Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 187

WP:VETTING
There are arguments pro and con for making some kind of vetting available if we're going to have a recruitment drive, but whether it's a good idea or not isn't important if we can't get a bunch ... say, 10 ... people interested in offering private reviews, and in having their reviews reviewed (if the candidates are willing to share that information after they're done). If it's just a few people, that creates a problem of "gatekeeping", of having just a few people unfairly influence the process. If it's a problem with this particular page (most people prefer to give feedback at RFA and ER; personally, I don't like the suggestion to email the reviews to anyone other than the candidate), that's fine, but if so, we should know for the next time we do a recruitment drive that we'll need some other form of vetting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be picky, but surely WIkipedia is voluntary? The term "recruitment drive" (albeit pertaining to those wishing to be admins) seems rather... odd. Generally a good idea however, even though I'm not sure that potential admins should be vetted by e-mail. That seems to be against the open nature of Wikipedia. Just my thoughts. M&spades;ssing   Ace  21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure that the lack of interest is really lack of interest rather than just not knowing about the page. Clearly, what's going on a few sections above is a kind of "recruitment drive", and so far, it's helping a little, but not a lot.  If you encourage people to run who fail because they didn't get useful feedback, that's not good.  Likewise, candidates who could be successful but don't know that aren't likely to change their minds just because there's a recruitment drive going on; it would be helpful to walk them through their concerns and doubts.  Apart from just waiting for random encouragement, which is a haphazard way to get new admins, it's looking like the best source of feedback we can point people to at the moment is WP:ER, which generally takes several weeks or more, and tends not to give people a good idea whether they'll pass RFA or not.  I would welcome any new ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be a good idea, especially if the applicants are chosen from 'Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls'. It could also cut back on the number of failed RfA's if users familiar with the RfA process choose to participate. FYI, I am on the list, however this is an unbiased comment. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would advise limiting this idea to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, and having only admins who spend time around RfA do the vetting. My reasoning is that this Category is a list of people who want to be known as potential admins, so I really see no problem with adding a mechanism to that category which allows editors to be notified when their contributions merit RfA. Rather than recruiting good candidates to run for RfA, we could just recruit people to add the category to the user page. I think this helps avoid coaching candidates to specifically game the RfA, while still allowing the potential candidates to receive candid advice from editors who have a finger on the pulse of RfA as it functions at that moment in time. Candidates who might be considered controversial one month, can very quickly find their contributions are the flavor of the day by those voting frequently at RfA. In a sense, this is still gaming, but really just to educate good candidates on how to time their runs with the latest fads at RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected to Editor review. Please don't create a redundant page and then make a bunch of RfA shortcuts so it seems like an official process. If you'd like to propose a new form of editor review, clearly mark it with proposed and separate it from established RfA process. Andre (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted it back. There was no consensus for your redir, nor is the page redundant. ER and VETTING serve different purposes. → ROUX   ₪  23:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a small discussion taking place on Andrevan's talk page.  ceran  thor 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And on the talk page of WP:VETTING. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that was completely unnecessary. Especially since there appears to be support for it here. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really a big fan of off-wiki communication on any on-wiki process like this without a good reason, and I just don't see that reason here. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

only let people run if there is a chance the community will assess them seriously
We've discussed several times before the idea of upping the minimum requirements for a self nom to something that would screen out those whom the community is going to snowball oppose. I think this a prime example of the sort of unfortunate incident that would be prevented if no-one could editwp:RFA unless they had both 1500 edits and three months activity; and that continuing to allow ethusiastic newish editors to put themselves through this sort of unpleasant experience is tantamount to newbie biteing. Can those who usually oppose such a restriction please have a rethink and either accept that we need such a filter or suggest how we can effectively convert such RFAs into editor reviews?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the concept, but I'm mildly concerned about WP:CREEP. Plus, if there are values, I'd like higher ones. What about a warning message - caution - self-nominations for admin with fewer than 2000 edits and six months active experience fail to gain consensus 80% of the time, primarily because other editors want more experience to evaluate the knowledge of policies and the trust in decision-making. (Obviously, the wording needs tinkering, and I made up the number, so we'd have to get the right value but I think if editors realized how often a couple thousand edits isn't enough, they wouldn't bother with a couple hundred.)-- SPhilbrick  T  15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have discussed the idea several times over nearly a year now, and a few things have emerged that I think address most of the objections that have come up. Firstly it needs to be something automated - we already have stuff in the guide, the unsuccessful section and the recent runners that should deter those who are unlikely to pass and do their homework. Secondly some people consider that we need to allow for exceptions, so though I've nothing against self noms in general this is only about self noms - if a sufficiently experienced editor transcludes it you can run on your first day with your first few edits. Thirdly both the tenure and the number of edits are much lower than all but one of the successful candidates in the last year, hopefully this will help combat editcountitis and may even reverse some "creep" and more realistically it reflects past discussions on this page; If we are going to do this we need to set the level at a point where few RFA !voters would believe they could realistically assess a candidate and possibly support, if we set the threshold much higher than this there will be people opposing because they might want to support such a selfnom.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I look back at my RfA, I was weighed down by heavy oppisition at the start, even a SNOW closure what not, however, After my first period of initial anger, and a few moral supports, I realized that it is part of the process! RfA should be a process that is a little intimidating, while being an admin is NOBIGDEAL, it does involve a lot of responsibility that needs to be demonstrated. Even a SNOW closure can benefit an editor if he takes it the way he's supposed to, and lets it motivate him to continue editing, in a beneficial manner. If the candidate can't handle a few opposes, they probably can't handle the user who they blocked bringing a SOCK and reporting THEM to ANI, vandalizing THEIR talk page, or for that matter the temptation to protect Michael Jackson when he dies before he's able to do so as set forth by policy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that RFA is becoming a two stage process, but this is intended to filter out those who get opposed on things like edit count and tenure, not the candidates who get 50% to 70% and opposes that point out flaws they may not already have been aware of. We also need to be aware that a lot of RFA candidates stop editing during or soon after an unsuccessful RFA  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be more offended by being told that I could not even try because it is so obvious that I would not pass than I would be if I tried and failed. To be frank we can't be sure a candidate has no chance until we have an RfA. If people think there is no chance then try to convince the person to withdraw but don't lock the door. Chillum  16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that we should treat people with respect to let them withdraw on their own once it becomes clear what is happening.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be really hard to set the bar. Setting it too high will be unpopular with many people. Setting it too low will mean candidates run when they're not (in the eyes of some people) ready. If a candidate meets the min reqs does that mean that an editor could ' oppose - not enough experience'? A lot of people posting in Neutral saying "get some more experience", or "stop doing this, then try again" might be better than a bunch of "no". NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no use in such a proposal. 1.) We have no way to force people to follow such rules. 2.) It's CREEPy. 3.) There are people who have passed RFA with less (remember lustiger_seth?). 4.) The very fact that those people do not read any of those rules we already have and choose to ignore all information we offer, means they actively seek to be bitten. We can show them the information and place a lot of virtual stop signs everywhere to assure that people don't post premature RFAs but that's all we should do. All editors are to be considered mature users who should be trusted (WP:AGF!) to read guides and act accordingly. If they choose to submit a premature RFA, then that's their decision and we should accept it and treat it accordingly. Regards  So Why  19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which proposal? The proposal to disallow self-nomination below a bar, or the proposal to issue a caution warning to those below a certain threshold? I agree the first is Creepy, but not the second. User:Lustiger seth is a possible reason for rejecting the first proposal, but not the second.
 * Yes, I'm surprised that some people are applying well-below community norms, but we do send a mixed message. After all WP:ADMIN says: "Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience." I guess this is technically true, but without a follow up explaining that you can apply, but you'll be summarily dismissed if you can't jump over a certain bar, the height of which varies from editor to editor and isn't well-publicized.


 * We can do better.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of sentences later that same paragraph goes on to say "Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community." All you'd need to add to that is they should be familiar with AfD RfA -- just reading through about two AfD RfAs is all it should take even a mildly clueful candidate to see that standards vary from !voter to !voter.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "summarily dismissed". I take issue with that. Do not assume bad faith Sohilbrick. I for one take time before making any comment at a RFA, and I know most other editors do so to. A great many editors who have failed RFA No. 1 use the feedback to positive effect (both for them as an editor and the enyclopedia as a whole) and are then granted the tools at a subsequent request. I think your opinion of those who oppose an RFA needs a little adjusting. Pedro : Chat  20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would personally be very unhappy at any definite minumum requirement edit count policy for RfA. Of course, we all know that an editor with only 50 edits is not going to get the tools: but they can be told so politely and quietly, and it really does not cause any of us here any significant problem to do this. I can think of a number of admins who applied too early, were guided in the right direction, and are now among the better sysops here. For the record, even when an editor who has no chance applies, I always look at his/her edits in depth before opposing; I had hoped that we all did. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To Pedro - Ah, the downsides of text, without nuance. The entire point of the "summarily dismissed" language was to describe the viewpoint of the recipient. I think it is an accurate description of how some feel, even when editors are trying hard to provide useful feedback. Do you disagree?
 * To Anthony - I'm sure there are fine sysops who turned out fine after failing an early attempt and learning from feedback. But the whole point of this discussion is that some have reacted negatively to being rejected, and even withdrawn from WP. Much of the discussion centers around how better to deliver the message to those people that applying with 50 edits is a waste of everyone's time.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick - yes, I see - always the downside of non-vocal communication! Yes, I do agree - and indeed this discussion very is a fine example of why text may not convey our words properly; and hence at RFA when opposing our possible empathy with the candidate. Thanks for your clarification. Pedro : Chat  21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the snow closures of candidates with fewer than 1,500 edits were done politely and quietly and with detailed feedback based on a review of their edits then I wouldn't be making this suggestion. But the sort of RFAs I'm trying to prevent are the ones that get opposes such as "Too soon" and "not enough edits for me to evaluate you". By contrast my own first RFA got loads of interesting feedback with in my estimation seven different reasons why people opposed, and I think my second RFA went more smooothly than it would have done if I'd simply waited for months longer before submitting my RFA. So I'm not trying to prevent people running for RFA if they are likely to get seriously considered, or get any benefit from the process. But the current system is unnecessarily harsh to people who are practically newbies, just look at past unsuccessful applications and see how many snow closed candidates left soon after their RFAs.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Frequently proposed (wp:peren) solution looking for a problem. When RFA gets overrun by so many obvious WP:SNOW nominations, then there's an issue. There isn't an issue now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you look at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) there have been eight candidates this month who have been rejected snow or not now with little if any feedback other than that their edits and tenure are insufficient for them to be seriously considered at RFA. This month has not been unusual, annually we get about a hundred of these; that's an awful lot of bitten editors and its not unusual for candidates to leave here after such an experience. So yes there is a problem, and this is a possible solution.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it's been a "problem" ever since people started caring about edit counts. What, 5? 6? 7 years? Doesn't seem to have shut down RfA. Maybe the solution is to talk to the people who are running before they are ready, rather than automatically refusing them. Eight such efforts a month isn't much. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any convention that causes editors distress and sometimes premature retirement is a problem unless it delivers compensatory benefits. We have in the region of 100 RfAs that crash and burn per year, which is offset by perhaps a single exceptional editor being promoted earlier than would have been the case with clearly defined criteria.   We could still have a qualification saying exceptions can be made on rare occasions such as when someone  with a high degree of technical ability needs sysop rights to perform important tasks.   Unless the RFA process is meant to cater to sadists, the only reasonable objection to WSC's idea is that its good for folk to be allowed to learn by failure,  however even the investment banks ive worked at seemed to care enough about the welfare of their workforce to not let that happen in such a heartless and un structured way as we do here.   FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Any convention that causes editors distress and sometimes premature retirement is a problem" Ok, then abolish adminship. So what if 100 crash and burn? Assuming that number is correct (which I doubt) where's the correlation to that causing loss of editors? The weight is on supporters of this to show how this outweighs the grave concerns of establishing a bar below which an editor can't be considered for adminship. It's extremely serious to establish such a bar. Once established, you're not going to get rid of it. Once established, it will keep being raised. Here's another correlation that needs to be generated; edit count and time of service vs. admin performance. Is there a correlation between low edit counts and bad administrators? If there isn't, then this whole idea of edit counts being meaningful is absolute rubbish. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that overuse of edit count is part of the problem at RFA. We discussed this in one of the sessions at Wikimania and apparently DE wiki is in an even worse state with 10,000 edits now seen as a minimum requirement for adminship. But this proposal isn't about the candidates who the community seriously considers for adminship, it is about the ones who get rejected out of hand with snow closures etc. I would be concerned if the bar was continually being raised, but I'm not convinced that this would happen, and am interested in learning why you think it would tend to this as opposed to a small tendency to fossilising current standards. As for my figure of 100 a year and belief that this causes a loss of editors I admit that is based on a cursory look at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). I will go through that again a bit more scientifically and collect some figures as to both the number of editors whose RFA would have been prevented by this, and how many ceased their contributions after their RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The number one way to encourage a continually raising bar to adminship is....to create a bar in the first place. That's my concern. Once it is created, you're not going to be able to stop it creeping higher. There's a general belief here that you need 'x' number of edits to be considered. But that 'x' value varies from voter to voter, and isn't codified anywhere. The good result from that is we have candidates who are well qualified who exist more than one or even two sigmas from center on edit counts who can still make it. That's downward pressure. If you set the bar, you cut off the possibility of downward pressure below a certain point. In essence, you encourage the rise of standards. One of the best ways to discourage the rise in standards (which no one has shown to actually create better administrators) is to not have standards in the first place. I think we do a good job of snow closing obvious failures already. RfA isn't burdened by an overwhelming number of snow closes. What we might not be doing a good job of is handling the people who fail. Setting a bar below which you can't even apply; I'm not sure how we could even enforce that without having the same effect as a snow close. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I share your concern about continually rising RFA standards, especially in areas not relevant to adminship. But I'm not convinced that this proposal would affect that. I fear that the real flaw in RFA is the ratcheting effect of setting the passmark at 70-75%. There is a natural process in such decision making whereby those who picked the winner feel their vote was validated and some of those whose candidate lost feel a need to reconsider their position. If the RFA pass mark was at 50% this would balance out, but in the current system this process will tend to shift the commnunity norms because RFAs in the 50-70% range are almost always unsuccessful.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this wiki should have something like this. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Some good prospects at Requests for Coaching
I was browsing Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching last night, and I think that there are some decent prospects there at the moment for the mop. Could be a good way to keep from dropping to zero candidates in the future. And, frankly, I think that User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins deserves to be promoted just based on their username. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Here's a couple that I think could pass without an issue, upon initial review - Jeff G. and abce2, but I saw OverlordQ in that list and see that he is an admin, so I am not sure if that table is at all reliable if it is that out of date. ArcAngel (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is not patrolled, so people who requested a coach long ago and then tried RFA without coaching can still be in it. We should probably try and reset Admin Coaching to be more like Adoption, with templates on userpages to request coaching. But that would require a decent number of admins willing to act as coaches...
 * On a side note, WP:HOPEFUL also contains many users willing to be admins and a not small number of them might be good candidates. But again, it needs people willing to go through it and assess them. Regards  So Why  09:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that abce2 pretty much has what it takes right now, as would Jeff G., except that he was at AN/I less than a week ago. It would only take a little bit of polish I think to get him over the line.  User:ChrisDHDR's edit count is a little on the smaller side compared to what many editors normally expect, but he looks to be a rather solid and well-rounded editor as well.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
 * With all due respect, Jeff G. wouldn't have a prayer. Keepscases (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I might just remove my name from the list soon. I haven't been as active as I should have been, and I don't have the time to check Wikipedia on a daily basis.--Iner22 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

they don't want the early close option
see above discussion. then see some recent RfAs where people have been advised to close their RfA early, but declined to do so. what should be done in those situations? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing? Those who opt out of snow might think the chance of an unexspected swing or additional feedback outweighs any negatives. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. But this page has lengthy discussion about the harm that comes to people when they don't early close. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I read it and I hope something will be done to mitigate the harm. Id also recognise folk have very different reactions to harsh words - at one end of the spectrum it can result in the most extreme responces, while others quite literally WP:DGAF (the most healthy view being close to DGAF IMO, though we should cater for all). If folk choose to opt out of snow they're likely not all that sensitive to criticism. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm as coming from not having an early close, I see the harm as coming from allowing people to run when they don't have enough experience to have their candidacy taken seriously. If someone wants to run the whole week and is getting worthwhile feedback then I see no harm in that, I just hope that those who like the current system will try to make it work by actually reviewing the candidates edits and writing an oppose that's more of an editor review - "here's a few things you might consider trying/changing/learning before your next RFA"  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I think NotAnIp is saying an early close can at least limit the harm, though as you say feeback can be valuable if the candidate is up for it, and much better to limit the potential for harm by having clearer guidelines so that those without a snowball's chance dont enter the fray until they're ready. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let people do what they want. This notion is entirely too paternalistic for something that doesn't matter enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just let it go through to the end, perhaps they will win, they will likely lose. If someone wants to go through the whole thing then let them. Chillum  15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I think editors agree that i)People with little hope of passing should be given some warning about how harsh RfA can be; ii)Given some information about what is usually wanted; iii)If an early close is suggested, and rejected, the candidate is treated like any other RfA candidate. (That is, with respect and politeness.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That sums up my point of view nicely. Chillum  15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that motion  JUJUTACULAR  | TALK 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. We should treat this as general precedent from here on. Glass  Cobra  20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think this sounds like the best course of action.  hmwith  ☮  21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreeing as well. Jamie  S93  21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone is presented with the suggestion that they withdraw their RfA (per SNOW/NOTNOW) and they decline the invitation, it continues along unless a bureaucrat decides that it really is best to close the RfA. That's how I've always thought of it... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that if someone requests their SNOW RfA remain open, it should stay open. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of closing RfAs prematurely is to avoid pile-on voting which discourages the candidate; therefore, if the candidate can handle it, there's no point in SNOW'ing it. One could argue that keeping the RfA open is a waste of time, but that argument doesn't really hold any water in my experience. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with Juliancolton. If someone wants their RfA to remain open, whatever the reason, it should remain open until the end. I think someone who is willing to go through something as a learning experience shows a lot of maturity (or at least a willingness to learn), especially if they know they don't have a chance of being successful. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Persistence in sticking through to the end is a desirable trait in an admin, so it would be a plus in a follow up RfA. That applies too if they learn something from it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

List of editors who should be considered for adminship
How about a list of editors that deserve consideration for possible adminship? I hesitate to mention user:FlyingToaster, but they seemed okay to me even in light of the content issue that was raised. No need to attack me if I'm way off on any of these. My endorsement is probably a kiss of death anyway. I'm just making suggestions for discussion and consideration. Do other editors have ideas? I'm pretty self centered so I don't notice much about what other editors are up to. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * user:S Marshall Not me, not now.  Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * user:Kelapstick see comment below
 * user:MichaelQSchmidt Has elected to enter coaching before a possible run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * user:Bongomatic
 * User:Drmies See S Marshall's comment below - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:theleftorium if enough time has passed? Thanks, but I won't run until December (or possibly a bit sooner). I'm interested in the vetting-thingy, though.  The left orium  20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea CoM, though we might wish to remove editors from the list who might through modesty not wish to be mentioned. I'll have a look through the unsuccessful "nearly there" candidates from last year. Skomorokh  02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only bumped into Drmies and Bongomatic in limited fashion but it's been positive for sure and I 100% second that Kelapstick would make a great admin after working with him in weeding out notable and non-notable minor league baseball players.-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - but just to play devils advocate... Wouldn't this type of listing just get subjected to the same comments and scrutiny as a full RFA? Wouldn't it be hard (impossible) to take someone whose name was on the list here but had a few negative comments and then have them successfully pass an RFA - it seems like people would refer to the pre-nom list comments which would strongly bias their actual RFA !votes.  Similarly, if a person listed here received wide pre-nom support from well respected admins and editors wouldn't that almost hand them the mop automatically (a la an Ambassadorship handed down by the president).  Not saying it's a bad idea, and we might benefit from some pre-nom discussions... just saying there are some logistics.   7  02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really suggesting we get into an in depth discussion and wouldn't want to bias the RFA itself one way or the other. I was just throwing out names for consideration that might be good to nom. I was hoping other editors might be willing to do the vetting and nomming or have other names worth looking into. For some strange reason I'm a bit controversial on the Wiki so I don't think I'm in a good position to actually nom anyone myself, unless they really like uphill battles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Requests_for_adminship/Kelapstick was only a few months ago; the RfA was succeeding, but he chose to withdraw anyway because he felt he wasn't quite ready. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I am late to the party, but since my name was mentioned I thought I should comment. I would run again, but should wait until at least the spring.  Things are going to start to get busy for me in the near future and I don't think that I will have enough time to dedicate to Wikipedia as I would like to (in particularly in an administrative function).  And Soap is right, still too soon after my first RfA.  The vetting idea is interesting, and I haven't seen a name posted above that raises any red flags.  --kelapstick (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Someother potentially-useful lists are non-admins from WP:WBFAN/WP:GAN (inb4 content doesn't matter to adminship, yes it does), WP:DRV (participation in meta-deletion indicates interest, if not aptitude, in deletion policy), WikiProject co-ordinators (Milhist, Film in particular), clerks from WP:SPI, frequent petitioners at SPI, WP:RFPP, WP:UND. I'm not sure how to usefully extract candidates from recent changes/new page/vandalism patrol, but that would be another avenue. Skomorokh 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've recently been asked to stand again, but I'm still a little bruised from the last time. I've prompted Drmies to stand on a number of occasions and he has always said in strong terms he prefers to remain as an ordinary editor.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do editors think these lists are helpful/a good idea? I could come up with half a dozen more, but will desist if they are problematic. Feedback appreciated. Mahalo, Skomorokh  18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am honored to be even mentioned here. I have much respect for some of the people on this shortlist--I've left a love-note for Giants27 below; K-stick has the right temperament and is just the most pleasant person to work with; S Marshall would be an asset as an admin; and MQS has really, really grown on me (we started off on the wrong foot, back when I was a deletionist--my mistake, no doubt, but if anyone can 'save' an article at AfD in the right way, without bending the rules, it's MQS). I would vote yes on any one of them, and not just cause we're all in a very, very secret cabal. I've had some unpleasant experiences at recent RfAs and have stayed away from either nominating or commenting, and I am hesitant of starting the process myself. I have been thinking about going through the workshop and will do so in the near future, and possible someone who doesn't really know me can vet me. Right now is not the time since I'm quite busy at work and at home, but a few months from now might work. Thank you all, and thanks to ChildofMidnight for such a well-punctuated start to a useful discussion. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed Bongo is on CoM's shortlist as well: he's a bit of a whipper-snapper with less than 10,000 edits, but I believe him to be wise beyond his years--nice to work with, very knowledgeable of policy, and even-handed. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely support User:S Marshall, User:Kelapstick, and User:MichaelQSchmidt. While I have actually NOT agreed with them in say every AfD we both participated in, they both make reasonable arguments (in RfAs as well!) and have done a lot of good work for the project.  I would trust these editors as admins.  They have the experience, politeness, coolness, and dedication to merit serious consideration.  In an actual support "vote", I could easily write a whole paragraph of positives for these editors noting their varied and many positive contributions to our project.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent unsuccessful candidates
This is an arbitrary selection of unsuccessful candidates from September 2008 – February 2009 who might have a shot.
 * Candidate withdrew. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At WP:VETTING - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * not currently active Skomorokh  19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC) But may well become active shortly! Mayalld (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * just ran a few weeks ago Soap Talk/Contributions
 * Not the right time, see below, but I've left a message on her talk - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (I kid, I kid) Now seriously...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - WP:Requests for adminship/The_ed17 2, will transclude as soon as MBK004 noms. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inactive (Retired?) decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * just ran a few weeks ago Soap Talk/Contributions
 * Not at this time, see below - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - I'd be interested, but I would like the discussion at Featured list candidates/List of bridges to the Island of Montreal/archive1 to close before the RfA is initiated. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 05:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At WP:VETTING - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's considering it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very low activity recently. decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - I asked on Aug 31, he said he wants a few more months - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inactive. decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At WP:VETTING. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - If Jameson becomes active enough to pass RfA, I'll be happy to nominate him, we worked in WP:ROBO together, but he has very few recent edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit inactive, has one edit in the last two months-ish. GARDEN  18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Sy  n 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * has left the building :(
 * retired
 * Feel free to strike the admins, inactive and recently-blocked editors from the above list, and to remove yourself if you'd prefer not to be considered. No negative comments about the above-listed editors please. Skomorokh  02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't really bumped into many of these. has slowed down his contributing substantially. iMatthew should possibly run soon?  Aaroncrick   ( talk ) 02:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just crossed out UIS and Dendodge because, while they might have a chance at RfA in the near future, now really isn't a good time, because they both ran just a few weeks ago: Dendodge ¦ UIS.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have a better chance than most of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neurolysis might be worth considering again. I think it's been a while since their last effort. And I've seen good contribs from Ironholds. If someone failed in the past it means they may have made some mistakes, but if they've stuck with editing, gained experience, and stayed out of trouble I think it's worth considering them. Of course I'd be willing to give Ottava a chance too (depending on what diffs people can dig up :) So who knows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IMathew looks okay to me at first blush. Anyway, I just wanted to throw out some names and see if others had any. I think there must be qutie a few good editors who deserve a shot, even if they possess some imperfections that deem them more or less human. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * declares on her userpage an intention to run again, and is currently active. Anyone want to privately review? Skomorokh  02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * She had no edits before today for roughly two months, so it's the wrong time, but I'll be happy to help when she's been back for at least a month. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't really bumped into many of these. has slowed down his contributing substantially. iMatthew should possibly run soon?  Aaroncrick   ( talk ) 02:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just crossed out UIS and Dendodge because, while they might have a chance at RfA in the near future, now really isn't a good time, because they both ran just a few weeks ago: Dendodge ¦ UIS.  -- Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have a better chance than most of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neurolysis might be worth considering again. I think it's been a while since their last effort. And I've seen good contribs from Ironholds. If someone failed in the past it means they may have made some mistakes, but if they've stuck with editing, gained experience, and stayed out of trouble I think it's worth considering them. Of course I'd be willing to give Ottava a chance too (depending on what diffs people can dig up :) So who knows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IMathew looks okay to me at first blush. Anyway, I just wanted to throw out some names and see if others had any. I think there must be qutie a few good editors who deserve a shot, even if they possess some imperfections that deem them more or less human. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * declares on her userpage an intention to run again, and is currently active. Anyone want to privately review? Skomorokh  02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * She had no edits before today for roughly two months, so it's the wrong time, but I'll be happy to help when she's been back for at least a month. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The ones who were rejected, were booted because there was too much known about them. Presumably "Pastor" Theo got in because he was not so well known and was good at convincing everyone he was Mr. Nice Guy. Anyone who "creates drama" (code words for "speaks his mind and won't kiss up") gets a lot of negative votes, for fear they might actually do what admins are supposed to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I was hoping you'd run again sometime Bugs, do you want any help? - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not interested at this time, but thanks for asking. Meanwhile, (ec) I was going to say that I feel more comfortable with flawed but reasonable "known quantities", and the one on the list I know best and would support is Neurolysis. As a practical matter, he's starting at college and most likely won't have time. Maybe that's the explanation for the hundreds of other supposed admins who don't work here anymore, but it might be worth canvassing them and finding out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Two others I thought of are User:RexxS (not sure if he'd be willing to run) and user:Timmeh (not sure how long it's been since he ran?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What the? IMatthews not an admin? Wow. Abce2 | This is  not a test  03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd put my hand up...but there's that account sharing thing to clear up first I guess. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I had han- never mind. Abce2 | This is  not a test  03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, hopefully Pedro will be able to push Steve over the edge ... uhhh errr ummm .. I mean "Assist Steve in deciding to run". :). another couple that I wouldn't mind seeing in that list would be User:Chzz and User:ukexpat.  Amory is getting pretty close to time as well.  I know Iri got tired of the BS, and decided to focus on content (what a silly thing to do in this project eh?), but I suspect if needed she would pick up her bit again. (although she wouldn't need to run a RfA, just request her bit back from a crat or steward I believe).  — Ched :  ?  04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, has anyone ever considered asking User:CaliforniaAliBaba? I already tried nominating someone for the first time this month, but it didn't work out. There are a few people who I wish I could nominate, but I know they'd fail because they have political or ideological messages on their user pages (won't mention names). I'll think about this more later. Dekimasu よ! 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe we can convince ShelfSkewed? Previous suggestion at User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 2. Dekimasu よ! 06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I myself was not considering going for adminship again, but if I was asked I probably would oblige. That said, I'm still concerned by the Giano incident. I've not really done anything to advance from that before (maybe the refrainment from such activity is enough, but meh), said words that, quote, "would make a sailor blush", and generally have been a bit more laid back in what was my previously pretty rubbish 'must-not-do-anything-wrong' one man self-censorship parade (admittedly that went to hell with the thing over Giano, but whatever). I would like to consider the thing with Giano resolved, but every time I have tried to apologise (admittedly it was a bit late the first time anyway) there has been something close by that has made it look like I am doing it for my own gain. First time was at my RfA, 'own gain' is self explanatory, although the want for 'gain' is not something that should be wanted in adminship, second time was when FT had her RfA, which, as you can see from my lack of immediate nom, I had absolutely no idea about. I'd not been on IRC for ages, which I guess was the venue that she wanted me to talk to her at, and she ran without my knowledge. I can't remember whether there was a third time I apologised, but if there is, I'm probably apologising too much. I'm sorry for the whole incident -- the truth is that I mistook Giano for a completely different editor with a similar name who pretty much did meet the criteria I specified. It was a slip of the tongue, it wasn't intended to be malicious. I've not been the most active recently, either, but I don't know if that will matter that much to the RfA crowd (not so much in with them nowadays). But yes, I'd be willing to run, but you'll probably have to prod me first. Sorry for this massive wall of text, but I just wanted to get the skeletons out of the way in case anyone did want to prod me into it. — neuro  (talk)  07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more than a little uncomfortable about discussion of named potential candidates here, and would be much more comfortable if we stuck to discussing potential sources of recruits. Several good ones have been mentioned, in particular unsuccessful candidates who last ran more than three months ago and are still active. I would suggest broadening that from just the last year to further back, but I'd suggest concentrating on candidates who failed on issues like inexperience and lack of policy knowledge. We could also look at people on wp:EDITS. Lastly how about we all take a little break from this forum and revisit those we've opposed a few months ago to see if they are now ready?   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  07:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I run? Oh pretty please please please with sugar on top and a dancing cute little fairy? Please? lol I have as much chance as an ice sculpture in Dante's inferno. The funny thing is, I've never done anything to damage the project, only help it. But, people don't like me (and I don't care if they do), and RfA is a popularity contest. So, I'd never pass. Maybe that's the absolute proof that RfA is broken :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, correlation doesn't imply causality. — neuro  (talk)  14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And lack of smiley faces does not imply lack of humor. Sprinkle smileys as needed :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Err, some of these people have been opposed before, for good cause. Are we sure it's wise to try to choose from people who have already failed an RFA?  Friday (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that all or even most of the editors would be smart choices for candidates, but many fine administrators had unsuccessful requests, and this seemed like a good place to start narrowing down the non-admin pool. Have you any suggestions of good places to look for candidates? I'm prepared to do the donkey work if others are prepared to review + nominate. Cheers, Skomorokh  16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe look at who is doing new page patrol? Might as well save time by giving the competent ones the ability to actually delete the junk, rather than just tagging it.  And yeah, some people who have run before are good candidates.  I just thought it was odd to see a few obviously inappropriate candidates in that list as well.  Friday (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa for listing anyone obviously inappropriate; I don't follow a great deal of wiki-politics and am only one amongst the blind trying to get an understanding of the RfA elephant. NPP is a good place to look, do you know of any way to get a list of the likely candidates in one fell swoop? Need a less piecemeal approach than sitting watching the logs, at least for this project. Cheers, Skomorokh  16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, one of the best places to look for potential admin candidates is WP:GAN. The nominators over there surely have enough content work to get by, and the reviewers are usually very competent. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's next on my list, but I don't want to spam the page with these if they're not welcome (see above request for feedback). Cheers, Skomorokh  18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I would be honored to run again, should somebody wish to nominate me. :)  iMatthew  talk  at 20:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A second note, I'm not interested in running for quite a while here. Standard problems (sarcasm, morbid sense of humour, personality) will undermine any chance I have. Ironholds (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Belatedly notified the remaining above-listed editors. Skomorokh 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would probably run again if someone else nominated me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At least one of those, I will likely strongly oppose due to borderline immature bitterness after I opposed last time, i.e. lack of effort to mend fences a la say MuZemike with whom I started out on the wrong foot and nevertheless wound up supporting recently. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted this list without asking the editors in question first, which is why I explicitly asked that editors not make negative comments about any prospective candidates. The point of this exercise is to make experienced and clueful nominators aware of potential candidates, not to run a mini-RfA in this section. I'd appreciate it if you withdrew your comment, A Nobody. Skomorokh  18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why I did not say which one. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, your inability to be adult about candidates who refuse to kiss the ring is your problem and doesn't need to be broadcast in a forum meant to be free of negative comments w/ regard to specific candidates. Likewise being coy about who you are referring to is hardly a defense.  Please consider the possibility that your opinion about who you might oppose isn't wanted right now. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to post a few opinions here since someone put it on my talk page. I'm not very active right at the moment. I deploy in the Navy on February 23rd and I'm still in college as a Pilot. Yeah, I'm really busy lol. Anyway, I had a few qualms about my RfA. I can completely understand why people want an admin to have a FA under their belt, but come on, it's really not needed. In my opinion, an admin should be able to edit this site with confidence and care. I.e., they should not bindly do stuff. I'm putting this in easy terms so I don't confuse myself. (That and I just woke up) I believe that if an editor has been editing for a long time, knows the system, knows how to do good with Wikipedia, then he or she has what it takes. I do not believe a GA or a FA should even be considered at RfA. But hey, it is and I can't really do much about it. I failed 3(?) RfAs and at the moment, I have no wish to re-attempt it. (Fairly stressful event) I may have another go at it after I've been deployed, but that time will come later. Hope you enjoyed my rant :) Now it's back to the vodka bottle and x-box live. Auf Wiedersehen. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I might consider running again for RfA in the future, but right now it is out of the question, because:


 * 1) I just started my first term in graduate school and I am under a lot of stress,
 * 2) I am dealing with a host of personal and family-related problems, and therefore I will not be as active in the near-term future,
 * 3) Too many people consider RfA a forum for trolling and general incivility, and I really don't feel like being subjected to that.

The two people who disrupted my RfA have both been blocked indefinitely. This should tell you something about their motives. I may have let my Italian temper get the better of me, but I don't think that I said or did anything which could be construed as a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise, I don't much care for the elitist, "last one in closes the door behind him" attitude which far too many of the admins involved in the RfA process display. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 02:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I'd be happy to accept an RFA if someone nominates me. I just don't think I stand a chance. That said, I haven't been following RFA for a while, so maybe I would. I just have a LOT of baggage with me. :) ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Purely for transparency, here is my discussion with Skomorokh, comments on the topic, and acceptance... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite busy at work at the moment and likely to be editing only sporadically for a while longer. Thanks for the thought, Dank and Skomorokh. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Kww would make an excellent admin, but his candidacy has been twice derailed for reasons having little to do with his abilities. I'm hoping to encourage him to make another run in a month or so and hope everyone will get on board and push.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly active editors
This is an arbitrarily-selected list of editors who put themselves forward as WP:HACKS sometime in the past 18 months. Such editors exhibit keenness to help out and/or unused time on their hands, which are exploitable for our purposes:
 * No thanks (for now...) –CG 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - I accept, see below Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * recently turned down an offer, wants to wait a bit - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - I accept, see below Techman224  Talk  01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An RFA would be, shall we say, vigorous. Tony, I'd recommend taking advantage of the new WP:VETTING page if you want to pursue this. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would like to become one, but I'll wait until December. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - was asked and responded "maybe soon..." in May 2009  Frank  |  talk  17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Declined on my talkpage; not enough time. →  ROUX   ₪  14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Cheers,-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 01:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would love to be a admin but I do not think I have what it takes yet, because I do not know really how to be a admin. Irunongames  •  play  20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * – not at this time. Very focused on content edits right now and, honestly, don't feel qualified to handle the tools. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not now, I will look into it again in a few months. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recently turned down an offer, not interested in adminship.  Mae din \talk 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Ran in June 2009, closed as unsuccessful. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will run in October, not just now. Cheers, <b style="color:#FF3030;">ƒ(Δ)²</b> 09:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe in January 2010. I'm busy IRL. Alexius08 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at this time. Chenzw    Talk   07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although a good option, not very active with only a few edits since July. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User was asked in August by Dylan620, and said that they'd wait until December. Jafeluv (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is user:Luk, CU/ADMIN
 * Although a good option, not very active with only a few edits since July. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User was asked in August by Dylan620, and said that they'd wait until December. Jafeluv (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is user:Luk, CU/ADMIN
 * User was asked in August by Dylan620, and said that they'd wait until December. Jafeluv (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is user:Luk, CU/ADMIN
 * Is user:Luk, CU/ADMIN

Please help out by removing admins, blocked editors and those who might not appreciate being listed or are already listed in the previous subsection, and striking inactive, retired or non-power crazed editors with an explanation. If you see someone you're surprised to find is not an administrator, or you think ought to be one, please consider vetting and nominating. Cheers, Skomorokh  16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an impressive list. Thanks for working it up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mere copypasta :) The legwork will be in the nominations. Skomorokh  17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WSC above, I think it'd be courteous to notify these hacks editors that they are being discussed here. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure; could someone with the automated tools for the task do the honours? Skomorokh  17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... though I'm not sure how to do it with AWB, it's only a few dozen, so I'll just do it by hand. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Soap, I appreciate it. *looks guiltily at the added dozens below*. Skomorokh  17:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not be running for the foreseeable future due to my own concerns regarding my suitability, preparedness and time commitments. Mostly per this. Thanks for the consideration, however. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I would personally be honored to serve Wikipedia as an admin, per this discussion it would be best if I waited until the end of the year; I'm personally planning to run the gauntlet in late December. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... right now? probably not; I want to let my Editor Review go through, for one, two, I quite frankly need to get around to reading up on policy, and three, I'd also want to ask King of Hearts (my Admin Coach) as well. The only one of those that could take a long time is the editor review part.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honored to be mentioned, however last month I got an admin coach (King of Hearts) and I'll wait until he nominates me or considers me ready to run.-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen of you at AfD (and your arguments for shooting down one or two of my nominations, haha) I would support you. I'm not a diff digger (does this exist already? can I take credit for that?) but I think you have the proper temperament and dedication to the project. I'll await the judgment of and nomination by King of Hearts, for whom I have great respect. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of when I got the message was, "Oh great, I need a life badly." I ran last month for administratorship, but that sunk because of two things that have been put behind me. I could probably run, but it's been a month and a half. I know the ropes, but two missteps helped to kill it. Juliancolton is my coach, but that hasn't really gone anywhere since he is so busy. If anyone would like to take on helping me that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll run if others think that I have a clear shot at doing so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought and confidence that comes with the presentation of my name as a possible administrator; however, I will have to decline a run at that time. Staxringold, an administrator with whom I have had quite a lot of contact in the past several weeks, indicated that he also believed I deserved a nomination, but I feel that, at this time, I'm not yet qualified to handle the tools. I put a lot of emphasis on the responsibility that comes with administratorship (administration?), and as such, I don't feel that I've put forth the necessary time and effort to meet what would be my own personal goals before applying for such a position. I am highly focused on a specific set of content edits right now, what with some upcoming featured lists and topics and so forth, and I don't feel that going through an RfA is the best course of action for me right now. I am in the midst of an editor review, and any editor who wishes to comment on my work is welcomed to do so at his/her leisure. At this time, though, I will not be undertaking a run at the mop. I have expressed my thanks to Staxringold, and do express my thanks to those here who believed me qualified. Though I have made statements in the past that I did not wish to run for the position, I may possibly consider it in the future, and will notify appropriate parties if and when that time arrives. Thanks for your time and support. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would run for adminship, however, I think my actions in the past could probably affect the way the community feels about me. Such as minor slip ups of words. But its been a while since that has happened.-- T ru  c o  503  22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt my ability to exercise careful and just use of the tools endowed with adminship. While I do accept this pseudo-nomination (and I say that with care to point out that I was only haphazardly selected for my participation in WP:HAU), I consider it prideful to nominate myself; if indeed someone trusts me then they may nominate me. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Arrrrrrrgh!!!, I will nominate myself now. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, a large amount of highly active users do not list themselves on this list. I think that anyone can be a HAU, so this doesn't particularly mean anything. That's the frank side of me :).  ceran  thor 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to run for adminship, but I'm not conferrable about nominating myself. I would like it if someone (or several people) nominate me for adminship. There is a concern that I have though about how strict RFA has been now, because it seems it's been getting stricter every year (by the amount of RFA's passing being less and less) for just the small things. However, since the number of active admins are decreasing, and less people are getting through RFA, the ratio isn't equalizing and we are losing administrators we need more active administrators, so I like to try to pass RFA and see for myself. Anyone who wants to nominate me can talk to see on my talk page. Thanks for listing me here. Techman224 Talk  01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration. I wasn't sure about this, but figured "Nothing ventured". I'd feel more comfortable if someone else could nominate me, though, to help me through the process. If I somehow made it, and it doesn't work out, I can always return to my normal activities, doncha know. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me. I really do want to be an admin, maybe the youngest admin (currently, I'm 12), but I feel I'm not fully aware of all areas of the wiki (especially the slow-loading and dangerous XfDs), so I may deny any nominations until I feel ready. –CG 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK reviewers
This is an arbitrarily-culled list of some of the most prolific contributors to T:TDYK. DYK may not be thought of highly in content terms as other peer review processes, but it does tend to produce non-controversial, diligent, content-focused administrators.
 * Not just yet; in the near future. Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but at this stage, no thank you. I'm not ready to undertake the responsibilities of an admin. --Bruce1eetalk 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not terribly active at the moment. Skomorokh  17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * →I will make some comments at some point soon, but I am doing some particularly hard-core content stuff at the moment. My inclination is that I would not be suitable, but I will expand on this.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment (see below). Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not interested at this time (see below). Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but not interested at this time. — 97198 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am interested. I am on wikibreak 16-26 Sep, but then return to usual activity level. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am interested in running. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yes, I am interested.
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but lack experience in some areas. Maybe later. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I'd burn out quickly.Wetman (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, wouldn't work. Lampman (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! But these days I don't frequent Wikipedia as much and I fear I may not be able to be able to remain as active as I might be required to. Once again thanks.- The Enforcer <sub style="color:red; font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">Office of the secret service 03:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to run if there are people willing to back up such a candidature. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Politely declined. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Has declined nom offers in the past, doesn't wish to be an admin. Jamie  S93  18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently inactive. Skomorokh  17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to run if there are people willing to back up such a candidature. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Politely declined. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Has declined nom offers in the past, doesn't wish to be an admin. Jamie  S93  18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Politely declined. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Has declined nom offers in the past, doesn't wish to be an admin. Jamie  S93  18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As above, please help out by removing admins, blocked editors and those who might not appreciate being listed or are already listed in the previous subsection, and striking inactive, retired or uninterested editors with an explanation. If you see someone you're surprised to find is not an administrator, or you think ought to be one, please consider vetting and nominating. Mahalo, Skomorokh  17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it me or does anyone else think it is odd that the list is "arbitrarily-culled" just before my name would appear? Even Kablammo is listed. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Horrors!! Kablammo (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, Ocean appears below me. Blah! Skomorokh! You did that on purpose! Brat! :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal intended, perhaps I am saving all the exciting nominations for myself ;) Skomorokh  17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure sure, you'd probably nom me then be the first oppose. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * doe-eyed look* who, me? Skomorokh  18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Cunard, although a fairly excellent choice, has declined nom offers in the past, so I've gone ahead and struck him out. I know that one of those near the top of the list will likely be running in about two months or so. Jamie  S93  18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now manually notified all of these. Please do not post any more :) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for consideration, however not interested in becoming an administrator at this time.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the (potential) nomination, it honors me. However, I am unsure I can take on this responsibility and live up to it, at least not at the moment - I would consider it counterproductive for an elected admin not to be able to respond swiftly to queries or perform necessary administrative/routine tasks over purely voluntary editorial ones, and I am unsure that I could ever answer to that natural demand with the promptitude expected from me. I have also noticed that owning admin tools, particularly in subject areas where I edit, tends to attract wikidrama, and I want to spare myself that. But I see many name proposals on this page that would be great additions to the admin community, and to all of those who wish to race I say best of luck. Dahn (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering me. As it happens, I received decltype note about this thread a couple of days after Jac16888 convinced me that I should let him nominate me. But, as I told him on my talk page, I will be away most of the next week and I am not sure how much internet access I will have to respond promptly to RfA questions. Therefore, I would like to hold off a week before proceeding. Rlendog (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At a minimum I would support User:Alansohn who has made many brilliant contributions to our project. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mention and the talkpage note. I'm at least potentially interested, possibly some time in the near future... but I too am travelling this week and may have scant internet access. I'll think about it more thoroughly when I get hold of a steady connection. 62.51.156.23 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, this was me. Turns out that every computer I use abroad doesn't automatically sign me in when I sit down... Olaf Davis (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The "no negative comments" stipulation, and an alternative
I know that this is a very well intended stipulation, because it avoids drama here. And the rule "withhold criticism" works for brainstorming, so why not here?

I think this stipulation makes the exercise pointless. The problem has been that RfA has been perceived by many as too toxic, and not looking at the stumbling stones is a step in the wrong direction; we will only end up with even more nominations of candidates that are doomed to fail. While brainstorming is fun, it is not appropriate for this situation: It is based on combining and improving ideas, and we simply can not say: Let's take the left editor X, prune and graft the right hand of editor Y, and improve the whole with the frontal lobe of editor Z. People are the way they are, and we can't change them. Some people have issues that thwart their chances of being elected - some even failed elections fairly recently. We can talk positively all we want here, but that won't make the problems go away.

Here's an alternative: If an experienced editor N thinks another editor C might be a good candidate, let's proceed as follows:
 * 1) N posts the name here, with no obligation for C.
 * 2) Other editors reply to N privately by e-mail, especially if they believe C would not be a good candidate or if they want to co-nominate C.
 * 3) N evaluates the replies, and if the feedback looks good, then
 * 4) N asks C if C wants to run
 * 5) N nominates C
 * 6) If the feedback identifies a problem, then N can discuss it with C, and help C become a better candidate. When N thinks C improved appropriately, N can post C's name again, mentioning that the earlier concern has been addressed.

I believe that process will improve the quality or our candidates, increase the chance for RfAs to pass, while giving some of our most prolific editors some honest feedback, mediated by an experienced editor, that helps them improve. &mdash; Sebastian 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a very interesting idea, but I have one objection: It ruins the (at least perceived) transparency of the process. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wellll... by the time it gets to actual RFA, it's as transparent as always. Sure, there's a less-transparent thing in front of that, but this kind of thing already goes on all the time.  And, at the end of the day, we need to get people to become more interested in getting the right answer than in worrying about how the process of getting there worked.  Friday (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of the above exercise is not to brainstorm possibly good candidates, and talk them up so that someone nominates them; it's to bring to the attention of prospective clueful nominators candidates they might otherwise have overlooked or not been aware of, for private review. That aside, your proposal sounds like a good idea, Sebastian, and I encourage you to implement it. Skomorokh  20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm tempted to take out the part about brainstorming; that paragraph was too long, anyway. Or better yet, how about if I copy the relevant part of this section to a new section, named something like "Pre-nominations"? Would that count as "implementing", or do I have to come up with a candidate, too? To be honest, I didn't have anyone in mind. &mdash; Sebastian 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, I'll chip in with a pre-nomination or two to get the ball rolling. I'd recommend adding a warning against public review. Skomorokh  20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "warning against public review", but I'll just post it as it is, and I allow you to change it as appropriate. &mdash; Sebastian 20:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On first blush, this is actually an excellent idea. Why not create Wikipedia/Requests for adminship/Vetting? You could even have strategically placed include/noinclude tags and formatting so that a brief list of the people being vetted could appear at the top of WT:RFA, without all the explanatory stuff. And I think what Skomorokh is saying is, make sure it's clear that this is not a mini-RFA on the talk page; the whole point is the potentially disheartening stuff is said in private. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I created the page Requests for adminship/Vetting. Please have a look at it. I like the idea of promoting this on top of RFA, but, given the way it is currently implemented, I think that would be too much text. Maybe, instead, we could just have a link that encourages people to add Requests for adminship/Vetting to their watchlist. I think I'll also write a little announcement at the Village Pump. &mdash; Sebastian 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can discuss further details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Vetting. &mdash; Sebastian 22:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some, who will remain anonymous, have asked me and in some cases multiple times if I would run via email, but as I said at User:A_Nobody/RfA, I would only run for adminship if I believe I had a realistic chance of it passing, i.e. if over 100 editors urged me to do so and also not until 6 February 2010 at the earliest. In the meantime, I will help out in whatever other ways I can.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates needing review/nominators
This is a list of editors who have responded positively to the suggestion of running, but may need (private) review or a clueful and experienced third-party as nominator. I will propose to these editors that they try the vetting process. No public comments on these editors, bitte. Skomorokh 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment RFA withdrawn
 * comment vetting
 * comment vetting
 * comment
 * comment
 * comment
 * comment vetting
 * comment
 * comment Running
 * comment
 * comment
 * I'd be happy to give this new process a go, there are some niggling issues I want feedback on first. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Is there someone you know who you'd like to handle the feedback? Pedro or Ched perhaps? If not, I'd be happy to. Regards, Skomorokh  19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A fresh pair of eyes is probably best, you could do it I guess, I'd prefer if it was done in my userspace though, simply for transparency reasons. Thanks. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, well if you don't mind it being in public, there's no need for an intermediary. Skomorokh  20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)