Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 42

Poll for consensus
Okay, polls are evil... blah, blah, blah... but they are also an effective tool in trying to determine consensus. Currently there is a debate over whether clearly failing RfAs should be shown as links instead of transclusions. The following is a poll to try and determine community consensus on the matter:

Should clearly failing RfAs be shown as a link instead of a tranclusion?
Yes
 * 1) After 48 hours. -- LV  (Dark Mark)  22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. The purpose of RfA is to identify potential admins, and develop a consensus for their promotion. Nominees who are clearly going to fail should not distract from the discussion of nominees who are likely to succeed, and especially not from those on the borderline. It makes eminent sense to delist hopeless noms in order to reduce what loads up on the RfA page, and the purpose of RfA is just as well served by simply changing the transclusion to a link. However, decision to do that should be in the hands of a bureaucrat, subject to the following strictures: any RfA should be open on the main page for at least 48 hours before being changed to a link; at least 10 legit votes should have been cast; and at least 2/3 of said votes must be in opposition.  BD2412  T 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *Note - see vote in polls below. BD2412  T 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, if a bureaucrat decides it's necessary. If there's only a few active RfAs it doesn't hurt to keep a failing one transcluded. However, I suspect that as Wikipedia grows, it will become common to have have dozens of RfAs ongoing at any given time. Thus, it makes sense to reduce the clutter as much as possible. I don't think we need strict rules for this, just the judgement of our elected bureaucrats. Carbonite | Talk 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. If after 48 hours there is a clear consensus against the candidate, leaving it on the main page for another 5 days helps no one. Any editor in good standing, acting in good faith, should be allowed to change the transclusion to a link. Closing an RfA should only be done after 7 days, or at the candidate's request, except in clear cases of vandalism. Owen&times;  &#9742;  23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only after 48 hours, and I would much prefer if a bureaucrat does it. To do otherwise would invite accusations of cabalism. I would personally define "clearly failing" as around 70% oppose after ten votes, but I think a bureaucrat would be a better judge of this than me. --Deathphoenix 03:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) end negative pileons, allow linking.   ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes because the nomination process is a personal issue and oftentimes those who oppose a nominee are rude to a point. An obviously failing RfA should be linked so long as the vote summary is still visible from the main page. I also believe that the bureaucrat should first ask the nomineee if he/she would prefer a linked RfA.--MONGO 12:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Nothing new to add to the above arguments. Tintin 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. I think this is a good solution to reducing hard feelings as long as there's no chance the nomination could be successful. ie 50% support should be left alone, but much less than that with a fair number of votes should be shown as a link. - Taxman Talk 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely yes!. If, after 24-48 hrs. the RFA is clearly going down in flames, there is no need for the piling on or the humiliation. People can still go the the RFA and make their opinions known, but it is not necessary to have the RFA transcluded onto the main RFA page. Blank Verse 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes, our current bureaucrats know what they're doing, and if they see that a nomination is clearly becoming a Forest Fire, they should be able to yank it out or hide it somehow. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No
 * No, never. The nomination should be only removed before its end time at the nominee's request, or not at all.  (And since hiding it discourages participation, it's basically as bad as being removed in my view.) —Cleared as filed. 22:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, non bureaucrats shouldn't remove or take off transclude nominations. Jtkiefer T  22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but what if it was up to a bureaucrat to change the transclusion to a link? BD2412  T 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd trust the bureaucrat's judgement on the matter. Jtkiefer T  23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, under most cases, no way. If a nomination has been up for a few days an will obviously fail, a bureaucrat should change it. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) as per GregAsche Hamster Sandwich 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought the question isn't really about who is doing the change, but rather about how the change is made. Is It possible to vote yes and no? Yes to links, no to non 'crats doing it. There, better. Hamster Sandwich 23:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the only time an RfA should be changed from a transclusion to a link is if it's getting so large as to overwhelm the rest of the page. --Carnildo 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, this effectively pre-judges the RFA and removes the opportunity to gauge true community consensus. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No. If it's shown as a link only, it won't have any chance of turning around, and might as well have just been removed.  I'd be in favor of just linking to all the nominations, though, or (better) sticking a &lt;noinclude&gt; after the User template at the start of the nominations, to increase the chance that first impressions on the nomination are formed on the nominee's merits, rather than who nominated them, or how many have already voted in support or opposition.  (And don't even get me started on the tallies.  Ugh.) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Same reasons as Carnildo. Grutness...wha?  04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No. All my reasons have already been stated. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) NO. I've commented on this repeatedly in the past . There are a number of very strong reasons why RfAs should remain transcluded until end or until the candidate withdraws. In all of these ideas to not hurt the feelings of candidates, we aren't giving the candidate the opportunity to decide. TELL them their options and LET THEM DECIDE. De-transcluding a nomination is no better than just removing it except that it appears to be better. It's a very poor compromise position. Shutting down noms stifles discussion, will lead to future failed RfAs, and smacks of elitism. And in any case, the only people who should be de-transcluding or removing noms (other than joke noms) are bureaucrats or the person being nominated. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) No. It makes the RfA listing more difficult to read and access, creates an artificial separation between "good" and "bad" nominees, and prevents the reader from viewing the arguments of the voters. &mdash; J I P | Talk 13:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) No. AfDs can be closed early by the person being nominated (preferred) or by a bureacrat (last resort, should be used sparingly, even if very lopsided). Transclusions hurt the page by making some AfDs "more equal than others." Either make them all transclusions or make none of them so. Turnstep 13:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) No - this only emphasises the importance of giving potential admins guidance in advance on what they can expect during the process, and that they can seek advice or withdraw. If a nomination looks as though it's clearly failing, the nominator should give guidance to the nominee. ...dave souza 14:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) No. Well said, JIP. It creates seperation. It's almost like saying "only RFAs with a fighting chance of passing are good enough to be on this page" (atleast to me). I say leave it, this page is called "Requests for Adminship", not "A list of RFA candidates who are gonna pass". If the candidate wants his/her page to be removed, then we can go ahead and remove it. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) No, What choice have we, as fair and good-faith citizens of wikipedia have to strike down one election more than another..? That is decidely useless, concentrated, disruptive behavior, and demeaning of another's feelings. Futhurmore, it dictates a popularity contest of sorts, allowing people the assumption that one election is "worth more than the other".-MegamanZero 10:20 8,December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) No. Sure, there's approximately zero chance that a 0–10–0 candidate will pass, but there's also approximately zero cost in keeping them on the page.  So let them wait it out, who cares. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) No. Linking would be the equivalent of closing early, which is unfair to the candidate. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Comments
 * Polls are evil btw, that being said I realize the irony in voting in one at the same time as saying that they're evil and sometimes they seem to be a necessary evil. Jtkiefer T  22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some concern that non-bureaucrats would be untranscluding the RfA. Perhaps the question should be reworded to something along the line of "Should a bureaucrat change a clearly failing RfAs to a link instead a transclusion?" Carbonite | Talk 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added two sub polls clarifying the issue to who should be allowed to do it. Jtkiefer T  23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer failing the nomination after two days if the oppose votes exceeds the support votes by 10. RFA is not an election campaign so its not mandatory that an RFA should run the full course. We're actually determining the suitability of the candidate here, and if an RFA is failing miserably it's a lost cause anyways. Form what I observe, nobody likes to vote for a candidate whose RFA seems doomed. In many cases people who initially vote yes, do change their votes after a flood of valid oppose votes. Also, to avoid pileons, very few people vote after the fourth day in a failing RFA. The best recourse for a candidate is to try again after a few weeks or so.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How about a requirement that at least 15 legit votes must have been cast; and at least 2/3 of said votes must be in opposition - that would inherently require that opposes outnumber supports by at least 10. BD2412  T 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15 is a bit too high. To promote a candidate 10 oppose votes would roughly need a minimum of 40 support votes in 5 days, and I don't recall any turnaround of such a magnitude ever. I always informed of my intention to delist the RFA to avoid a sticky situation. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that might actually increase oppose voting on certain RfAs, in an effort to get the nom linked. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Nichalp is talking about actually failing the nom, as opposed to making it a link. I am not worried about pile-on oppose votes, as I believe editors are reticent to oppose unless they feel that opposition is compelled by the nomination itself. BD2412  T 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The arguments that failing nominations muck up the RfA list and make it too long are in my opinion without merit. If you think we have a lot of RfAs active now, just wait six months or a year. I don't remember the exact figures, but a while ago I projected the # of active RfAs a year from now to be something like 120. There are very real scalability issues here that are not going to be addressed by simply de-transcluding failing nominations. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this being addressed/discussed somewhere? (the long term scaling issues?) Turnstep 04:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Once the number of RfAs shoot up (It is not a question of if, it is a question of when), I'd guess that we'd end up with an arrangement like the one on AfD - listing them either by date of acceptance of nomination or by date of closing of nomination. --Gurubrahma 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Every RfA should be treated equally, without expections. If a candidate is not likely to succeed, he/she can be asked to withdraw the RfA. If it's obviously going to fail (something like 20-30 oppose votes and 0 support votes) a bureaucrat (and only a bureaucrat) may remove it and mark it as failed. No non-bureaucrat should ever mark an RfA that wasn't declined or withdrawn as failed. I personally have never opposed an RfA just because everyone else has. At the very least, I have a look at the user's user page, talk page and contributions to see how long he/she has been on Wikipedia, and what he/she has eidted. I don't want to see RfA candidates being classified as "failing" or "succeeding" candidates. &mdash; J I P | Talk 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Every RfA starts equally (at 0/0/0), but it's often obvious how one will turn out. For those that are absolute locks for failure, there's no real purpose in keeping them active. At best, they'll sit there cluttering the page until the seven days are up. At worst, they'll be a pile-on and the candidate will leave Wikipedia with hurt feelings. Keep in mind, that this proposal is only for RfAs that are clearly failing, not for ones that are still in doubt. Carbonite | Talk 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's obvious an RfA is failing, the nominator or a bureaucrat should contact the nominee and offer to end the process, and the better guidance the potential candidate has beforehand the less likely such problems become. Roll out the WP:GRFA. ...dave souza 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If Voting in one of the sub polls it is suggested that you may wish to strike out striked out vote on the above poll'

Should bureaucrats be allowed to make failing RFA's show as a link instead of a tranclusion?
Yes
 * 1) Yes, if a nomination is clearly failing a bureaucrat should be able to use their judgement in the matter of whether a nomination should be changed to linking instead of transclusion.  Jtkiefer T  23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes (but I still think there should be a set minimum time to have it open - even bureaucrats should have some guidance on the matter).  BD2412  T 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree but that would be something that would probably have to be determined after figuring out whether doing it in the first place is a good idea. Jtkiefer T  00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Second BD2412. Perhaps after say, 36 hours with absolutely no hope of salvaging it. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra  CVU ) 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 36 hours seem reasonable. Hamster Sandwich 00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if a bureaucrat decides it's necessary. If there's only a few active RfAs it doesn't hurt to keep a failing one transcluded. However, I suspect that as Wikipedia grows, it will become common to have have dozens of RfAs ongoing at any given time. Thus, it makes sense to reduce the clutter as much as possible. I don't think we need strict rules for this, just the judgement of our elected bureaucrats. Carbonite | Talk 01:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, of course. Owen&times;  &#9742;  02:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure, seems better than removing it all together. Broken S 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Sparing the candidate the pile-ons and reducing the clutter are good ideas. The RfA should be retranscluded at the request of the nominee, no questions asked. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, per above. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) end negative pileons, allow linking.   ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but IFF the vote is so long as to cause problems with page loading. It should never be used simply because a nominee is clearly failing, clearly succeeding, clearly mad, clearly a penguin, or clearly anything else. Grutness...wha?  04:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, the negative implication that changing a tranclusion to a link has is something that should be done on a limited basis and only by a bureaucrat. Rx StrangeLove 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, bureaucrats are the ideal people to judge this. See my vote in the first question. --Deathphoenix 13:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, in all cases after 48 hours where it's an obviously failed nomination. Of course, if results change, it should be brought back. --Elliskev 14:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, after 48 hours. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. I think this is a good solution to reducing hard feelings as long as there's no chance the nomination could be successful. ie 50% support should be left alone, but much less than that with a fair number of votes should be shown as a link. - Taxman Talk 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely yes! see comment above. <sup style="color:green;">Blank <sup style="color:#F88017;">Verse 18:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, we gave them a public tarring and feathering to get the job of managing RfAs, so we expect them to know what they're doing if they do it. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 22:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. It is their job to deal with RfA's as they wish...this seems OK. Voice of  All T 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes--Aranda 56 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No Don't care
 * No, this is not necessary and makes the page harder to read. If the vote is still active it's helpful for it to appear in full. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Still no. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, for consistency with my earlier vote. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) No. See my vote above. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No. See my vote above. &mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P  | Talk 13:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No. The nomineee should request closing the AfD, not hiding it away Turnstep 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Not everyone would look at it after it's been linked, thus taking probable votes out of the process. --Lectonar 14:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) No - see my comment above. ..dave souza 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) No. While the intent is good, I fear that this proposal will encourage oppose votes from editors who might have otherwise taken a pass upon seeing that a nomination was likely to fail without their vote.  Even where there are good reasons to oppose, the oppose votes have often had the effect of disillusioning an otherwise good editor who was viewed as not quite ready to handle the extra tools. -- DS1953 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) No per my above vote. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  00:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) No, see my previous vote above.-MegamanZero 10:23 8,December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Should non-bureaucrats be allowed to make failing RFA's show as a link instead of a tranclusion?
Yes
 * 1) Yes - administrators should be trusted with this ability - bureaucrats will be there to check their work. BD2412  T 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in response to Jtkiefer, this does not involve consensus of any kind (especially if the RfAs are 0/10/0 or the like), so why shouldn't non-bureaucrats be able to do it, just like even regular users can close keep AFDs? NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra  CVU ) 00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, deciding whether or not each individual one should be de-transcluded doesn't but the decision to implement whether to start untranscluding things as a general part of the RFA process does. Jtkiefer T  00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, any editor in good standing acting in good faith should be allowed to do so. Bureaucrats decide on closing and promoting, but presentation issues may be left to non-b'crats who know what they're doing and reflect general consensus.  Owen&times;  &#9742;  02:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) end negative pileons, allow linking.   ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Administrators can be trusted to act in good faith. Besides, nothing can't be undone. --Elliskev 14:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely yes!. This is something that doesn't require any of an administrator's special abilities. If someone turns an RFA into a link in bad faith, it can always be undone. <sup style="color:green;">Blank <sup style="color:#F88017;">Verse 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require any administrator special abilities (as a non-admin, I could technically do it), but I'd prefer that common practice be that it's left to administrators or bureaucrats. --Elliskev 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No
 * No, only bureaucrats as part of their role should be allowed to change to link instead of transclusion just like their the only ones allowed to close RFA's. Jtkiefer T  23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) willing to leave this to 'crats. Too much potential for feuding if "rival" editors (read:admins) are removing from general list. Hamster Sandwich 00:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we elect bureaucrats to handle all RfA matters. Carbonite | Talk 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, per Jtkiefer. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Still no. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No. That's what are Bureaucrats for. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) No. See my vote above. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, bureaucrats should be the ones to handle RfAs. --Deathphoenix 13:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Non-bureaucrats should have even less power than bureaucrats. &mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P  | Talk 13:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Regulations and similar concensus regarding voting on mainstream pages like this should be carefully dictated, and not haplessly thrown to the whims of the masses.-MegamanZero 16:24 7,December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Nobody should be making them links, but if we must, it is really a bcrat's job. Turnstep 14:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No. See my vote above, and concur with Turnstep.--Lectonar 14:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) No - see my comment above. ..dave souza 15:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) No. While this could be helpful some of the time, other times, we could get into more trouble when less experienced people starting trying to link RfAs. Voice of  All T 22:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) No, that's what bureaucrats are for. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't care
 * 1) I reiterate:I dont believe it should be removed. However, if, in some way it is, then it doesn't matter who does it&mdash; just as long as they don't mess it up.  Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Did I miss something?
Whatever happened to the point of view that RFAs exist to advance the encyclopedia by identifying candidates that are suitable for adminship? Blatantly failed RFAs, and there are several on the page right now, should go away. There is nothing to be gained by piling on or gawking at failed candidates and nothing about such opposition conversations that couldn't be accomplished in the privacy of that user's talk page. And no, I don't think that we need the expertise of a bureaucrat to decide that 0 support, 10 oppose is a lost cause. Dragons flight 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First, 0 and 10 is not necessarily a failed nomination, I've seen them come back from similar. Second, if it is failing, it is the responsibility of the person being nominated to put an end to it. We do have a nomination acceptance requirement, after all, so it's not like users are being RfA'd without their knowledge. Turnstep 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Further, if an RfA candidate can accept a nomination certainly they can be shown how to withdraw one. It's not hard. --Durin 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Durin, you have some impressive RfA statistics on hand: was there ever a case where a 0/10/x nomination ended successfully? While theoretically possible, I think this falls under the "snowball's chance in hell" category. I certainly don't remember seeing anything come close to such a turnaround. I've seen a promising 10/0/x nomination fail, but that's significantly more likely, of course; 10/5/0 is a fail, but so is 5/10/0. Owen&times;  &#9742;  22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It's doubtful that I can gather that information. I'd have to be keeping track of how each RfA progresses through it's 7 (or less) day time period. I don't do that. I capture information at the beginning (edit count, article edit count) and at the end (sup/opp/neu votes). Regardless, from my chair there is more to be gained from a failing RfA than just failure of the RfA. The candidate, if conscientious, will use the failed RfA as a list of what to do better for the next go around. Without a complete RfA, other issues can arise in a future RfA that were not addressed in the original RfA. This is setting people up for repeated failure. This does not serve the candidates or the community very well at all. --Durin 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Even some of the nominations on the page right now, like Awolf002's came back from a substantial deficit (in this case 1/6/0) to succeed (in this case by a fairly substantial margin, as it stands). 0/10/0 might be a lost cause, except that oppose voters are allowed to change their mind. Also, if we need a technical solution against piling on, that speaks of serious issues within the community. But on the contrary, I think people rather graciously refrain from piling on, which is why few nominations gather more than 10-15 oppose votes -- relatively to other nominations, that's hardly piling on. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Durin, that's a really good point about conscientious candidates using the failed RfA as a list of what to do better for the next go around. We shouldn't be trying to hide "failures" away, if it's going that way someone (probably the nominator) should contact the candidate and put the situation in that positive light. ...dave souza 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's stop being theoretical, I think the following noms should be closed and removed:

MegamanZero (0/8/2), WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo (2/12/1), Canaen (0/15/3), YHoshua (0/10/7)

All of them are self noms that I and many voters clearly view as unsuitable. What's more, reading those noms shows me almost no comments offering new value after the 4th oppose on any of them.

For example (from MegamanZero):


 * 5. Sorry, no. [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6. Merovingian 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7. Oppose. CDThieme 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8. Oppose, needs more experience.Gateman1997 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And why does it take 12 oppose votes to tell someone (WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo) that having less than 80 total edits is not sufficient? Turnstep, Durin and Dave all argue above that the person being nominated should be responsible for withdrawing a bad nom, but somehow I doubt that when one is dealing with self-noms from candidates that are this poorly qualified that they even know there is an option to withdraw. If someone believes that continuing these noms is going to somehow do anything to benefit the community or the candidate, I'd love for them to explain how. Frankly, I think it is an embarrassment to the community that we allow so many content-less oppose votes to pile up like this. In many regards, it is the only sanctioned form of newbie biting. Dragons flight 03:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's an important step that we seem to have skipped: has anyone asked MegamanZero, WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo, Canaen, or YHoshua to withdraw? - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An perfectly civil oppose vote isn't "biting" anyone, and to suggest that this is the only sanctioned form of newbie biting when hundreds of new pages are speedy deleted with exactly no explaination every day is a bit mystifying. Except perhaps for Nightstallion's, the votes you list above don't seem biting at all, and the solution for votes that are rude, uncivil or unfriendly is admonition of the voters in question, not closing the nominations early. Feel free to explain to the nominee that they can withdraw, but fundamentally it's up to them: it's not costing us a lot in terms of resources at the moment, so I'm happy to let them get whatever they want out of the process. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Having ten people tell you are bad and don't have enough experience is wholly unneccesary and likely to cost us editors. Are those comments abusive or rude, generally no, but would you enjoy having a community of people get together and say you are no good?  And I don't accept the argument that it is "their RFA" so they should get to decide what is done with it.  RFAs are for the benefit of the community to decide which candidates are suitable or not, and the community should take responsibility for not continuing to criticize people long after the issue is decided.  To answer Aaron's question, I haven't talked to them, though I would be happy to.  Really though, I'd like to see a return to the standard that anyone can delist hopeless cases (a standard which changed sometime in that last few months).  In the past, rather than watching 12 oppose votes rack up on an editor with less than 100 edits, I would have removed it and left a nice note on his talk page explaining the problem.  None of the noms I removed in this way were ever upset over it and several were grateful.  Somehow it seems that we have become attached to the notion that RFAs should last 7 days, rather than focusing on the fact that RFA exist to determine consensus on whether or not a given individual should be promoted.  Dragons flight 06:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dragons flight, allow me to explain your serious failing in the assumption And I don't accept the argument that it is "their RFA". Its because wikipedia is not a Democracy. It also boils down to the fact that people have their own say and right about one's own nomination, as well as the fact that its not up to anyone else to call their nomination worthless or not. In my case, I knew that I would most likely fail this request, but I decided to go forth anyway, because of the experience and learning potential. Most of the first users who opposed me, while disappointing, gave me helpful and insightful comments on how to increse my status as a competent wikipedian. And right now, I'm all the better for it. However, while there do seem to be opposers who voted agaist me for purely bandwagoon reasons, I still think this is a healthy and good learning experience. Please do not put people down in certain aspect of your WP:POV concensus.-MegamanZero 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem Dragons flight identifies could be reduced if all applicants read WP:GRFA and knew what to expect, and there's no loss if the remover has the courtesy to ask the nominee first rather than explaining it later. ...dave souza 08:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another way to reduce the problems mentioned above is to simply disallow self-nominations. Not only would it cut down on people nominating themselves who really should not be (see ADMIN! below for a prime example), but it would make it easier for editors to legally remove such nominations from the page. Requiring someone else to nominate you would also automatically add an interested party who could withdraw the nomination (or suggest that their nominee do so). But I still agree with MegamanZero that there is not really a problem here: putting yourself on AfD is an entirely voluntary process. If you do so, you should live with the consequences. There's always an escape hatch. Turnstep 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone who has just been made an admin via self-nomination, I can see a few problems with this. It encourages cliques, or at least the appearance of cliques, or the thought that you have to be a member of a clique to become an admin.  I don't edit Wikipedia to make new chums, and I suspect there are others in my position who self-nominate but would never have been proposed by someone else because they just don't "do" the social side of Wikipedia.  So you'd have to have some way for people to self-nominate in some form, even if that was to approach someone on a list of willing admins who were prepared to look into someone's history and nominate them, and you'd end up having a person or group of people who were effectively acting as gatekeepers on self-nomination.  But that doesn't do away with the clique problem, or the appearance that you only get to be an admin by buttering other admins up, and I suspect that just means that ADMIN! would be badgering people inappropriately elsewhere rather than here.  I think perhaps a stronger warning when you're filling in the self-nomination form might suffice, and let the fools act foolishly if they choose to.  --ajn (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have nominated myself for adminship in early September and my RfA passed with something like 20 support votes and no oppose votes at all. I remember people saying the thought I was already an admin. I don't think I have seen anyone seriously accusing me of adminship abuse. But if I had not nominated myself, I don't believe anyone would have spotted me and nominated me for adminship. So I oppose forbidding self-nominations. &mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is also possible that someone wants to become an admin but doesn't want to ask anyone to nominate him - a self-nom is the best option then. However, really serious candidates do know that self-noms have a lesser chance of being successful, if they still prefer it - it is their prerogative. --Gurubrahma 08:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

user box madness
I saw this going by on recent changes and thought people here might find it interesting: User rfa-2, as well as User rfa-1. - BanyanTree 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC) I speedied it. Objections? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 06:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, who would want to use that? You can't put it on someone's user page without their consent. (well, you could, but they could take it off, and then you could have an edit war resulting in an RfC and an RfAr, concluding with an order that you stop putting this on their page) bd2412  T 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Luigi30. He designed the template and proudly displays it on his user page. It takes all types...--File Éireann 19:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected (and flabbergasted). (shrugs) Well ok, then - if one guy wants it, maybe others will too. bd2412  T 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with his decision to make it into a template when so few users will probably use it especially when most userboxes don't have templates but there is no reason why he can't put it on his user page if he wants I guess he's proud of his RFA's. Jtkiefer T  23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Place on TfD and recomend -ing would be appropiate then. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  04:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's gone from his user page now anyway since he was elevated to admin today. Though I have not checked, it seems doubtful anyone else is using it or would ever want to. -- DS1953 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hearing none... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I made it a template so it would work with things such as Template:Babel. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 15:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Seven days
The instructions say that "Nominations remain for seven days" but don't say seven days from when. It appears that some people set the ending time as soon the nomination is created, others start from when the nominee accepts and others seem to be different from either of those. For both clarity and fairness, I would suggest that the sentence be revised to read "Nominations remain for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page". That time can easily be checked in the page history. -- DS1953 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Be bold, DS1953, I've got your back. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it. That was enough discussion... Really, if anyone wants to change it back or has other thoughts, be my guest. -- DS1953 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my rationale was that the wider community isn't going to know about them until they're listed here, and they're not supposed to be listed here until the nominee accepts the nomination, so... 7 days from when they're posted here seems the most logical approach. :-)  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. FreplySpang (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Luigi30's RFA
Hey all, I was looking at various percentages and I noticed that Luigi30's percentage of support votes was comparatively low compared to others (just over 72%). I was under the impression that this was typically below the threshold for becoming an admin. Am I wrong, have the standards been lowered recently, or is this a one-off? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that between 70 and 80% was a bcrat call. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's up to the closing bureaucrat's judgement and unless he (Rdsmith4) in this case) puts down notes there's no way of knowing how he weighed it, but in terms of percentages it's normally around 70% and 80% though that's not a hard and fast rule. Jtkiefer T  00:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've watched this page on and off for about a year, and this is the lowest amount of support I've seen for a successful RFA. The margin for bureaucrat judgement has previously been from 75%-80% - which seems narrow, until you consider that in terms of a ratio of support to opposition it's from 3:1 to 4:1.  If some of those opposing were ignored in the final consideration, some explanation would be nice. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I gather, the accepted principle is that bcrats use their own discretion over the range of 70 to 80 percent supprt. Outside of that range–in the absence of socks, etc.–community opinion is taken to be pretty clear.  In practice, a 75% threshold is usually used; 72.4% seems unusually low for a 'successful' candidacy.


 * On the other hand, for this particular RfA, I count ten oppose votes based solely on a low level of recent activity (six further oppose voters present additional or alternate reasons.) This would seem to suggest that those voters are not terribly concerned that Luigi30 would be harmful as an admin, or that he would be likely to abuse his admin powers.  Of course, we could always just ask Rdsmith4. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was one of the people that voted oppose based on low activity. My vote was in large part because I feel that inactive editors can inadvertently cause harm due to lack of familiarity and expertise in executing policy and procedure. In fact, during Luigi30's RfA there was a day when he placed three copyvio notices on pages and didn't complete the procedure properly by listing them according to the instructions at WP:CV. I've discussed this with Luigi30 in private. --Durin 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I told him why: my monobook.js script wasn't working properly. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On the other other hand, at least all of the oppose votes (full disclosure, one was mine) gave reasons for their oppose votes. Not all of the support voters did (including one that simply says "That's hot!"). I'm concerned that this is turning into a simple vote counting, which I thought was discouraged in favor of an actual discussion; it would be nice if everyone gave a reason for their vote, be it support or oppose. The "would not abuse his admin powers" above is a bit of a strawman: there are many other criteria that myself and others use when voting, so please don't insinuate that our votes should count less because our adminship philosophy does not agree with yours. Turnstep 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is probably a calculation mistake by the b'crat? Also, if the rationale for "promotion" is that he is unlikely to abuse admin privileges, then the same rationale must be applied for a user who doesn't vandalise and may have been around for only 15 days but has, say, 500 edits. I also believe that neutral votes must be split into half as support and oppose votes - then the candidates would need to get substantially more support votes to clear his rfa for a given % cut-off (the math I've done for two possible scenarios seems to indicate this, but I may be wrong). --Gurubrahma 14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that neutral votes should count at all. When I vote neutral I am doing so intentionally and do not expect that my vote will increase the burden on the nominee.  If neutral votes were split 50/50 between support and oppose, then to counterbalance four neutral votes, a nominee would need to get 6 extra support votes just to "neutralize" the neutral votes. Assuming that about an 80/20 requirement for promotion, the 2 manufactured oppose votes would need 8 support votes, or 6 more than the 2 manufactured support votes.  That seems extremely unfair and counter to what "neutral" means to most people. -- DS1953 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, I think this is an RFA that was helped a lot by the nominee's high level of activity on IRC, I'm not sure that another editor with the same Wikipeia editing levels but without any IRC presence would have been successful. You could argue that IRC is as good place as any to get to know someone and decide if they'd abuse the tools...or you might argue that activity there doesn't get you the familiarity of policys and procedures. It's probably a bit of both. Either way, I don't think this would have passed without his IRC use. Rx StrangeLove 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The implication of that is that the 'crat closed this on his own personal judgement of the candidate based on some IRC chat. That is not appropriate: the 'crat is to determine the weighing of the debate here, not idle chit-chat the 'crat may have experienced elsewhere. To do so would be to vote with your makesysop button. -Splash talk 15:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my implication at all, activity on IRC can effect the number of votes because other users on IRC become aware and familar with the nominee who, as was the case here, has a generally lower level of involvement on Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with people using #Wikipedia. But, IRC is not Wikipedia. Potential admins should be judged based on their performance on Wikipedia, not #Wikipedia. --Durin 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and my point here was that this one was influenced by #Wikipedia and another editor with no IRC activity and the same level of Wikipedia involvement might not have had the same result. Rx StrangeLove 16:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ...which I think is unfortunate. Getting more votes because of IRC activity smacks of popularity contest. How popular someone is says nothing about their ability to be an admin. --Durin 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Insert witty retort and note that I have never been on IRC). bd2412  T 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it is unfortunate if indeed it is being used as a popularity contest but you can't deny that people vote based on familiarity with the canidate and IRC is a good way to get familiar with a canidate and his/her views as well as interacting with them to further the goals of the project. Jtkiefer T  16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that neutral votes shoudn't count. Add up the Supports and Oppose votes, divide by ten and multiply by 7 or 8 and that is how many support votes a person needs to have over 70 or 80 % (whatever the right threshold is) of the "vote" A neutral vote would skew the results. Am I wrong?Gator (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Insofar as this is a good demonstration of why it is not a simple vote, yes. -Splash talk 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I learned alot.Gator (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's not a simple vote, then the crats are therefore going on a "gut instinct" or depending on how loud the opposition or support is? If that's the case, then all the crats that are acting that way should no longer be in those positions. Maybe some promote based simply on exceeding the 70% support threshold.--MONGO 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The crats should be going on reading the debate as well as looking at the weight of numbers. Sometimes, there's no need, such as in a 50/0/0 or 0/50/0 etc. But in cases where a crat is using their judgement, a simple vote count doesn't make the grade by any means. It is important to make sure that the oppose votes are in good faith, and that the supports are not puppetry or other foul play (as well as being in good-faith, but I guess bad-faith support is harder to come by). The 'loudness' of the opposition/support is much less important than the depth and persuasiveness of their reasoning. I reject entirely the notion that I am suggesting crats should go on "gut instinct". We made them Bureaucrats because they can judge consensus-or-not from difficult debates not merely because they can add up and divide by 100. -Splash talk 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Splash, I am well aware that bureaucrats do read the comments in close nominations. I trust that they do indeed behave that way. Luckily for Gator, at least you decided to be more descriptive with me and perhaps that answered his comment for him.--MONGO 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote counts are the most important factor in deciding whether to promote a user. They often reveal clearly whether there is consensus to promote. But there are borderline cases, and these are where it is important for the Bureaucrat to judge the merits of the situation, based on the support and oppose votes and related discussions - including neutral votes. The actual instructions to Bureaucrats are brief - see Bureaucrats. Warofdreams talk 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Those instructions have been there only since November 1. In comparison, the instructions at the top of WP:RFA have said 75-80% since July 14; before that, they were at 80% back to September 13, 2004.  (A projection based on those three data points says that by September 2006, candidates will only need a straight majority...) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the point of continuing this discussion, if you are seeking to have his promotion overturned then state that it's your goal otherwise I fail to see where this discussion has any hope of going. Jtkiefer T  19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The point was to get an explanation. Now I know that it's a better reason to oppose a candidate because they tend to make typos than because they all but left the project since their last nomination was rejected. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to expect a bureaucrat to explain what he based his decision on if questioned. As it happened, Xoloz asked
 * "Not to bicker too much, but I see one 71% closed as unsuccessful, and another as successful, by the same bureaucrat, on the same day. I supported both, but I feel some discomfort at what appears to me, at first blush, to be an incongruity. I know you might have reason for your decision, so I'll ask what they are, please" (see User talk:Rdsmith4)
 * and got the answer
 * "When it's a close call, I am obliged to consider more factors than the numbers alone. This can include reasons for opposing. Luigi's were largely due to amount of activity, while Aranda's were more substantive, citing grammar and issues with AFD and deletion discussions; based on these and similar observations, I made an informed decision. My own prior experience with both candidates is nil, if you're interested." (see User talk:Xoloz)
 * This closes the matter as far as I am concerned. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad he answered someone. He told Everyking to complain to the other bureaucrats and ignored Carbonite entirely when they asked.  &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is poor. A 'crat should always be prepared to explain their actions, especially when asked in a case(s) such as this. Referring to other bureaucrats doesn't sit, because it wasn't them that made the promotion. Ignoring someone is not something that has an excuse or reason available for it in this particular set of circumstances. If a 'crat isn't prepared to explain their RfA decisions, they shouldn't be making them at all. -Splash talk 03:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyking did not ask about my reasoning; he asked that the nomination be extended. I declined to do it myself, since I don't believe it is necessary, but I referred him to the other bureaucrats to see if their opinions differ, which I find a perfectly fair thing to do. I did not notice Carbonite's comment until you mentioned it here (perhaps, on occasion, you make mistakes too?). I am perfectly prepared to explain my reasoning, and I did so to Xoloz, who actually requested it; I won't repeat it here as someone has already done so. It's also unfair to say that my actions are unjustifiable without even asking me to justify them. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

CDThieme sockpuppetry
As well as running the impostor (note dot on the end), CDThieme has been multiply voting in AFDs and RFAs using: No Account, Tree&Leaf, Longboat, Uncarved Block, Quintusdecimus and Via Egnatia - and none of those were created recently, so CD probably has a pile of other accounts in the wings. I've also blocked CDThieme for 48 hours' reflection - David Gerard 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you asked jguk if the account is his? I believe that jguk. belongs to jguk. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You missed the full stop.--nixie 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ADMIN!
i am requesting for an adminship, for the hardwork i have done.
 * Also for me being an admin, i can spot Vandals, because recently i have being reverting articles back to normal

&gt;x&lt;ino 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't the appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Your request was also reverted on the main page because you didn't follow the proper formatting procedure. -- tomf688 {talk} 10:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also had to revert him adding his nomination onto SCEhardt's subpage. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 11:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Guidance
Better guidance could help to make RfA more positive and reduce the number of hopeless applications. The proposed guides appear mature now, and I propose that the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship should be revised to read:<Br> Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list and how-to guide before submitting your request. The miniguide to requests for adminship gives useful advice on applying for adminship.<Br> dave souza 11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should note that of the 40,000+ accounts that people have signed up for here (sure I saw that number somewhere), fewer than 750 editors have been promoted thus far (ergo, tho adminship is no big deal, neither is it a given). bd2412  T 12:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Special:Statistics - "User statistics - We have 658,721 registered users, of which 721 (or 0.11%) are administrators." But yes, I agree. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 13:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seeing that: we need more admins ;-) Lectonar 13:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, but the need isn't quite as dire as that stat makes is seem. Here a copy of a comment I made in a section above:
 * I took a look at Wikistats and found out some interesting info. The most recent data was for October 2005. There were 1854 users who made at least 100 edits in October. I think this is a pretty good definition of "active", since that's slightly more than 3 edits/day. There are currently 576 "active" admins (see here), so let's estimate that there were 500 back in October. Thus we get a ratio of 1854/500 or 3.7 active users for every active admin. Of course, this doesn't take into account anonymous users or those users who made less than 100 edits in October. Still, I think this shows that while we'll always need new admins, we're not really in an emergency situation at the moment. We can afford to examine each candidate thoroughly and possibly request that they get a bit more experience before being promoted. Carbonite | Talk 13:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether the active user stat is significant. Not only do a very large percentage of the active users create no trouble, most do some sort of vandal fighting. It is the less active ones who often need admin attention. Tintin 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The active user stat is useful for boiling down the absurdly inflated figure of 650,000+ users. The overwhelming majority of these users have made only a handful of edits. Carbonite | Talk 14:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Another way of looking at this is whether the new policy of preventing IPs from creating new articles has had any impact. Initial returns on the statistics says no; the number of new articles per day has remained more or less static. Meanwhile, the number of new accounts per day has more than doubled. Also, the # of edits per admin per day has increased somewhat. I don't think this new policy has had the intended effect. --Durin 14:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Lots of our admins are students. Many academic institutions are winding up about now; exams are finishing, deadlines have ended. It doesn't surprise me that there'd be an increase in admin activity around about the first week or two of December. Shimgray | talk | 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rephrase. What I mean is the # of edits that are done per day divided by the number of admins we have has increased. Thus (assuming vandalism as a proportion of total edits stays the same), the load on admins has recently increased. --Durin 02:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And an greater number of new users have been created after the anon-indiction (some stats here, courtesy Kelly Martin):


 * november 19th (50000 users ago) it was 500 users in 7 hours 0 minutes
 * november 23rd (40000 users ago) it was 500 users in 5 hours 21 minutes
 * november 27th (30000 users ago) it was 500 users in 6 hours 43 minutes
 * november 30th (20000 users ago) it was 500 users in 3 hours 38 minutes
 * december 3rd/4th (10000 users ago) it was 500 users in 4 hours 54 minutes
 * current (0 users ago) it was 500 users in 2 hours 4 minutes

which had to be expected, after all. Lectonar 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the new accounts will, for a while, be established but anonymous users converting to identities. The Land 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning has opened an ArbReq against Hamster Sandwich because of his RfA
Kim Bruning has made a request for arbitration against Hamster Sandwich because he was promoted to Admin in error, see: Requests for arbitration. Paul August &#9742; 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Kim on this and I don't think that this deserves an RFAr since Kim is of course assuming that he had gotten a chance to vote on the nomination that it would have made a difference as to whether Hamster Sandwhich was promoted or not and that Hamster shouldn't be punished for an honest mistake, that being said I agree that Kim should have had the chance to say his piece on the RFA instead of having to do it on talk pages and arbcom cases and I can see why he feels that an arbcom case is necessary. Jtkiefer T  05:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as punishing Hamster - it's just that it's far from clear that he has, at any time, ever enjoyed consensus support for his adminship. Phil Sandifer 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I know bureaucrats aren't held strictly to numbers and Wikipedia is not a democracy I just think I should note for those who are interested the number counts on this. As of close there was 81.25% support, and purely on the numbers that means that there would be somewhere between 79% and 80% support though that does not take into account consensus or how the closing bureaucrat weighs the votes.  Jtkiefer T  05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also for comparison, strictly based on numbers, Luigi30's RfA passed at 72%. Just a data point. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting data point. I forget who but somebody at least for awhile kept compiled data on noms and what the pass close ratio was and the support numbers/percent average for passing and failing RFA's.  Jtkiefer T  05:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That'd be Durin, IIRC, and also IIRC he's still compiling stats. android  79  05:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Had HS's RfA not been closed prematurely, it is quite likely that it would have succeeded anyway. So making him stand again will be punishing him. And Apparently in the judgment of the closing Bureaucrat he "enjoyed consensus support for his adminship" at the time of the closing. Paul August &#9742; 06:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as a note. The only way to simply request a rerun is to formulate it as an RFAr. There's simply no other policy or method in place. So insofar as I've Requested arbitration against Hamster Sandwich, it's officially purely on grounds of procedure. (An area where I don't often tread, granted) Kim Bruning 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes and it's a same since arbcom cases are truly lacking many times because not enough users take an interest in proposing possible solutions, I'll even go as far to say that as far as I've seen many users aren't even aware that they can go to arbcom workshop pages and propose ideas.  Jtkiefer T  05:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Too bad he didn't get 100%, then we would have no issues :-), like the person who got like 184/0 recently. A perfect walk-through, thanks to Boothy443 not voting...thank God. Anyway, we should just let him be an admin, I doubt he will skew up anyway. Voice of  All T
 * I think he will, hence. :-/ Kim Bruning 06:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A question, as Hamster Sammich was not the person in charge of being promoted, shouldn't the RFAr technically be against the beaurocrat in question? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, because it is just a procedural thing (due to the fact that only arbcom... or the board... or Jimbo) can order someone de-adminned and the latter two would never do so for procedural issues the only way to do it would be to file an arbcom case against the candidacy (which in affect isn't really against the candidate himself anyway) since it isn't the bureaucrats fault for using his judgement as he is supposed to do and you can't file it against RFA policies since policies like everything else is just lines on a page. Jtkiefer T  06:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems far more reasonable to place the RFAr against Raul, as Raul's the one who's violation of policy/established norms Kim is seeking relief against. Specifically, closing the RFA early and not giving the discussion the standard seven days to proceed, and then doing nothing to address this error (which presumably has already been brought to his attention). Presumably, Raul could have Hamster's adminship revoked temporarily (I assume that bureaucrats can ask for accidental promotions to be revoked, anything else would seem rather silly) and reopen the RFA for another day. Kim's RfAr should be against Raul for failing to provide the sought-after remedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Just for discussion purposes, I am outlining this train of argument.) On the other hand, it can also be argued that the nominator and/or the nominee gave the wrong closing time and that the b'crat closed it according to the time mentioned. In this view, the RfAr can be brought against nominator/nominee also. --Gurubrahma 12:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire idea is stupid. What are the findings of fact going to be? "So and so entered the date wrong." The proposed decision? "Greater care must be taken in calculating seven days from the time of nomination." I propose we start a new version of WP:LAME called Lamest arbitration requests ever. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely the point I am making. What wd be the result of arbitration against Raul be? "Greater care must be taken by the b'crat in calculating seven days from the time of nomination." Aren't b'crats human? Won't they make mistakes? --Gurubrahma 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the only way I can see this RFArb going anywhere is if Kim could prove that someone deliberately acted improperly to ensure HamsterSandwich became an admin. And no-one is claming that. I don't feel this is likely to achieve anything. Raven4x4x 23:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it's his right to file an RFAr even if it is bound to be rejected. Jtkiefer T  19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm just voicing my concerns that I don't think it's likely to achieve much. Raven4x4x 01:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's his right. That doesn't mean it was a nice thing to do, or justified. -- SCZenz 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is Wikipedia, not a government. Nobody has a right to do anything. We're making an enyclopedia here, not a society. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because he hasn't got a right to it doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing it though ;). Everyone who thinks in good faith that an ArbCom cae is needed should go ahead, in my opinion. The ArbCom can always reject. (And no, I don't think Kim's got a case here either, and the Arbitrators who already voiced an opinion seem to share my opinion. But at least we know that now.) -- grm_wnr  Esc  03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This conversation may have somthing to do with this dustup plus the notice at WP:SIGN saying that it was all a mistake of the calender. I dont think that the promotion in and of itself is a  big deal. It's just the perception of a "behind the scenes" advocacy that compromises an otherwise proper promotion.  --hydnjo talk 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Antecedents not being checked
I'm sort of stuck with this situation. Once someone is adminned, there's simply no way to deadmin them in practice (hey, I just tried). Even RFAr won't work, because -obviously- the candidate in question has never abused admin privileges, simply hasn't had the time. *sigh*

With so many nominations on Requests for Adminship these days, sometimes people don't know all of a candidates' antecedents, and often don't bother to look.

Any suggestions on how to change that? Kim Bruning 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are ways to deadmin people.Geni 09:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of resigned about Hamster Sandwich. I'd like to work on setting up some antecent checking patrol so that we don't let people slip by with some parts of their history unchecked in future. Kim Bruning 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think I like that. You know why not?  Because you don't have any examples of someone with an "antecedent" that disqualified them from adminship.  What you've got is Hamster Sandwich, who didn't do anything wrong and got RfAr'd because he didn't respond well when you tried to desysop him.  (Can you blame him?) So what I hear you saying, at this point, is that you want to scrutinize peoples' edit histories for comments you find politically unacceptable.  I know it doesn't say it anywhere in policy, but I think we can all agree that Wikipedia is not the House Committee on Unamerican Activities.  -- SCZenz 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I've had this issue a couple of times before on RfA actually, usually working to my disadvantage. I've had to work my rear end off figuring out how to resolve problems with a candidates' edit history more than once. Once, a candidate had a black mark almost a year old, and I ended up tracking down and having to mollify a guy who had since become a foundation officer(!), just to give her a fighting chance at adminship. Those were the days!
 * Sooo... Why should we make things any easier on you young 'uns? ;-) Kim Bruning 07:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've voted now several times on RfAs where a person had done something wrong in the past and wanted to move on from it. Some voters apparantly believe that anything a person has done in their past without showing 150% remorse (e.g. literally handing their lives over to those who they have offended) should be permanently held against them if they ever seek a position higher than that of editor (or have the position sought for them).  Truthfully?  If they're sorry I give them the benefit of the doubt.  Isn't that what "acting in good faith" is about? --Vortex 16:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What kind of a mark is so black as to disqualify someone from adminship, when all their recent edits are good? I just plain don't understand.  I only have one example to go on, and in that example the "black mark" was an opinion you didn't like, a misunderstanding involving proper use of buzzwords related to consensus, and an editor taking an RFA too personally and leaving the project.  If somebody's nominated for adminship, and nobody can remember any "black marks", it probably means they're rare enough that the nominee won't abuse the tools.  So please, answer the question at the top of this paragraph, and I'll reconsider my views. -- SCZenz 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Rl's departure wasn't about an editor taking it too personally, it was an editor wittnessing how broken Wikipedia has become of late first hands and walking away from the steaming pile. We failed to admin a fine user and reasonably well supported user because a political minority was able to block vote in his failure when he did not cow to their party line. We have reached a point where good users are caught in the crossfire between warring political factions on the project.  I am gravely concerned that if this sort of thing is allowed to continue we will rapidly reach a point where the only people willing to continue participating are the people who are perpetuating this nonsense by being more interested in on wiki politics than enhancing the encyclopedia. I can't say that HS's mark from participating in that mob is alone black enough, even though it reeks of the politics over productivity which I fear causes and will cause so many problems... but I can say his reaction to the concerns is enough of a concern itself. --Gmaxwell 14:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that we've moved on from the witchhunt against RI. Oh wait, it has now turned into a witchhunt against Hamster Sandwich. Guess we can't learn from other's mistakes. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(Response to Gmaxwell, after edit conflict) Frankly, your response, and Kim's response, to the injustice against Rl has been to try to catch other editors in the same crossfire. Telling people to stop participating in the project is way, way out of line; it's very different from Rl exercizing his right to "fork or leave" because he didn't like how things were going here. -- SCZenz 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

More questions about Hamster Sandwich

 * Could you just make it clear to me (and others who are confused), just exactly why you don't think Hamster Sandwich should be an admin? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He caused another user to leave the wiki. He misrepresented consensus. He has failed to learn from this event or change his position. We probably can't turn back his grant of admin rights, but I'd like to prevent similar situations from occurring again. Kim Bruning 03:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to put the entire burden of Rl's departure on the shoulders of Hamster Sandwich. As far as I can see, HS asked a perfectly legitimate question, and the group of people who disliked that answer was large enough to discount the group that thought R1 should be promoted. A dozen people voted to oppose R1 before HS even got around to voting; and R1 was unable to muster a huge showing of support. The RfA itself aside, failing an RfA is a silly reason to quit the project - there are plenty of folks who were only promoted on their second or third try to attest to that. bd2412  T 05:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm not chasing after Hamster Sandwich anymore right now. But since you're asking: if a bunch of people all pile on, they're all responsible when things go down the drain. I have talked with most of the other people in that pile-on already, and several of them explained what's up, and some were unhappy, and some thought it was ok but... you know... I did talk with them. Hamster Sandwich has simply been refusing to talk, which drives me around all kinds of bends, I'm ready to admit. Did you notice that his trick fallacy of many questions is what set things off? I've since had very brief debates with Hamster Sandwich, and I don't think the trick was an accident. Kim Bruning 06:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree, then. The question "what percentage of the vote indicates a concensus at VfD?", is fair game for an RfA, and for a trick, it's just not that tricky. I believe that, had R1 stuck it out after that RfA, he would have been renominated eventually, and would be an admin today. bd2412  T 06:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're just very intelligent. :-) Several people did fall for it (and I don't mean Rl) Kim Bruning 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In this context, could you also clarify what you mean by 'antecedents'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically a users' edit history should be deloused :-) Kim Bruning 03:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As Adminship is awarded by community consensus, I've long felt there ought to be a mechanism for reviewing that consensus short of ArbCom (which doesn't really establish consensus, anyway). The idea that I've had is something like: If X admins petition for review then the candidacy of a person should be put back on RFA for another showing of consensus, where X is some modest but non-trivial number. I'm inclined to limit it to admins to prevent abuse but strongly encourage regular users to bring problems to the attention of other admins. Simplifying the process of considering de-adminship would go a long way, in my mind at least, towards making adminship more of "no big deal". Dragons flight 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so you'd prefer adminship to be no big deal again? It's changed. See: Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 54 Kim Bruning
 * Admins can always request de-adminship and re-run themselves to determine and verify if they still have community consensus or not. To me, I think that Admins are very important in this community, which is why I vote the way I do. Regarding your "de-admin" issue, however, normally you can bring an Admin before ArbCom for de-admin purposes.  In this case, however, you brought up an Admin who had just been granted powers and hasn't even had a week yet to use them.  You weren't bringing up the Admin per se but the process that got him those powers... a totally different can'o'worms.  I think that, if anything, you should've brought the matter up with the Bureaucrat who closed the vote and then went from there.  (But, that's my opinion)  Frankly, I think that there is little that can be done immediately without a full and complete rethink of the system -- a long and arduous process that may result in a lot of headaches, a lot of problems, and more cans of worms than we can find fish for.  --Vortex 03:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was about to go and post my opinion on the RFAr when I noticed it had been closed only a couple of hours earlier. I immediately complained about it right here on this page. But by now the damage has already been done I guess, but hopefully similar situations where entire parts of a persons history are missed like that can be prevented in future. Any suggestions on how? Kim Bruning 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Add RfA to your watchlist and participate regularly with a thorough scouring of the candidates contributions history? -Splash talk 03:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I used to do, but RFA has gotten too busy for anyone to do that alone anymore. Kim Bruning 03:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a page from AFD and "don't vote on everything". I examined one candidate a week until I got too busy to do so. android  79  03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Hamster Sandwich slipped through the cracks. I have a suspicion that a number of other folks have too (based on GMaxwells notorious recent "spam campaign" ;-) ) So no, that's not sufficient. Kim Bruning 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on an ideal of consensus. With respect, the various conversations (here, on IRC, etc) that I've observed on this subject suggest that consensus is not with you on this issue.  You have been asked repeatedly to specify the 'silver bullet' you possess about why Hamster Sandwich must be immediately de-adminned, but have not.  It is my feeling that this effort of yours is built on a shaky foundation.  Please know that I have no love for Hamster, nor dislike for you.  As a 3rd party observer and a member of the wikipedia community, I hope that my perspective can be of assistance to you. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 03:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't have been adminned. Several people had just checked his history and found out that he'd driven away another editor. That's something that at the very least should have been examined first. I already complained inside the normal 7 days time even! What do you want to hear from me? But that can't be turned back now. I'd like to figure out how to prevent a similar situation occurring in future. Any ideas? Kim Bruning 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We could make bureaucrats infallible. That way there would be no grounds for protest. Alternatively, we could put administrators on probation after a successful vote, their adminship to be rescinded and the vote to be restarted the moment someone puts forth an objection. Or, we could accept that any procedure anywhere is susceptible to human error, no matter how deftly rules could be ignored by well-meaning folks, and trust that matters will work out in the end. Sometimes fixing a mistake is more costly than relying on a system's capacity for self-correction.
 * Some who should not have gotten adminship in retrospect have nevertheless been promoted. Very few have actually had their adminship rescinded. On the whole the matter does not seem serious enough to move people into setting up a viable de-adminship procedure, despite quite a few attempts. How to prevent this in the future? Change the nature of adminship. But people have been shouting this for a very long time now, and nothing happens, so the status quo must be what we all want, one way or the other. JRM · Talk 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To suggest that HS was single-handedly responsible for driving an editor away is exaggeration beyond the call of duty. This issue came up in my RfA too, where it was given the slapping-down it deserved. The person who has prevented Rl from editing sicne then (and yes, this is what it's all about, despite all the protestations to the contrary) is Rl, not HS. -Splash talk 04:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He instigated, you followed. And the main argument in your defence was that 13 people all did the same thing, so you're somehow excused. I hope your position has changed recently? Kim Bruning 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is neither the time or place for this conversation to turn in this particular direction. If you want to have it, have it at your respective talk pages.  The issue at hand here is that of Admins, not past actions.  Thank you. --Vortex 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the best way to get rid of rouge admins is to demand absolute perfection from them. Then we won't have any admin abuse! Hooray! android  79  04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kim, your continuation of this crusade against Hamster Sandwich crossed the line into harassment a while ago, and I'm sure I already told you that, too. Rl wasn't driven away at all, and your turning him into an infallible saint is unjustified. He lost an RFA, even if unjustly, and left in a huff over what is not supposed to be a big deal (which I thought an "admin emeritus" would question). In fact, if Hamster Sandwich had Rl's constitution, he would have been driven away by you long ago. Sadly, plenty of users have failed RFAs in much uglier RFAs, and lived to tell about it. Rl's answer to the consensus question was a correct one, technically, but not the sensible one. He decided not to reveal how he would go about detemining rough consensus, and in fact, even then didn't qualify or very well explain why, he would only say 100%. That HS brought this on Rl doesn't follow from the facts; that Rl was "driven off" certainly doesn't follow; and that any of this has any bearing on HS's judgment as an admin himself is not even close to following. I've asked you multiple times to channel your outrage into something actually productive like a better deadminship process, or reforming RFA itself, or even clarifying the consensus policy. Please stop the witchhunt and taking potshots at HS, and bring a proposal to the table. Dmcdevit·t 06:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See above, at . People seem more interested in Hamster Sandwich, however. Kim Bruning 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Crusade? If anything I've been the one crusading, not Kim. I can't at all see how Kim's behavior could be considered harassment. In the case of hamster, his RFA was closed prematurely by request... when others were still asking questions of him and waiting on answers . There are at least three people who would have opposed based on HS's continued position on consensus and his past actions had they been given the chance. I'm not so sure that it matters, but it's good material to discuss even if it only to consider as material for future changes to the RFA process. Rl wasn't driven away because people treated him harshly or because his feelings were hurt by being rejected. Rl left because his RFA demonstrated in a clear and personal way that Wikipedia is terribly broken. Rl's response to this brokeness was giving up in despair... Kim is insted trying to get things fixed. HS is just ignoring the issue now that his reputation might be on the line and it seems you are defending people doing wrong, and complaining about it being pointed out because you're worried about bruised feelings. --Gmaxwell 06:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Discussion is good. Questioning even. Not attributing bad faith and being uncivil. I've been telling Kim all along to try to get things fixed, but his behavior here just isn't that. Go fix the system, don't go after another valuable editor. Kim, look at your responses and you'll see you referred to HS plenty when that wasn't the question ("he slipped through the crack"). If you think there was a legitimate reason his RFA should not have ended in a promotion, fine, do something about it other than harassment. The thing is, I'm not complaining about bruised feelings, actually I'm confident that HS can take it, but the repeated and intentional bruising of feeling is unjustified and needs to stop. Especially if you are concerned about Wikipedia being broken. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * again: See above, at . Kim Bruning 06:45, 12
 * Gmaxwell, you say "his RFA was closed prematurely by request". Could you please point me in the direction of some evidence for this? Who's request was it? Raven4x4x 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The allegation of an early close request is probably tied to this: User_talk:Raul654. If you ask me, the timing was pretty clearly an accident. -- SCZenz 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am offering to become an Admin
I would like to be an Admin at Wikipedia, but how do I get nominated? I have spent time lately targeting areas of vandalism. I reported vandalism on the synagogue page but under my IP address because my Username would not work at the time. I am good at spotting Vandalism (Been doing it since joining Wikipedia in 2003)

Draig goch20 22:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to have alot more edits than the 102 you currently have. Also very inactive I could see as 102 edits in 2 years is bad and I only saw 3 edit summarries in those edits. You need to improve in that. Try again in a few months with more edits. Not now. Sorry --Jaranda wat's sup 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please learn to use an edit summary feature at all times (now you do almost never). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I know how to use the edit summary thanks, I just forgot to use it. I will apply here sometime in 2006.

Draig goch20 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) To answer the basic questions, anyone may nominate you, or you may nominate yourself. Please follow the instructions at Requests for adminship/nominate. However, it is highly unlikely that you will pass a RfA with only 102 edits; check out some of the informal standards by some Wikipedians. As such, I highly recommend that you not nominate yourself at this point in time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I will not make a move now, I shall make a move at a later date. Thanks for the information.

Draig goch20 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This might also be helpful: Guide to requests for adminship Borisblue 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bore da, Ddraig goch20 - it would probably be worth your while looking at Requests for adminship/Standards. That will give you an idea of the sorts of things that voters here tend to look for in an admin. Certainly it is very rare for anyone to be voted in with under 1000 edits and three months of solid work here, but it's good to see that you're keen. Good luck - I hope to see you on the page sometime in '06! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  04:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)