a certain number of support votes to proceed (neutral/opposes would be ignored though obviously the candidate might choose to withdraw). Thoughts? Rd232 talk 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That has been proposed and rejected before... which is why my variation is a little different. It may fail, but I think it is a variation that has some merit.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All (well almost all) proposals have some merit. The problem is none of them have enough merit. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By some merit, I mean that I think it is enough of a different take on an old theme, that it is worth exploring. If somebody were to propose a two part approval process "Apply now, reapply in 3 months" it would be too similar to what has gone before.  I think, and I KNOW I'm biased, that my proposal has some new twists that make it worth exploring.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions
I've just answered Q11 (c) which was added some time after I had answered all the other questions. Would it not be a good idea if there was a general understanding that a candidate should be notified that an additional question had been posed after the initial flurry of questions had been answered? Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be courteous to notify the candidate, although it's not entirely necessary. Keeping an eye on your request shows more competence than assuming it's finished and leaving it be for the rest of the week.  Since I didn't want to clog up my watchlist, I've been watching my own request like a hawk with the help of an RSS feed.  Go to the history page and subscribe to the feed there.  You should be updated every time that page is modified. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think that nervous paranoia is the generally assumed behavior, so it usually gets taken care off on its own. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, the nervousness was my first reaction, but after about the first four supports I realized I stood a good enough chance I had no reason to be nervous. Now I've been reading the results as they come in simply because they make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I note that another two questions have sneaked in overnight on my RfA. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would've notified after a short time normally, but I looked at your contribs and saw you'd been editing since it was posted, so I didn't, assuming you'd got your own RfA on your watchlist! Sorry if it was a problem, it wasn't meant to be :) <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't, but it is now! <g> Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't most admin candidates, especially in ones which are not 110-1-1, fairly compulsively watch their RfA anyway? Don't see this as a problem.  Possibly as a reason to oppose, if a candidate is not keeping an eye ...--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having the RfA on the watchlist does tend to clutter up the changes page. I generally keep a select few articles on my watchlist and keep an eye on articles I've contributed to via the "articles created or worked upon" section on my user page. Each line has a separate function (click them to see). Mjroots (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfatally and soxbot
Any ideas why rfatally isn't working and why soxbot isn't picking up Abecedare's RfA? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All the bots were broken with the last software update, but I see Soxbot has been run since then. Is it possible someone manually pushed the bot? -- SPhilbrick  T  15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's now working - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An update has occurred, but unless Soap transmogrified into a bot, I'm guessing that Soxbot is still not working properly.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New backlog
There are 5,600 images in Category:Wikipedia media renaming requests that have been flagged for renaming and MediaWiki lets only admins perform a rename, so I'm sure our vast admin corp will quickly respond to the backlog, now that image renaming is enabled.  MBisanz  talk 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and that is also the list of images for which the person requesting rename did not provide a suggested new name, so no, a bot cannot be used.  MBisanz  talk 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So is there a bot that handles images that do have a suggested new name?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That... is a very large number. Why exactly IS this admin only?--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Potential for abuse, perhaps? <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, potential for bugs looking at r45197. Fun  Pika  23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is because image redirects are less-clean then file redirects, for example, a double redirect on an article hurts nothing, but a double redirect on an image after moving can break NFCC and end up getting a non-free image bot deleted. Also, there are various WP:BEANS aspects of the image system that makes it less robust than the paging system (suffice it to say I have managed to obliterate images by moving them too quickly last time it was enabled).  MBisanz  talk 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I get temporary adminship for this? There should really be a flag for it instead of only administrators doing the job.  Zoo Fari  00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained here, an editor does not need to be an admin to work on this category.--Rockfang (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should just announce it to the wide admin audience that file renaming was re-enabled. I think most, like me, are willing to help but did not know this. Regards  So Why  13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: Non-admins can assist by checking the requests and proposing better file names using . Regards  So Why  13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins who don't want to chance breaking something can also do that. :) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just moved an image to File:Skylark front cover.jpg, and now it seems to be broken... :( Rd232 talk 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now it's OK. Weirdness. Rd232 talk 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the cache, sometimes it needs a few minutes to catch up. Don't worry. :-) Regards  So Why  14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SoWhy, just be on the look out for errors, last time they enabled it I managed to break a file about once ever sixty moves. I haven't had a chance to stress test it, but hope to be able to later this week.  MBisanz  talk 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did about 25, and everything seems to be working properly. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: When renaming images, remember to check that the target filename isn't already being used by a file in Commons. In such a case, it doesn't even give you a warning when overwriting the file, and all the file links pointing to the Commons file will now point to the image you moved instead. It took me a while to realize why there were already file links to the image I just moved, with no entry in the upload log and no warning when I moved the image. Jafeluv (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, good catch. Perhaps we could file a bug to implement such a warning feature? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that has all sorts of unfortunate implications. (the overwriting, not the feature request) --Tznkai (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that such a bug should be filed, should not be too hard to implement I think and it would really avoid such bad situations. Regards  So Why  11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy on how to handle specific cases where an image was uploaded only to be overwritten with a completely different image by another user? See File:100 1492.jpg for an example.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 12:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say revert to the old version. If someone uploads a different image on the some name, it's their fault and they should be reverted. If the new image is used somewhere, you can reupload it with a better name and the old file information. Regards  So Why  12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So is there a bot that handles images that do have a suggested new name?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually writing one right now, but it'll take a while before it's operational. I'll let you know then, unless someone beats me to it. Jafeluv (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaelen S. 2 RfA
I think Requests for adminship/Gaelen S. 2 is an obvious case where Snow applies, but before pushing for that, I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something. User:Gaelen S. received Rollback rights from User:Acalamari days into his tenure here (started editing 8/26/09). The next day he lost those rights for misusing the tool (User:Cenarium revoked them) before they were given back a few days later by User:Decltype. Since these are admins for whom I have a great deal of respect, it makes me wonder if I don't have the full story. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that he was not quite familiar with the use of the tool yet see: . I would say this user is clearly not ready yet. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The rollback issue was blown a little bit out of proportion, in my opinion. Gaelen was under the impression that adding information without properly citing sources could be rollbacked. I saw one of Gaelen's bad reverts on my watchlist, and notified Gaelen as well as Acalamari [link]. Because the user had so many good reverts, we agreed that no further action was required. However, a different user brought the issue to WP:AN, which resulted in the removal of the user right by Cenarium. Following a re-request from Gaelen some time later at WP:RFP/R, I consulted Cenarium, who had no objections to the right being reinstated. That pretty much summarizes it, I think. Regards, <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, my issue was with the ACC tool request so quickly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The flood of opposes is not necessary
Please have some encouragement rather than flooding the nominations of newbies with opposes. I would like to ask RFA to moral support or don't vote at all. We all know the nominations are going to fail so it is better to just let the nominators know that now is not the time and that some day he/se will be a good administrator. I just got an email saying that one of the nominees no longer wants to contribute.  Zoo Fari  17:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll vote whatever I feel like voting. I'm not going to "moral suppport" someone and say "someday you'll be a good admin" unless I actually mean it. Anything different would be disingenious insincere. While I don't think it's neccessary to be excessively blunt or discouraging to a nominee, I'm not going to vote contrary to what I want just so I don't hurt their precious feelings.--Atlan (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I can understand the demoralizing factor involved, and the lure of wanting to jump the gun when it comes to opposing. I don't feel people should refrain from commenting. The best course of action, obviously, is to say something (oppose or not) but have it be constructive. The nominee needs to learn. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To respond to Atlan, that isn't the best attitude to have. It may be "disingenuous", but simply voting "no" or "oppose" without adequate explanation quickly gets tedious. We've all done it, including myself. I do take exception with the whole vote moral support thing. I find it incredibly condescending. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 17:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say empty oppose votes are alright. I'd rather not vote all.--Atlan (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with Wisdom. If I support someone, it's because I support them; I'm not going to give them a patronising "support but I don't really" just to soothe their hurt feelings. And I completely disagree with "tell the candidate that some day he/se will be a good administrator" - that's patronising beyond belief. Wikipedia admin is a thankless job, requiring equal parts of copy-editor, social worker, security guard and filing clerk; some people will never be right for it, and there's no point encouraging people to devote their energy to this particular blind alley where there are more productive things they could be doing instead. – iride  scent  17:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Wow. That does pretty much sum it up...  GARDEN  18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's about it. I'd say an RFA candidate should be prepared for some semi-brutal comments when they put themselves forward for scrutiny. I examined my past RFA participation, and out of 311 RFAs, I've "morally supported" twice. I will give my honest opinion on the matter, and I expect other RFA partipants to do the same, while obviously being civil about it. But if the candidate is going to get up-in-arms solely because someone typed out their opinion, well...Useight (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

←I agree with Wisdom and Iridescent. There is nothing wrong with opposing a candiate who is obviously unqualified. Certainly we shouldn't bite the newbies; but we shouldn't sugar-coat our comments to the point where we fail to give them an honest assessment. Majoreditor (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Frankly if you put yourself up for RfA you should be aware that there is an oppose section and it is there to be used. <font style="color:#333399;"> GARDEN  18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One recent candidate took moral support but not now neutral notvotes as evidence that the Nos were not the majority, and that the yeses (including moral support ut not nows) were almost there. (Something like 14 / 22). It took many nos to persuade them that actully they should close early.  They did have many ind plite suggestions to close early too. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite so. I think WP:BITE covers all of this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I read ZooFari's post more as a request to try to cut down on some of the aggression on the RfAs of users who are newcomers and, as such, don't understand the process, rather than trying to get a dig in at opposition votes. We don't have to support newcomers just to make them "feel good" or give false praise to them, but at the same time, we don't have to bully these candidates simply because we can, and feel safe in the knowledge that those types of candidates can't defend themselves against any bullying. Let's be honest, if a newcomer's RfA is at 0/10/0, is it really necessary to add a "per above", a "Super strong oppose", or an "Oppose - WP:NOTNOW" (an incredibly condescending type of vote if you ask me and a misuse of the essay) vote to the pile on? What does adding another oppose to a clearly sunk candidacy achieve, especially if you're not going to give any constructive advice to the candidate? Is it really necessary to edit-war to keep a snowball-oppose candidacy open? As I said, I don't advocate giving false praise or false support votes to obvious snow candidates, but I don't see any reason to be unnecessarily mean either. Acalamari 19:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but that's WP:BITE right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to edit-war to keep a snowball-oppose candidacy open? - when has this happened? I see many no-chance editors being told to think about early closing, and I see a few of them saying they want the RfA left open. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My first RfA had some moral support and a lot of opposes. I found it to be helpful as even the opposes gave useful advice. My next RfA went far better, and I don't know if that would have been the case if my first RfA was sugar coated. I agree that if you are going to oppose you should give some helpful information. <font color='#A24E15'>Chillum 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I never found "moral support" to be even remotely condescending or patronizing, rather I took it at face value as encouragement to try again later. As a signal they had confidence in my eventual suitability. <font color='#A44E15'>Chillum 19:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not demanding you to stop voting either, or moral support everything. It looks simple to us but in reality the opposes repeating the same assertion is hurtful to a newbie's point of view. Per this. Per that. We do not need none of that when it comes to a newbie's nomination. More feedback is welcomed but I think the whole repetition is stupid. If we all know that it is obviously going to fail, why continue it? Newbie's leaving Wikipedia is the number 1 thing I hate the most (I was one of them) and I'm willing to fight for that.  Zoo Fari  19:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if it is a newbie then of course someone should go to their talk page and explain things to them and the RfA should likely be closed early. Most people trying to run for adminship are not new users though. <font color='#B14816'>Chillum 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, however, we do receive quite a few requests for adminship from new users - unfortunately, it's usually viewed as a sense of status-ship at that stage (at least that's the sense I get). I feel that WP:NOTNOW does a splendid job of explaining all of what we've been discussing. It's primary purpose was to eschew hurt feelings. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<-I've said it before, but we do a disservice to tell people that being an admin is no big deal. Maybe we could find a better way to say it. I think I understand the motivation; wanting to avoid the appearance of a hierarchical structure with admins superior to mere editors, but when you tell someone it is no big deal, and, by the way, you don't come close to measuring up, it's a tough message to swallow. When I see editors with a few hundreds edits proposing themselves, somehow, they've received a misunderstanding of what is expected. I just looked at the form to nominate yourself, and it looks like we communicate fairly clearly, so I don't quite know what the problem is. Zoofari, would you be willing to ask? The nomination form says "self-nominated candidates with fewer than 2,000 edits and three months of active editing often see their RfAs closed per WP:SNOW" - several recent candidates, and very possibly the one who contacted you were far short of that. Perhaps they could explain whether they missed that comment, or why they felt it shouldn't apply. Does it need to be in bold? Do we need candidates to sign off that they've read it?-- SPhilbrick  T  21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that User:X!/notnow could be sent as a message to the users on their talk page. It works the same as an oppose vote. It gives them advice on what to do, and at the end, suggests they withdraw and try again later, in a nicer tone than "Oppose - Not now."  iMatthew  talk  at 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that is that if everyone were to use it you're going to get bloody long RfAs. Also the random inclusion of a French phrase for no real reason annoys me a little. <font style="color:#999933;"> GARDEN  21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to me, I was just angry at the time. Sorry.  Zoo Fari  21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Erm, how could I have been referring to you?  I wasn't... <font style="color:#333399;"> GARDEN  21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you were talking about this discussion (I used "stupid" above).  Zoo Fari  21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I have no idea why editors miss that. I will ask but I doubt the nominee will respond. I replied 2 days ago and didn't hear from him again.  Zoo Fari  00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Following up from a bit above, do we need to move around from this idea that being an admin is 'no big deal'?, sure from a functionalist perceptive it's just a few extra buttons, but RFA shows that culturally and politically it's a very big deal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said a number of times, reading WP:DEAL closely I belive that we need to distinguish between being an admin and taking administrative action. DEAL says that being an admin is no great shakes i.e. admins are not "better" than anyone else - and rightly so. However the actual use (or more accuratley misuse) of the tools can become a very big deal very rapidly.
 * tl;dr - being an admin is not a big deal. Poorly judged use of the admin tools is a big deal. Pedro :  Chat  10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Jimbo at deal states this by saying "I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops." So we can quickly prove that being an admin is not a big deal, someone can change the flag on my account and make me an admin. I will of course be open to recall if my actions as an admin fall short of the mark. Someone drop me a line when it's done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, I wasn't there at the time, but I think Jimbo was trying to make sure that WP wasn't viewed as a hierarchy. He wanted to downplay the hierarchical aspects and emphasize the collegial aspects. You distinguished "between being an admin and taking administrative action". I'll say it slightly differently. There's a difference between authority and responsibility. We want to make sure that being an admin is not viewed as a position of authority, but at the same time, we shouldn't downplay that it is a position of responsibility. A "bad" admin decision is far more detrimental to the project than a bad edit; a bad edit can be reversed in seconds, a bad admin action might drive away a great contributor.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Has everyone else noticed that when one of these threads scrolls about two screens down it gradually goes off the point? To return to the initial question about oppose !votes on candidates who are not going to qualify: I see no conceivable reason to post a moral support vote. It does not mean anything, either to the candidate or to other !voters or to the closing Bureaucrat. If a candidate obviously has no chance at all, then a !vote is not compulsory. If an editor wishes to participate, then an oppose !vote, phrased gently and with some sensible advice contained in it is surely the way to go. RfA is ,as we all know, not a vote, and a 'crat is not going to promote an obviously bad candidate no matter how many moral supports they get. Be helpful, yes. be encouraging, yes. Be constuctive, yes. But don't be pointless. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)