requests For Adminship/Archive 28

He hadn't acknowledged it, but with 11 oppose votes within hours and only the nominator in support I think we are best served by stopping the pile-on. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd supported too. He's a good contributor and a nice guy.  Grue  06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I probably would have voted "Weak support" given the chance. I say let it run; looking at his/her record of reverting vandalism, and the fact that the oppose votes seem to have stopped, s/he certainly has the potential to be admin material. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 17:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think the oppose votes stopped because of the page protection. --Dmcdevit·t 18:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
No, I mean Boothy's oppose votes. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The vote was 1/11/2 when the nomination was removed. There may have been more support to come, but there was no way the RfA was going to be successful. To reach 75% support, he would have needed 32 more support votes, assuming there were no additional oppose votes. As a general rules, I think that nominations should be removed early whenever there are 10 more oppose votes than support votes (ie. Oppose=Support+10). There's no chance of promotion and a good chance of hurt feelings and negative comments. Carbonite | Talk 18:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. I didn't think many people who vote on this would get real emotional in voting. I'm very surprised the oppose votes sounded so emotional and since usually admins vote on this, then I thought they were mostly scientists, librarians, science teachers (one said she is), professors, etc. I'm sort of weird and for that reason I make weird choices of who I support -- and not just on wikipedia (that includes choices of political candidates. It also includes things like how I think Saddam Hussein's punishment should be not execution, but rather to see the South Park movie where they make fun of him--the jailers won't let him watch TV). DyslexicEditor 01:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Pity. We didn't get to see whether Boothy443 would automatically vote against themselves. Aquillion 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Hah! That's hilarious. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-nominated Darwinek for admin, and noticed there's no guideline as to how to name a re-nomination. We have subpages called ABCD.09, Alkivar2, B-101 (2), Chanting Fox (2nd), Denelson/First, EdwinHJ (renomination)... it's probably only a trivial matter, but should there be a set naming convention for this? It does make a difference occasionally, especially when a username ends in a digit (I favour "(2)", BTW) Grutness...wha? 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was always Howabout1 2. I think Denelson moved his RfA when his second was created. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 01:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you get nominated and get refused, can you be nominated again? Khulhy 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes; as above. Usually people wait a couple of months before trying again. This is the meaning of the "2" in the names of some of the nominations. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that this person almost always votes against, and never gives a reason. Isn't a reason important? I had thought that these pages, like vfds, were designed more to find consensus than just as ballot-in-the-slot votes. (I don't mean to be critical of Boothy443, by the way; I'm just unsure of the situation and the protocol.) --Phronima 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wiki: Requests for comment/Boothy443 and direct all comments there. This has been discussed to death before. Dmcdevit·t 21:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I see you've removed Lucky's vote saying no consensus, but he had reached 78 per cent or thereabouts, or have I miscounted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What especially concerns me is that Ed was a voter. I would have preferred to see of of the other bureaucrats decide this one, even if it is the same decision or not. Dmcdevit·t 00:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Er, never mind. It looks like he reverted himself. Dmcdevit·t 00:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, according to my calculations, the final vote was 72-20-4. This falls below the 80% threshold that some feel is an absolute standard. RFA, however, is a consensus-driven page (or that is my long-held and often-stated position). A candidacy that received 78% support but which didn't have a well-articulated and clear opposition might squeak through. It's my judgment as a bureaucrat (and I welcome any alternative opinions here from all users, bureaucrats and not) that there are legitimate objections to Lucky that would make it folly to call the outcome of this nomination "consensus". It simply didn't emerge. I personally have great respect for Lucky, and had no objections to his candidacy (I toyed with voting in support, in fact), so I hope my decision will therefore be less controversial. I'm posting this here to be perfectly transparent (or as close as I can come) to why I made this decision. Now I await being raked over the coals.... Jwrosenzweig 01:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just seen a note regarding extending the vote -- an option I should have considered more carefully before removing the section. If anyone feels extending the vote for several more days would substantially change the result, please do repost it with a note about the extension. Jwrosenzweig 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see it extended. It seems wrong for someone to get 72 votes and yet fail to be promoted by such a narrow margin, when plenty of people are elected with fewer votes than that. If it were extended and he still failed to get the extra votes, then at least it would be seen to be as fair as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea in general, but I'm not sure how many more votes could be expected (aside from one, being mine). There are already 96 opinions expressed. siafu 01:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi James, I hope when you said anyone could post it back, you didn't mean any bureaucrat. I've reposted, but if I was wrong to do that, feel free to revert me. Assuming you don't mind that it's back up, how many days extension do you feel would be appropriate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I've complicated things: I deleted Lucky's user and talk pages at his request. The CSD criteria allow that, if there is no need to keep them. I'm not sure what to do now. Joyous (talk) 01:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I restored the userpage. Bishonen | talk 01:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why the talk page wouldn't play. :-( Bishonen | talk 01:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I got it. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
No one is going to rake you over the coals, Jwrosenzweig. :) The real issue here isn't with the final outcome, as decided by an impartial bureaucrat making a call, it's with a bureaucrat who made such an overwhelmingly opposing presense duing the vote, who then feels that he gets to decide consensus when the vote falls into that grey 70 to 80 percent area. Let's look at Ed Poor's behavior through this vote:
• Places his vote at the top of the oppose list, (is Ed's vote more important than others?)
• In the same diff above, makes mention of the fact that he is a bureaucrat. Why was that nessesary? Was he thinking right there that he could overturn community consensus in favor of his own opinion and get away with it, (as he did with the VFD thing?)
• Makes an incredibly bad faith comment at the top of Lucky's nom, (Note that "voting" alone will not determine the outcome.). No one else's nomination gets such a "friendly reminder" that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It was inappropriate.
• What did this mean? I'm going to veto your application.
• Changed his vote to neutral, without explanation. That's his right, of course, but given how strongly he had opposed in the first place...it's odd. Was he thinking right there that would allow him to be the impartial bureaucrat who would get to determe consensus?
Look, I'm not sure where I'm going with all of this, but it seems to me that it won't create too much instruction creep to suggest that a bureaucrat who votes, (even if he later becomes neutral), shouldn't be the one trying to make the call in those 70% to 80% determinations. I know that Ed later reveresed himself, but really, it showed very bad judgement on his part in the first place. Func( t, c ) 01:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds like common sense to me. Presumably we place bureaucrat privileges in a select few users hands for just this kind of judgment call. Based on Ed's recent jugment calls, I'm seriously doubting the trust we've placed in him. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
So am I. Do we have a de-bureaucrat procedure? If not, why not? Bishonen | talk 02:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we do, and it's probably because it's the first time it's ever been considered. There is currently an arbitrationcase against him I think. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why? Is the executive washroom too crowded? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
How do you mean, why, Cecropia? Don't you think that having no confidence in Ed Poor's judgment as a bureaucrat is a good reason to want to de-bureaucrat him? But I suppose a de-adminship proposal would do it. I don't have any confidence in him as an admin either. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to get embroiled in the instant argument. Maybe we should have a clear de-bureaucrat procedure; ditto a de-adminship procedure. Perhaps it would be a good idea for bureaucrats to stand for "re-election" or "affirmation" periodically. But we would need some kind of guideline of universal application, rather than react to an ad hoc situation. If anyone wants to start a discussion, I'll certainly want to read the arguments and put in my 2 cents. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia, I don't see any need for periodic re-anything. Reacting ad hoc is entirely appropriate. A situation has arisen, namely, that Ed Poor's judgement has come into question by a great many people who are left baffled by his behavior. Over at Wiki_talk:Bureaucrats#desysop_ability, I see that Ed Poor made a unilateral descision back in Feb or March to desysop 4 admins, using developer powers that he had inappropriately held. No RFC, no ArbCom...just went and did it, as though he thinks he is either God or Jimbo. There is a fine line between WP:IAR and WP:POINT, and Ed doesn't seem to know the difference. I am having a hard time finding any good decisions that Ed Poor has made in his recent activities on Wiki English. I hate to seem so confrontational here, and I myself have had no real interaction with Ed, but these lone and controversial actions of his do not seem to show any respect for the rest of Wikipedia community. Func( t, c ) 02:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To remake my point, there is no procedure. Without a procedure what are we supposed to do? Hold a straw poll on a single bureaucrat? What would be consensus to keep? What to remove? Then what? If the vote went against Ed (by what objective criteria?) what do we do? Send him the black spot? Mount an RfC? Mount an ArbCom? Gather villagers together with burning torches? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Abuse of admin/bureacrat powers is the jurisidction of the arbcom - this also covers people who repeatedly make bad judgement calls, as per the Guanaco case. That's where you report it. →Raul654 03:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I like the last one. :) We would ask a developer to de-b-crat/sysop him. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

A thought. Who is best placed to judge someone's performance as a bureaucrat? The other bureaucrats. If a de-bureaucratting procedure is to be put in place, might I suggest a similar process to rfac might be an option, with anyone entitled to their two cents, followed by a vote by bureaucrats alone, the result of which could be to keep a bureaucrat, reduce his/her "rank' to admin, or go further and remove admin powers as well. Or would that be just too much to the "secret cabal" conspiracy theorists? Grutness...wha? 03:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, am I right in thinking non-admins can vote in RfA's, and you are just proposing a bureaucrat only election in that particular case? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone (or certainly any registered user) can vote in RfA - I'm talking about a bureaucrat-only vote when there is a request for comment on the behaviour of a bureaucrat. My fault - I put rfa when I meant rfc above! Grutness...wha? 07:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
So maybe I'm still too new....how does that compare to RfC? Are only admins supposed to vote on those? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone can comment on RFCs - but therein lies the difference. RFA's a direct vote. Any registered user can yay or nay someone for adminship. A request for comment consists of a group of comments by users, followed by (forgive me, I don't know the precise process) some form of voting/arbitration process by a select group of arbiters. I was suggesting a similar process in cases where a bureaucrat oversteps his or her bounds - a process where anyone is allowed to comment on what's happened, followed by a vote by the other bureaucrats on what should happen to them. Grutness...wha? 10:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC has no voting or arbiters; it's just comments. Maurreen (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gad! I take a little time off and we have a major broil. I try not to second-guess other bureaucrat's decisions as I expect them not to second-guess mine, assuming we are all acting in good faith. But in this case, two bureaucrats seem to have decided to make decisions and then reverse themselves.

I've looked at the situation. Lucky has stood for admin four times, and now has 72 positives, several of them "strong." I think adminship is more important than some do, but I think this is being taken to the point of "piling on." I have promoted Lucky, whether or not he's still around. Please don't look for this third bureaucrat to reverse his decision. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, I agree, Cecropia. I tried to make my best judgment call, but as usual, I got too good at seeing both sides of the argument and then wondered if I'd made the right call. Times like these only confirm why I try to stay away from making RFA decisions in the first place. I wish Lucky all the best. Jwrosenzweig 01:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Cecropia. I think it'll be a popular decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Me too. Incidentally, Jwrosenzweig's final count of 20 oppose votes isn't right, surely? I'm pretty sure we don't count Boothy's vote in a borderline case. We shouldn't. So it's 19 oppose votes. Now, I restored Lucky's deleted userpage, but how does one restore the talk page... ? Bishonen | talk 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I've done it, Bish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I did too. :) Dmcdevit·t 02:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
LOL, what a beautiful log! Thank you both. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys are just too fast for me. Meanies! :-P Kim Bruning 02:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was on the road and unable to show up to participate in the fireworks that accompanied the close of this nomation. However, I would like to say that I believe that Cecropia did the right thing, and for exactly the right reasons. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As someone who opposed Lucky 6.9's nomination, I think this was nevertheless an acceptable interpretation of the results. In addition to the concerns with Boothy443's votes, two other people said their opposition was "weak". While I did not use the word, my comments could be considered the same way. And many of those opposing expressed similar sentiments. Consensus decisionmaking is based partly on the opposition being willing to accept the outcome, and I think it can be said that much of the opposition here signaled such willingness.

Given that the outcome was also tainted by Ed's attempt at intervention, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I have no problem with the determination that Lucky 6.9 was close enough for promotion. The fact that all it takes is one bureaucrat to exercise their judgment in favor is a natural extension of the idea that adminship is "no big deal". --Michael Snow 05:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Following from the discussion above about bureaucrat appointment and removal I think there are a few things that should potentially be looked at

1. The election of bureaucrats could be more like election to the ArbCom- so a wider range of the community is involved, and so the position is not permanent.
2. It would be beneficial if there were fewer of them since presumably the workload isn't huge and it would potentially avoid conflicting decisions.
3. The policy regarding who can de-syssop needs to be more clearly defined; should de-syssoping only occur via an ArbCom decision?

That being said I also think that if Cecropia were to set himself up here like Raul has done on FAC, and was the one and only person that dealt with the decision making on admin appointments then there wouldn't be many complaints.--nixie 04:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• 1 sounds like a good idea. Regarding 2, I don't actually know how many there are :) but I suppose three would be a nice number (if they're reasonably active). 3 is once more a can of worms, but to prevent RFDA mobfests (as demonstrated by the previous two attempts to create such a policy) it would be best if the ArbCom handled both RFDA and RFDB. This would prevent deopping of anyone who is merely impopular but hasn't actually done anything the consensus thinks to be seriously wrong. Radiant_>|< 09:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • A few thoughts. 1--I don't know what exactly is meant, since any contributing member (read: non-vandal, non-anon) can vote in an RfBureaucratship nomination. A time limit on service might make sense, although if there isn't one for admins, I wonder why one is necessary for bureaucrats. 2--We once had only 7 or 8, and then almost all of them went inactive (a common problem around here)....now we have maybe 20? (I know, I should check, but I feel lazy) and usually any nomination of an additional one is shouted down for being unnecessary. The only reason I can see to have fewer B's is to reduce the number of admins promoted (since it would mean that for borderline cases there would be a reduced possibility that one bureaucrat would decide to promote), but I don't see that this has been a problem. 3--Bureaucrats can't desysop--the software doesn't allow it. Only m:stewards can do that, and that's a pretty exclusive group. If what's being referred to is Ed's action of a few months ago, I believe he managed that via his developer access (which he has since voluntarily given up). I think discussion about reform is just fine....I'm just not convinced that these 3 principles are the ones to focus on. And if anyone thinks I should give up my status (goodness knows I don't use it often at all), please do so -- I'm happy to discuss it with you, and open to agreeing with you, since I don't think I've been much help in the last few months. Jwrosenzweig 10:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you DARE! I'd like for old users to stick around, and keep helping out with admin tasks. Practically everything you do is reversible if people really don't agree with it. I'd prefer old users to bumble a bit, but do so in good faith and with a clear view on where things are going - than I'd want to see newbies trying to even figure out what the community is, and dropping the ball entirely with no-one to look to for help. Better to have some of the old hands current with current practice then, even if they do fumble a bit while (re)-picking it up.Kim Bruning 15:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with Kim. I think it's important for institutional memory to keep experienced users in visible positions. However, I must say I was very disturbed by Ed's "veto" comment. My concern about institutional memory is especially strong because consensus model decision-making is not the norm in most modern cultures, so it's important for the community to have guides who really understand and have experience with WP:CON. Its all the more counter-productive when someone with decision-making abilities flouts that process. I think we need to be able to address those situations, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater by automatically term-limitting. -Satori 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Er Kim, nobody is suggesting a term limit for admins. The suggestion was to model the Bureaucrat process after the ArbCom process. Radiant_>|< 08:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • Radiant, unless I'm mistaken, Kim was responding to my comment that I was willing to be de-bureaucratized if it was thought prudent. I couldn't tell if that was the intent of reform (to oust some of us less reliable types) and so I made the offer, perhaps foolishly. Sorry. :-) Jwrosenzweig 08:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Ah okay. I was unaware that you were a 'Crat :) That would explain Kim's response. Radiant_>|< 09:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • I just want to point out that #2 seems to be asking to have the bureaucrat status of many revoked. I don't think any of us are willing to go that far with any of this (well, some people probably have one in mind). I guess what you're really saying is that when some of the current bureaucrats become inactive, we should not replace them all too quickly. (That is unless it's Cecropia, Secretlondon, or UC) Dmcdevit·t 09:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, Wiki: Bureaucrats suggests that there are 20 current bureaucrats, but at least one has been inactive for over a year. No new bureaucrats have been created since October last year, BTW. Please also note that a conversation between myself and Evilphoenix listed above at the bottom of the Lucky 6.9 section also relates directly to this discussion. Grutness...wha? 10:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Responding to nixie's original suggestions:

• The most recent ArbCom election was hardly a model of ideal group decisionmaking. It was unnecessarily divisive and parochial. There are process issues being worked, and I would hope that future such elections would work out better for everyone. I don't believe we would be well-served to utilize that process elsewhere until it is fixed.
• The main problem with the promotion process that actually needs to be fixed is the occasional problem we have with normally inactive bureaucrats showing up and closing nominations where they feel strongly. There have been three instances of this of which I'm aware, User:Grunt's bureaucratship nomination, (a matter begining with the promotion and then demotion of Grunt in rapid succession, and ending in the "de-bureaucratting" of the person who promoted) and the near misses withUser:William M. Connolley and User:Lucky 6.9's adminship nominations.
• I believe that the best way to fix that problem is to modify the closure process in such a way that bureaucrats have an opportunity to discuss the handling of unclear cases amongst themselves. At present there is something of a race to see who can act first once the vote concludes, and that discourages discussion.

• "there is something of a race to see who can act first once the vote concludes, and that discourages discussion." Is that your motivation? That's not my motivation. First you were complaining about the way I was handling the process, and now you're claiming that we have dueling admins. You mainly seem interested in changing the process. You seem to be one of the very few who think the process is broken. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• The original idea behind the "bureaucrats" was that the promotion process would be shared more or less evenly amongst them, much as the closing of VfD nominations is shared among a fairly broad group of interested admins. Prior to the existence of "bureaucrats," Ed Poor made substantially all the promotions using SQL queries.

• Where do you get that idea from (that bureaucrat work was intended to be evenly shared). You certainly weren't making much effort to "evenly share" the work until I suggested that you might be a more active bureaucrat if you wanted to influence the process. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong to de-lurk suddenly and take it upon myself to decide Dr. C.'s and Lucky's RFAdmin's. I have told UC and the arbcom that I will never do this sort of thing again. This includes making "remarks" as well as taking action.

I also don't think bureaucrat work need be evenly shared. Cecropria can keep doing 90% of the promotions, for all I care. I'm only going to jump in and do the 30 to 1 cases - where there is no controversy and no need to wait. Okay? Uncle Ed 13:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Malathion for spotting this one. I've been looking for a suitable illustration for this page for some time ... - David Gerard 10:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's very drôle of you. gkhan 11:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've removed it. Sorry, but it was unsuited for the page, at least in the configuration used (IMHO, there shouldn't be any images at all, but maybe people would agree to it, if done in a more discrete manner). Regards, Redux 14:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Come on, show some sense of humor - it's not like the image is somehow offensive or makes a joke out of the whole RFA procedure. I won't unilaterally reinsert the image, but I wouldn't mind it being there -- Ferkelparade π 14:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I saw nothing wrong with the image, and using the vandalism rollback tool to revert it is completely inappropriate. David Gerard is not a vandal. Kelly Martin 15:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
We've been looking for an image of that sort for about a year now, and Malathion used that one on my talk page. The reason why it is suited is that it points out that adminship is janitorship, not being a moderator or higher editorial staff. And please note that using the rollback for editorial differences as here is really not suitable behaviour - David Gerard 15:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that using the vandalism rollback tool is very bad style. Anybody except a vandal deserves a respectul edit summary.

About the picture itself, I find it ugly like hell. Much better would be a cartoon of a guy/gal with a mop in the hand. Focus on the person, not on the mop. Oleg Alexandrov 15:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a fair enough objection ;-) Mop, bucket, LARGE keyring. Put Jimbo's face over theirs? ALL HANDS TO THE GIMP! - David Gerard 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And I removed it again. RfA is a place where much happens that is good, bad and quite distinctly ugly; keeping it sterile where we can is only sensible. It often gets comparatively new users visit its pages and vote. The rather cryptic caption and references to a mop are too much of an in-joke to be appropriate. There is (no/a) cabal. -Splash 18:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey removers, stop being wet blankets. Andre (talk) 18:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ya. It's cool. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Count me among the "wet blankets". It's just not funny, sorry. siafu 19:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no intention of comparing David with a vandal by using the rollback, I've had well-meant edits of my own reverted with rollback, even recently. I immediately explained why I had reverted the edit here, and had it been re-reverted, I would not have rolled back again (obviously). However, as per what I said, and also per Splash's comment, the impromptu inclusion of the image, with a joke, in a place that just doesn't seem to be suited for it, appeared to justify a quick reversion. It's no offense David, sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Someone could have reverted it with an edit summary saying "rv. vandalism", or "rv. graffitti". It happens. On the issue itself: I appreciate the humor, and I know that that image is commonly used in association with Adminship, as a "janitorial service", but I don't believe this works here. We might make jokes and funny remarks in the RfAs themselves, but the RfA page, I believe, is best kept joke-free, since in the end of the day RfAs are serious business (especially for the candidates). Sorry if my revert might have seemed (or been) abrupt. Regards, Redux 03:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Point of order (so this is absolutely clear): when I reverted the original edit, it seemed clear cut. As it turns out, however, this was a gray area situation, and in such cases it is clear that rollback should not be used. But it was an honest mistake. Regards, Redux 05:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Should we vote on it's inclusion? Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 14:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Personally, I liked the image very much, but if it upsets others, then why include it? Lupo 14:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

admin tools are not just a mop&bucket. They are the "mop and truncheon". The mop is the rollback button, but the truncheon is for hitting vandals on the head (otherwise you are suggesting the vandals are just 'dirt' too, while in the mop & truncheon metaphor, the mop is for the litter, and the truncheon for the litterbum :) also, the 'mop' metaphor sort of understates that admins are allowed some judgement in locking people out temporarily (subject to the letter of policy, of course), they are not just meekly cleaning up people's mess after them. dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

True, I guess we don't need it. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see we are having one of those perennial Wikipedia discussions over image censorship, like we had over at clitoris. May I suggest that we simply have a link to the mop, with a disclaimer:
Warning: This link points to a photographic idealization of adminship that may be offense to some....
Hehe ;-) Func( t, c, e,  ) 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
WARNING - this page contains images of an EXPLICIT JANITORIAL NATURE and may be offensive to some. →Raul654 19:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
If you're easily offended by depictions of HOT CUSTODIAL ACTION or you're under 18, don't click this link. Andre (talk) 20:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's not exactly what this is about. The image is fine, the joke is fine (I've used the image for this exact same joke). What was said is that this page would not be suited for the joke. It has nothing to do with the image, or the funny stuff we might say about/because_of it. In fact, the image and the "janitorial nature" jokes are rather insightful in terms of what Adminship is about, I don't think anyone would contest that, let alone call it offensive. But in this case, it's more like the real estate market: it's all about location, location, location. Regards, Redux 00:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... depends on the importance placed on being an admin. We're constantly being told that adminship is no big deal - why not add a little levity to this page? ISTR that a similar image is or was used at Wiki: Cleanup, which in many ways is a far more serious page, since it deals with the face Wikipedia presents to the readers (i.e., cleaning up bad articles). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
True. I, for one, believe that Adminship is a big deal in terms of the responsibility that comes with it. Not in terms of any prestige that might be attached to it; in that aspect, it isn't, and shouldn't be, a big deal (maybe that's what you meant?). The RfA page should, IMHO, retain a certain sobriety so as not to encourage people to participate in RfAs as a joke — it may seem perfectly innocent, but if someone who's never been here finds jokes in that page, this person might come to believe that it's all a big joke, and vote accordingly. Convincing them to start taking it seriously may not be that easy, and they could cause some troubles before we can reach them. If anything, that would be unfair to the candidates, for whom an RfA means a lot, and to the project in general, since Admins are an essential part of Wikipedia (by extention, RfAs, as the means through which Admins are created, are a fundamental part of the "Wikipedia machine", and should be treated accordingly) — we already get a lot of "funny votes", such as people opposing candidates only because everybody else is supporting them, and numerous comments (sometimes creating misunderstandings) for the sole sake of humor. None of this is a serious problem right now (and some humor is certainly welcome), but if we start making jokes in the RfA page, we might be opening a door that we really shouldn't open, and that might be quite difficult to close afterwards. That's just how I personally feel about it. Regards, Redux 02:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's an RFA that has a lot to do with things that happened to me a year ago, so I'm just staying awake 'till very early morning, and watching what the bureaucrats will decide... they should have already decided... help! Kim Bruning 02:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

But which one is it? :P Redux 02:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, and he just got promoted :) Kim Bruning 02:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes. But why were you anxious? He seemed to have a strong support base; apparently, it was a done deal. Regards, Redux 03:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Now I see. 26 votes between oppose and neutral. Not that "done" after all. Actually, it was close. The last time I had checked, it was not that tight... Well, it's over now. Regards, Redux 03:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remove the self-nom section and instead have all nominations in one section. The separate section for self-noms dates to an era when self-noms were discouraged; most that were made were in bad faith. It was handy to keep them separate. This is no longer the case, and it would be helpful to me (and probably the other bureaucrats as well) to have the votes all in chronological order. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No objections from this paper-pushing bureacrat →Raul654 17:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me; since there is a statement by the nominator at the top of every one, it would always be clear which were self-inflicted. (If I were feeling cheekier I'd suggest keeping a separate section for sockpuppet nominations ... ) Antandrus (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it, but I'd like to see self-noms tagged in some way. It might be wikipedia:requests for adminship/Foo (self-nom). And we could see that it was one in the TOC. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 17:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I personally would rather do away with the other section, and have them all be self-noms. The immodesty required to post a self-nom when we have a non-self-nom section means the 'pedia often has to wait months beyond what we might otherwise do to have good editors become admins. If there was no "blessing" process, this would happen much less frequently. If the more respected position of Bureaucrat needs no "blessing", then Administry surely doesn't either. -Splash 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Doing away with the segregation seems like an excellent idea. But I must say, I really, really like Splash's suggestion. A lot of people who would make good Admins don't want to self-nominate, and sometimes the system (meaning: other users) lets some excellent candidates slip through the cracks. And self-noms are still under the shadow of those times when they were discouraged. This can be easily observed: with just a few exceptions, self-noms usually draw a lot less participation from the community. When nominated by another user, a solid candidate can get 10, 12, 15 support votes in the first 24 hours of his/her RfA, whereas a self-nom, even if a solid candidate, can take days, maybe almost the entire week period, to get the same amount of support. It feels like people just don't want to "cross the border" into "self-nom land". But if self-nominating was to be the way to get Adminship, the problem would disappear. Plus, there'd be no need for the nominee to accept nomination. Regards, Redux 04:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I strongly support this. I self-nominated myself about a year ago and have always tried to support any self-nominaton with reasonable merit. I don't think there will be sufficient support to completely do away with the "regular" nomination process, but the segregation serves no purpose. — David Remahl 05:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No objections from the guy who complained himself into the seat a month after joining ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the argument that self-noms are preferable to other-noms. While I applaud the personality types that are willing to nominate themselves as worthy candidates, many of us aren't that good at promoting ourselves (and in fact loathe doing so). If being an admin required a self-nom, I might never have become one. The same is surely true of many others. Ultimately, since I want as many admins as are capable and reliable, I think other-noms are vital. I trust no one with power as much as I trust the ones who would never have sought power on their own. Jwrosenzweig 07:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If self-nom was the way to become an admin, I could still post a message to a promising user's page saying "hey, I think you should become an admin! place your nomination on RFA and I'll be first in line to support it!". — David Remahl 14:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As long as some admins are proposed by others while others self-nominate, it seems reasonable to me to do one of two things: (1) keep them separate, as now, this follows precedent; or (2) make all nominations "self-noms" instead of expecting candidates to proposed, then accept. Frankly UC, this seems to me to be another solution in search of a problem. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

My experience is that the manifestly unsuitable candidates are just as likely to come up through nomination from another user as through self-nomination, and that therefore there's little excuse for having two separate sections on the page. Perhaps a coloured note could be added somewhere to denote those nominated by others? David | Talk 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask for the abilltiy to check IPs so that i can hep against the rising tide of sock and meat puppetry, if a few more of us who can be trusted have the power to do so, then oit would be easier onm the DevsGavin the Chosen 17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You should probably wait to ask untill after your ArbCom case is over. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 17:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

At present that capability is limited to a single designated member of the Arbitration Committee who is permitted to use it only to make determinations about sockpuppertry related to arbitration cases. The place to ask would be either the Wiki: Mailing list or try asking at m:Requests_for_permissions, but I wouldn't recommend it since you're unlikely to be taken seriously due to your rather limited involvement with the project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

id still think it wouldbe a good idea... and for the record btw, this is not a soick puppet, casue its heonly account im usung.Gavin the Chosen 18:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you're not a sock, but you're still Gabrialsimon. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Very TrueGavin the Chosen 18:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, this is a genuinely astonishing request, as you yourself have run afoul of standards for sock puppetry. You have created several sock puppet accounts, publicly and privately lied about the nature of those accounts, and attempted to besmirch the character of other users when they have challenged you. You have only owned up to your deeds when under extreme pressure from admins and, as far as I can tell, have never expressed remorse, made appropriate appologies, or acknowledged wrongdoing. If there is "a rising tide of sock and meat puppetry," it is obvious that you are, or at least have been in the past week, a part of it. And now you want the keys to the henhouse?

You seem to have developed the idea that the way for you to demonstrate your usefulness and value to the Wikipedia community is to be given special powers and privileges. This is just a bit of advice: you are putting the cart before the horse. If you want to become an admin or an arbitrator, you _first_ need to demonstrate your maturity, judgement and dedication to the project. You need to get through your arbitration process, work with the admins who are mentoring you, avoid actions that get you blocked, and put a few months of quality edits "on the board" before even thinking about these kinds of things.--Craigkbryant 21:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps bureaucrats should have this capability? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

support! we need more people with access to IPs, but we need clear policy who these are. Since at present we have the division admin-bureaucrat-developer, It would seem straightforward to give the bureaucrats this power. Admins interested in the capability could then apply for bureaucratship. Should we draw up a clean policy proposal along these lines, or will it be voted down anyway? dab (ᛏ) 07:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

bureaucrats were elected way back not all of them are even active Wiki: Bureaucrat#Other bureaucrats. They were not elected to have the power to cheack IPs. Thus there is no way to know if they have communty support to have this power. The majority of arbcom members are probably already overloaded athough I think the ability should be offered to them. Other than that direct aplications from respected admins/bureaucrats is porobaly the best bet. Anyone want to start a policy page?Geni 09:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
sure, this is a new suggestion. We would have to look if there is community support for this. Since the active bureaucrats are trusted veterans, do think people will be open to the suggestion. We can do a separate "Request for IP access" voting page, but that seems like an additional load of wikicracy administration, and technically, these "IP accessors" would have to be elevated to developer status, I suppose. Just giving bureaucrats this power seems the least, well, bureaucratic apporach to me. dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Geni on this. The only additional power that bureaucrats were entrusted with was the promotion of admins. In my opinion, bureaucrats aren't super-admins and shouldn't have additional administrative powers. If we want more people to have access to check-user, there really should a process for granting this. It's true that it would add to the wikicracy, but I'm not sure how many people would apply. Carbonite | Talk 14:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In the same way we have little "request for bureaucracy" section at the bottom, we could have a little "request for ip access", it need not be too complicated at all. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of adding to the 'wikicracy', why not just give it to the arb com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyanep (talk • contribs) 23:01, August 16, 2005

Boothy has been identified as using multiple vandal sockpuppets and has been temporarily blocked. It's safe to say his votes no longer count. Feel free to strike them out and discount them as necessary. See also: WP:RFC/Boothy443 — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 15:55

I think striking out votes sets a bad precedent, including reinforcing the idea that this is solely a "vote". Let the bureaucrats decide how much weight to give Boothy's comments, that's why they're bureaucrats. kmccoy (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
kmccoy is right. -Splash 16:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Also concur with kmccoy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Do not "feel free" to strike out anyone's votes except anons. As of now, only the ArbCom has the power to specify restrictions n the rights of any editor. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• He's a proven vandal. For how many other vandals do we include their votes? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 17:49
There is no need to strike out votes by Boothy443 under his "normal" username. You have no right to say that he can't vote -- even if he is a "proven vandal". Bureaucrats are quite capable of evaluating the appropriate weight to attach to any particular editor's votes. Kelly Martin 19:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think that only anon's votes should be able to be struck out (and even then only if properly noted and if the anon is notified and given info on how to register for an account), that being said the closing bureaucrat should be able to discount Boothy's votes or include them at his/her discretion. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I still think there is no need to strike out any votes at all. The Bureaucrats know what they're doing, and we don't need to take inflammatory action to help them out. -Splash 17:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Once we start striking out votes where there has been no determination from ArbCom that the person has lost the voting entitlement we will have Wikipoliticians arguing to strike out others' votes based on content or the person. This is a path we should not embark on. The actual promotions are made by bureaucrats, who are putatively human, not machines, and capable of evaluating votes such as Boothy's. I must warn anyone who takes it upon themselves to strike out non-anon votes that this is vandalism, and may expose the deleter to sanctions. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

By comparing the Wiki: List of Wikipedians by number of edits to the list of current admins, I've come up with some users who should be considered for adminship based on their edit counts alone (of course, other factors should also be considered). If you recognize someone in this list, and you feel they would make a good admin, you might consider nominating them for adminship. Because this was automated, there are likely to be mistakes/omissions. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 17:49

This list was moved to Wiki: List of non-admins with high edit counts

Perhaps merge this with User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins where many people have already been contacted and indicated in some cases that they specifically should not be nominated. Rick's list is out of date, however, so the merge would be useful. -Splash 17:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember, editcountitis may be fatal. Kelly Martin 19:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hear hear! (and I'm not just saying that because of my edit count. No! Don't anyone dare look!) gkhan 19:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Fatal? Do we have any casualties yet? :) Radiant_>|< 08:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

BD2412 (talk · contribs) would seem like an obvious one. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He said not to nominate him until he's been here 9 months... so wait till November 20th. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 19:44
Which is why you should merge the info from Rick Block's list, where BDA gives that info. I'd do it myself, but it's too much of a task. -Splash 19:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
fwiiw, I did check the list before posting, where his name appears struck out. dab (ᛏ) 20:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a pretty little ole edit button at the top, you know? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 20:15
This list includes User:Gzornenplatz, whom even we newbies have heard of. Surely this should be collated with other lists - like banned users. Septentrionalis 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
nobody is going to nominate Wik, for example :oP dab (ᛏ) 20:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Surely you should feel free to do said collating. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 20:17
Ignoring minor differences due to sort order and age of data, the major difference between Brian's list and the one I put together is that every single user on my list has been invited to indicate interest in becoming an admin (* by a user's name indicates interest, and was added by the user) and the list has been cross checked with banned users and folks who have already denied invitations to be nominated (and includes at least recent unsuccessful nominations). A few folks deleted themselves from my list entirely. Rather than restart from scratch, I think we should definitely merge these lists. I'm willing to do this, but haven't gotten around to it since WP:1000 was updated. Perhaps there should be a pointer to one of these lists from WP:1000 so yet another one isn't created. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I've crossed out all users who were crossed out on your list. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 21:26
I've bolded all users who were starred on your list. If you can point out what other lists you cross-checked them with, then I can clean up this list more. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 21:45
I've cross-checked with Missing Wikipedians, and made the necessary changes. Any other lists? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 21:56
Other lists: Wiki: List of banned users, former and declined from WP:LA (and, BTW, although it seems I may be one shortly I'm not an admin yet). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 23:13
Remember that several who have declined in the past may be interested at some future stage (Zscout370 wasn't interested when I originally asked for instance, but stood for admin a couple of months later). There are a couple of people I've suggested adminship to on that list who at the time said they weren't interested (Ceyockey and BD2412), but I didn't cross their names out because it was a while ago and who knows? They may change their minds. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if someone refuses nomination then - rather than scratching their name out - it should be noted that they have refused nom and when. That way we know not to pester them again for a few months, but aren't put off ever asking again. Grutness...wha? 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to wait until both RfAs had closed and some time had passed before bringing this up, since I did not want for this to be taken the wrong way. I would like to call attention to these two RfAs: Jtkiefer's and Flcelloguy's. The first was unseccessful (no consensus reached: 18/15/8), whereas the latter was successful (40/2/4). The problem is: how could these two have opposite results given the poignant similarities between them? I'll explain: there were two decisive characteristics that were rigorously the same in both cases, one of a somewhat subjective nature, whereas the other was an objective one: 1)Both users were recognized as being excellent contributors and definitely "Admin material" (this is subjective, of course, but in both cases the people who voted generally admitted to both users' qualities); 2)Both users had been here for a short time (Jtkiefer: 2 months - Flcelloguy: 3 months). In Jtkiefer's RfA, the bulk of the oppose votes were based on the fact that, although he was a great contributor, he was not experienced enough to be an Admin, and this costed him his promotion. The same was true for Flcelloguy, however, and it was pointed out by Brian0918, and yet not nearly as many people (hardly any, in fact) opposed his nomination.
I would like to make it crystal clear that I'm neither "bitter" because Jtkiefer didn't get it nor "frustrated" because Flcelloguy did. I think both users are great, and they are definitely Admin material. I said as much in both RfAs, and I voted exactly the same in both: neutral, for lack of experience. But I wonder what happened with all the opposition that came down on Jtkiefer's RfA. Obviously, Flcelloguy had a wider support base (by the sheer number of support votes), but what intreagues me is the lack of oppose votes in Flcelloguy's RfA for lack of experience. Can anyone make sense of it? Regards, Redux 18:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• It may have been the distribution of edits (for Jtkiefer, many more edits in User and User talk; for Flcelloguy, many more in Article and Wikipedia), or 2 vs 3 months may be the deciding factor for people, or maybe people were familiar with Flcelloguy's work with Mind Benders, or maybe it's just a case of sheep voting. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 19:01
• Those are interesting points, but I think you would need to ask every individual voter to find a better answer. You know, real life elections are too often decided by a single event or revelation that doesn't mean rats**t in terms of the broad issues but causes a last-minute shift in voting. At any rate, a rejected candidate can come back in a month. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One at a time: About Brian's post: I don't think so, any of these. Although there was the difference in the distribution of edits, both users have a remarkable record for such recent accounts and have done quality work that would be clear cut Adminship bound if not for the limited experience. This was openly said in both RfAs (and especially in Jtkiefer's). Second, I don't believe that anyone who would oppose a nomination on the grounds of limited experience would do so for a 2 month old account but deem that a 3-month period is sufficient (in most cases, people were saying they'd support in a few months, but not sooner than 5 or 6 months of experience). Finally, if one is opposing for an objective reason (not enough experience, regardless of how great the user is or how much work he has done in a short period), you'd think one is going to vote the same whenever an inexperienced user gets nominated, and yet the people who opposed Jtkiefer did not seem to care that another user, equally inexperienced (as per what I said about the 2 months v 3 months thing), was going to get promoted. It is also important to point out that the two RfAs were almost simultaneous, so people cannot say that Flcelloguy's RfA went unnoticed for whatever reason. Sheep voting works both ways too: once the first few opposed Jtkiefer pointing out that he was inexperienced, that certainly called other people's attention to this and led to a more significant rejection of his nomination. So why didn't it happen in Flcelloguy's RfA? In fact, sheep voting would have worked against Flcelloguy in this particular case: if it's an objective rejection, I don't see how anyone who feels experience is important (strongly enough to have opposed Jtkiefer) would feel compelled to support Flcelloguy or abstain from his RfA when the exact same objective condition was present.
    About what Cecropia wrote: Of course, the question of what actually happened in those two RfA is rhetorical. We'll never really know. But the fact that it could happen shows that there's a fundamental flaw in the system. To prevent such inconsistencies (and injustices), perhaps we should rethink it. Regards, Redux 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps in order to eliminate reasons such as "hasn't been around long enough" or "not enough edits", there should be a decision about these two things, and make it a policy that users can't become admins until X months and/or Y edits, but that once they've passed that mark, others can't oppose them on the grounds that the user "hasn't been around long enough" or "doesn't have enough edits". This would eliminate some of the subjectivity, which, as you have shown, can result in quite large differences from user to user. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 19:37
    • I think until you do ask everyone who voted, you can't assume there is a fundamental flaw at all. And even if there was a policy in place regarding time/edits, that wouldn't stop anyone voting from having their own criteria. --Kbdank71 19:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I did specify that "once they've passed that mark, others can't oppose them on such grounds". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 20:05

The two candidates were different people. They have different histories, different interactions with the community, and different contributions. There is no reason to expect their RfAs to produce the same result. -Splash 19:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• But the reasons for opposition of one versus support for another were the same. If they had said "Jtkiefer is not a nice person", that would be different, but saying "Jtkiefer doesn't have a lot of edits/history" but then proceeding to support Flcelloguy who also doesn't have a lot of edits/history leads to the perceived inconsistency. More people are probably familiar with Flcelloguy than Jtkiefer, due to the former's work in social activities. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 20:05
• Normally that'd be true. But as I said in my first comment, these two had a very particular list of similarities. About the change in policy for the RfAs, I'd support it, say, 6 months time from registration and maybe 1,500/2,000 edits? We might also consider making it mandatory for voters to provide a reason for opposing or not have their vote counted in the official tally. It's not new to Wikipedia: look at the RfC: anyone can open one against another user, but they need to provide a reasoning and diffs (not just say that user is no good). This would not seem necessary in votes to support: if one supports, it's because one feels that the nominee is doing good work - again, in the RfA, users can endorse another user's comments on the third user's behavior without having to justify why they support (but if they want to refute what's been said, they need to establish their facts). And, objectivelly speaking, no one supports to disturb Wikipedia or annoy a user. Support means Adminship, so those who support do not do it lightly. Regards, Redux 19:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I generally do take RFA's lightly. I figure, adminship can always be taken away, pages can always be reverted, and users can always be unblocked, so anything an admin does can be undone. It's better to have 100 people who at least seem interested in the encyclopedia and are somewhat willing to do janitorial work than to only have 10 committed people battling off all the vandalism. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 20:11
    • Except image deletion. kmccoy (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And page history merges. --cesarb 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant that support votes are motivated positevely. If anything, a vote to support is given because the voter likes the nominee personally; well, that's normally based on something positive that the candidate might have done for him, or that the voter saw done somewhere in the project. We support because we believe that the user will be a decent admin. Oppose votes are a different story. Many a time people vote to oppose based on grudges, misinterpretations or, as all those who participate regularly on RfAs know too well, for no good reason, just "for fun", or just plain to disturb the process.
Perhaps I should rephrase: I had said that those who vote to support do not do it lightly. Perhaps it's best put that support votes are responsible by definition, whereas oppose votes are far more likely to be irresponsible, inconsequent, and so on. Right now, the process is too chaotic, and it makes possible some unseemly discrepancies, as I believe is the example of the Jtkiefer/Flcellouguy situation. The criterion that kept Jtkiefer from becoming an Admin was objective: he was not experienced enough [even though he was an excellent contributor — as almost everyone who voted to oppose and neutral admitted]. And yet, in an almost simultaneous RfA, the exact same objective situation appeared (an excellent contributor but inexperienced) but the result was the opposite? Notice that the amount of support here is irrelevant, both candidates had a significative support. They were both acknowledged as excellent contributors who had all the makings of an admin. But because of how the RfA process is conducted, what happened could happen. Either experience (and here, "experience" is a sufficiently objective concept: how long one has been around) is a fundamental asset or not. We cannot veto a candidate on those grounds and at the same time promote another in spite of that.
And sure, anything — or almost anything — can be undone on Wikipedia (thank goodness), but we have established that that doesn't mean that anything goes in the project. And it doesn't, but on the RfA, we are surprisingly close to that: almost anything goes. And it shouldn't. Regards, Redux 00:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• One thing I'll throw out is that Flcelloguy does some work on FAC and more importantly has written a featured article. Generally his contributions to the article space are significantly more extensive. Also, downplaying the difference between 2 months and 3 months is probably a mistake. 50% difference is substantial. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
• FWIW, I think RfA only very rarely renders an incorrect decision. Somehow, a bit like VfD usually getting it about right, RfA rarely promotes a wildly unsuited candidate or denies an eminently qualified one. Occasionally, someone might slip through the cracks because of the very particular circumstances that surround them at the time. They can reapply in a few weeks in that case. So I don't think there is any need for hardening of the criteria — as they stand they don't seem to get things wrong very often at all. -Splash 06:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But we could still try to reduce the subjectivity allowed to some degree. Make the process fairer. Indeed, I don't recall anyone unsuited for the job getting promoted, but we do see with some frequency good candidates forced to withdraw, or just being denied on unclear basis — you might even say it was Jtkiefer's case, since experience was denied the importance it was given on his RfA when it could have been a decisive factor in Flcelloguy's RfA. And we need to put things in perspective: 50% of a year, for instance, being 6 months, is significant, but a 50% difference of 1 month... not so much. Regards, Redux 14:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I would oppose any suggested policy that would seek to mandate how users must vote ("reduce the subjectivity") unless voting itself is going to be taken out of the process. Votes made in bad faith are one thing and should be discounted when it's demonstrable, but otherwise it would not be productive to constrain voters. For individual users the criteria for adminship may amount to experience, edit counts, work on specific parts of wikipedia, etc., but for the community as a whole the criteria is consensus and I don't think anything should be done to attempt to limit that. siafu 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there would always be subjectivity involved, after all how a user votes is a matter of his/her own understanding (has the candidate done significant work? etc.). "Reducing subjectivity", as it was worded, would be more about, as Brian suggested (and I had been thinking about), creating a couple of prerequisites. For instance, no one may be nominated with less than (as an example) 6 months as a registered user (counted from registration); or no one may be nominated with less than 2,000 edits (this already exists as a kind of unspoken accord). And I had also suggested that we start requiring a reason for opposing a candidate. If this is not provided, the vote would not be counted in the official tally. Notice that this would make the lives of sock puppets and trolls more difficult, and it would also discourage sheep voting and people who oppose candidates on nothing more than a personal grudge or dislike. And I could also think of requiring a change in the criterion of who's allowed to vote: right now, only anons are not allowed, but perhaps we could make it so that only accounts that are at least, say, one month old could vote. That would be decisive to cut down on sock puppets that disrupt RfAs — other than those, the recent accounts that normally come here to vote are newbies who get worked up over [usually] nothing and come here to take some sort of misguided revenge on the candidate (I mean, when you've been around for a couple of weeks, you don't even know what a RfA is most of the times). Naturally, that's not the case of all recent accounts that vote, but I believe in general we'd be doing more good than harm with this limitation; plus, they'd still be able to comment, so if they want to say that they might think that the candidate is a "tyrant" or something, they can say it, provide diffs, and it's quite probable that, if it's true, people who vote may change their votes in light of the evidence provided.
This is all a brainstorm of mine. Honestly, I don't really believe that all of this is going to get done, but I also believe that at least something needs to be done to make RfAs more just and stable. The Flcelloguy/Jtkiefer business proves, I believe, that this is necessary. Regards, Redux 21:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a general problem of sheep voting on oppose votes? IMHO, it seems much more likely that sheep voting would occur for support votes, given that users are not likely to be harassed for a support vote in the same way they are for voting oppose. siafu 18:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose that any admin may remove a nomination if:

• There are at least 10 more oppose votes than support votes (i.e Oppose votes >= Support votes + 10)
• The nomination has been active for at least 24 hours

This is similar to the mercy rule (slaughter rule) in sports. Any nomination that meets this criteria is certain to be rejected. Even in the simplest scenario (0 Support, 10 Oppose), dozens of support votes (and no additional oppose votes) would be needed to even approach the level required for promotion. Carbonite | Talk 16:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Seems sensible to me, assuming you mean at least 10 opposes and 24 hours, rather than or. In practice it happens anyway though doesn't it?. Possibly the number of opposes needed could be 8 rather than 10 though? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do mean that both criterias must be met. Carbonite | Talk 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's up to bureaucrats to determine if a user is to be promoted. This not only includes counting up the number of support/oppose votes, but also determining if any/all of the support/oppose votes are legitimate. Voting just gives the bureaucrat an idea of what the community thinks of the individual. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-20 16:40
  • True, bureaucrats must promote admins, but this is a proposal concerning early rejection. If both criteria are met, there's no chance that a candidate will mistakenly be removed early. These wouldn't be cases for bureaucrat judgement, they'd be something for an admin to clean up. If there's any question, admins can always wait until there's more oppose votes. The reason I proposed this is because it would be good to have a set policy for removing nominations early. Carbonite | Talk 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The vote doesn't determine who becomes an admin. The bureaucrat does. If a user had 30 supports and 40 opposes, a bureaucrat may still promote him if he chooses. The vote simply gives the bureaucrat an idea of what is right/wrong with the user, and what the community thinks of him. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-20 16:55
  • I concur with Brian - if we're going to have a mercy rule, it's the bureacrats who should be applying it. →Raul654 16:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • You have explained what happens at present, this is a proposal to bypass that in extreme circumstances. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know, I'm saying that simply counting the number of oppose votes is ignoring the legitimacy of these votes as determined by the bureaucrats. If there were as many RFA nominations as there are VFD proposals, I might support this, but the number of RFA's is currently so low that there's no need for this, and I'd rather not circumvent the bureaucrats' final decisions. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-20 16:49
      • In reality, a nomination that has run for 24 hours and has even one more oppose vote than support is almost certainly going to fail. This proposal is looking only at those nominations where absolutely no judgement is required, the ones with basically zero support. Carbonite | Talk 16:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Again, the vote doesn't determine who is promoted. The bureaucrat does. Read WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a democracy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-20 16:59
          • Again, I'm not talking about promotion. I'm talking about flat out, undeniable, overwhelming rejection. Cleaning up a mess, if you will. Carbonite | Talk 17:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this is necessary. I propose that we continue to use good judgment; I think the wording for when nominations can be removed is deliberately vague and that we haven't on the whole done too badly with it. I wouldn't restrict it to bureaucrats, either (speaking as a non-bureaucrat who removed a nomination not too long ago before it turned ugly), but if you have doubts as to whether a removal is appropriate, don't do it. This proposal is a nice handy guideline to follow, but I don't support making it a rule. Also, I'd like to suggest that people not add their opposition when it's unnecessary -- particularly to new users who nominate themselves. After 3 or 4 opposes and no supports it's pretty clear the nomination will fail; better not to make it seem overwhelming: we want them to continue to contribute and perhaps eventually succeed, not feel driven off. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing that this be the only way a nomination be removed. Bureaucrats would still be free to remove them whenever them see fit. This proposal was simply to institure a mercy rule for RfAs. If an RfA reaches this very high level of opposition, it can be removed by any admin. It may not happen often, but at least there would be policy to back it up. Carbonite | Talk 17:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with mindspillage here -- removal of a nom seems like a fairly rare thing, and it should be pretty much common sense to remove it. If an admin removes it and there's some opposition, it's a simple matter for it to be put back and then a bureaucrat can decide whether or not to remove it or let it run its course. kmccoy (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What happens if 10 oppose votes pile up initially for something that is easily fixed, such as "user has no user page"? What do you do then? What is the need for this rule? I don't see any need. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-20 17:09

I think that's really a strawman argument. Remember that the proposal was for 10 oppose votes more than support votes, not just 10 total oppose votes.

The need for this guideline would be to provide justification for removing clearly failed RfAs. There have been times in the past when users have argued that their nominations can't be removed. Even if this guideline was rarely used, at least it would exist. It wouldn't add to the bureaucracy and would make it clear that non-serious nominations would last a maximum of 24 hours (bureaucrats could always remove it earlier). Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't help feeling that this is a solution in search of a problem. Joyous (talk) 18:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. I'm not going to pursue this proposal any further. It seemed liked a rather common sense idea, but maybe it's too obvious. Anyway, I do thank everyone for their opinion. Carbonite | Talk 18:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand the objections, but I see where it could be useful, in the sense that some nominations get to the point where someone's getting hurt, where oppose votes are piling up and the poor nominee has to sit and watch it. But I think I've at least some of those cases removed when it gets to that point. Rx StrangeLove 18:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for a rule here. I, as a non-admin, have removed a small number of obviously failing nominations early, and, as you'd expect, their removal generated no discussion or complaints. There's no need to have a specific rule describing the circumstances when a failing nomination should be removed - whilst there is a need to give each nomination a fair chance. Let's keep things as they are: anyone is free to remove a nomination, but must accept the consequences of that action. IE Removing nominations that everyone agrees will fail is OK, removing nominations that still have a chance of success (or even have a chance of failing without any risk of embarrassment to the candidate) isn't - and having no spelt out rule means anyone removing a nomination must be especially careful that they're doing the right thing, jguk 18:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my experience, on the whole, that removing nominations that have not run their course causes more problems than it solves, and so I rarely do it. Sometimes self-nominators withdraw their petitions when faced with considerable opposition, which is the most honorable way to handle it for everyone involved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Should Bancroftian's nomination be removed? He's got 10 oppose votes, 0 support votes, and two neutral votes which appear to be leaning more toward opposition. The oppose votes are just being piled on at this point. Acetic Acid 21:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say yes. There's no way a 0-10 nomination is going to suddenly turn around, so it's kinder to just remove it. Isomorphic 21:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Am I allowed to remove it? Or does a bureaucrat have to do it? Acetic Acid 22:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'll remove it, however, I think that you'd be allowed to remove it without much fuss under such circumstances. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I'm removing SWD316's as well. 0 Support, 10 Oppose, 2 Neutral. These self-nominations have been unruly lately. Newcomers don't realize 300 edits isn't enough for sysophood. Acetic Acid 00:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Okay. By the way, don't take my word as law ;) (I don't know if this is controversial or not) Also, make sure you alert the user and place the adminship on this page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Davetunney has 41 edits. He was nominated by a user with fewer than 300. Any objections to removing? Jonathunder 03:29, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

By all means, remove it. Early removal will prevent pile ons. Acetic Acid 03:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Should a wikipedian have conflicts ? Are wikipedians and potential administrators obligated to have conflicts?

No. Conflicts are not a sign of potentially good RFAs. If there is no issue to dispute about, there should be no conflicts. In fact I believe , admins should try to generate harmony and cooperativity. However, ... conflicts do seem unavoidable. Normally there are issues which are controversial to others. Absolutely no need for conflicts, they come on their own.--Jondel 02:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Jondel, see below.

Removed from TheCoffee's RfA:

1. I don't normally vote on users I've had no interaction with but I'd like to comment on the answer to question 3, for this user and for future RfA candidates. I've seen way more than enough potential admins say they want to clean up some backlog on a few pages that have administrative drudgework to do - or that they've done lots of RC patrol. Those are fine and good. But the real mettle of an admin, a respected admin, is one who is willing to get into those confrontational issues. A real backlog is all of the RfCs. How many nasty hairy edit wars could be solved by some levelheaded admins mediating or even arbiting those issues? From now on, I want to see controversy in admin candidates. I want to see that they are willing to go into a situation where they will experience hostility. If one side of a dispute is just plain dumb, I'd like to see a willingness to just go make a decision to edit the article the un-dumb way. If two sides have meaningful issues, I want to see an admin who can present the third way, that uses NPOV, verifiable facts, cites, and presentation to create better articles that all sides can accept.

And to other voters, please look at potential RfA candidates with that view if they have had conflicts! It's too easy to avoid conflicts and everyone is happy and they get voted an admin with 100% approval - but how good will they really be? If a potential RfA candidate says "Yeah, I did jump into lots of fights on articles I didn't care about and the end results is that the articles are better." That is a better admin candidate than a mopboy who got 7000 edits doing stub sorting.
Sorry, TheCoffee, for using your candidacy for writing a manifesto. I didn't mean it to be this long and it's nothing to do with you except that statement on Q3. SchmuckyTheCat 08:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sure all editors who put their time and effort into making this encyclopedia a well-structured and more organized place find the tone of your comment on "mopboys" quite amusing. So, you made a comment on an aleatory RfA. Gee, That's so helpful. I'm sure everybody will listen to you now. --Sn0wflake 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
It's no insult. Count the number of times "mop" appears on the vote page. Sorry if you take offense. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts are not a sign of potentially good RFAs. If there is no issue to dispute about, there should be no conflicts. In fact I believe , admins should try to generate harmony , cooperativity, good faith; a 'win-win' situation. However, conflicts do seem unavoidable. 'Don't feel obligated to have conflicts, they just come on their own'. --Jondel 02:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not advocating potential admins go pick a fight - but no matter how polite and good natured an editor is, if they haven't gotten into it with a troll or stubborn vandal they simply haven't been around the block enough to endorse them as an admin. I am advocating that admins should be intervening on highly contentious issues, RfC, RfPP, and 3RR are lists of people begging for that intervention. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your statement, Schmucky, I highly suggest you move this to either the Comments section on this RFA or the main RFA talk page, as this can apply to any nomination. Anyway, I agree. I'm tired of seeing the same old answers to that last question (and the first question answers have gotten a bit genetic, as well). I like to see users engage in conflict (though not on purpose). I want to be able to see how smoothly the nominee handled it. It would give us an idea of how he or she would handle a similar situation, in which he or she could protect a page or block someone. Acetic Acid 04:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
That would have been better, agreed, alas it is here now and so to move. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand that would-be-administrators shouldn't pick a fight. But some people(trolls) seem to get the wrong idea. Back to disputes. I've had horrible encounters with trolls who seems to think that conflicts is the way to become an administrator. It's like an obsessed person who starts the war to get it over with and instead becomes a nuisance to the other party. Wikipedia really should be for people who like to write articles or contribute to the body of knowledge. There are controversies and disputes and it is hard to imagine that they don't exist. It can be minimized though. Some people have left wikipedia because of trolling. I was accused of plagiarism by a controversy-obssessed troll, when the reverse case was true , the guilty websites copied some of the articles I wrote. It took a lot of time and effort to prove the originality of the articles (Languages of the Philippines and Edgar Cayce on Karma). I got the webmasters to email me and state that the articles were copied. If disputes or conflicts had a voice , they would say, 'Don't call us, we'll call you'. But I agree that it is easy to see the mettle of a would-be administrator from the conflict encounters. --Jondel 07:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider having particpated in a conflict a neccesary part of the route to adminship. However, the way a person handles conflict does say a lot about their suitability, so if a person is involved in a conflict and handles him or herself well, that is definitely a plus. I don't really know if a person who, when faced with trolls, unfairness, POV pushers, personal attacks, etc, responds by meekly accepting everything, just for the sake a dodging around conflict, would be an all that good administrator. Administrators need to be a little bit firm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I think after reading all of these comments, I agree with Sjakkalle the most. Conflict is not necessary, and I think it might me a bit problematic to say the conflict is a necessary step for adminship. However, if a candidate's entire Wikipedia career is changing punctuation, there's not going to be much conflict found in the history. I certainly don't want potential admins going around looking for trouble just to prove to someone that they can handle the responsiblities of being a sysop. Conflict is just a good indicator of a person's level-headedness and ability to deal with disruptive, contraversial. and otherwise troublesome users. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 16:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
If their entire career is changing punctuation they don't need admin tools. We don't need more admins to monitor speedy deletes. We do need more admins willing to negotiate issues on RfC. SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
as of this moment we need more admins on Wiki: Copyright problems medation is not one of the things admins are expected to do. However it is useful if an admin has some conflicts on the basis that if they haven't we don't know how they are going to react when they get involved in a conflict as an admin.Geni 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

One need not be an admin to get involved on RfC, as there are no admin privileges involved in that process. Similarly for mediation or even arbitration: those processes do not require administrative rights. The only place where administrative rights come into play is when we start talking about deletion, protection, and blocking. Probably the worst backlog we have is on WP:CP, and even there non-admins can help by researching the copyvios and reporting back so that an admin can delete (or not) as necessary. Administrative privilege is either not required or only minimally required for almost all the housekeeping beyond vandalism management. We need to stop acting like having an admin flag is a prerequisite for being helpful on the Wiki, or a requirement to be considered a "community leader". Kelly Martin 21:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

From the RFA main page: Self-nominations Please review the qualifications above. Some editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure", have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits (in practice anyone with less than 1000 edits has no real chance of passing). Obviously unqualified nominations may be removed without discussion. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, some editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees.

The areas I italicized are the sentences I am questioning.

1. "...have an account name that is many months old..." I don't think this is true enough to include. The minimum is considered by many to be three months old, for both self-noms and outside nominations. I don't think three months is many.
2. "...have many hundreds of edits...less than 1000 edits has no real chance..." Again, doesn't only apply to self-nominations. Plus, it's not just 1000 edits. One thousand edits to one's own user page won't make him or her an admin. The sentence should mention having most of the edits in the article and Wikipedia namespaces.
3. "Obviously unqualified nominations may be removed..." This is misleading. The bureaucrats don't directly decide if a user is qualified or not. That's the point of a RFA. The community offers their opinions. Then, the bureaucrat makes their decision based on the evidence provided by the community. Usually, if a nomination is removed, it's because of piling on oppose votes, not because of being unqualified, even if the two go hand-in-hand.
4. "...without discussion." Sounds a bit harsh. If a nomination is removed, it's a courtesy to inform the user on his or her talk page. Controversial removals are generally discussed on this page beforehand.

Anyway, that's my $.02. Acetic Acid 07:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Acetic Acid. I've edited the self-nom guidelines to a more neutral/positive slant that's been approved several times by consensus on this page (and by Cecropia), please see what you think, everybody. Now the passage reads:

Please review the qualifications above. Some editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure", have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits (in practice anyone with less than 1000 edits has no real chance of passing). This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations. Most voters can be presumed to consider all nominees on their own merits, and there are even a few who look with special favor on self-nominations as expressing a suitable independence. A good solid background is equally important for both kinds of nomination. Obviously unqualified nominations of either kind may be removed without discussion.

Please note especially that we've seen frivolous sponsoring as well as frivolous selfnoms, hence the point about removing both kinds of nominations if they're obviously unqualified. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds better. Thanks. Acetic Acid 20:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have declined nomination as an Admin several times, for reasons I don't need to go into again here, but I would like to be given the power to protect my own User page, which is being constantly vandalised, and to unprotect it when I want to edit it. Is this possible? Adam 13:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't have the technology to do that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In the most technical sense, Mediawiki has fine-grained permissions such that he could be given the power to protect and any page, without any of the other powers admins have (blocking users, deleting pages, 'etc). However, on Wikipedia we have never actually used those, nor do we have any plans to. In practical terms, it's a lot more hassle than it's worth. →Raul654 21:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adam. My own advice would be to apply for adminship anyway (you'll be a shoo-in). Just because you HAVE adminship powers doesn't mean you have to use them, by the way. If you prefer, you can be like the queen of England and be a kind of figure-head admin - but all of us would be really thrilled to have you on board as a fully fledged one! David Cannon 13:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh no you wouldn't. I would not be the Queen of England, I would be Ivan the Terrible. Adam 13:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for something closer to Mad King Ludwig. David | Talk 21:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just don't want to be George - Tεxτurε 21:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the front matter to a subpage and transcluded it to make it easier to track the history of changes to adminship policy contained therein, which are otherwise obscured in the history by the great number of additions and removals of adminship request transclusions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What do we do when User:Front matter (who doesn't yet exist) wants to become an admin? It's not a renomination, so the usual system of creating a /Front matter (2) isn't appropriate. (rhetorical question, no answer required).-gadfium 00:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
We {{usernameblock}} on sight for disruption. New registrants are expected to work this kind of thing out for themselves. ;) -Splash 00:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
We call the nomination page /User:Front matter and put a disambig inside tags on the /Front matter page. Having said that though, do and Thryduulf 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Er, or just rename the subpage. Or is that too easy? Sheesh, you computing people. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, way too easy. Never mind, I'm only a computing person for another three days, then I retire.-gadfium 08:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Three Sams up for nomination at the same time. Wow. (While not in his username, Asbestos' name is also Sam. Acetic Acid 00:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

By contrast, Sam Vimes is a pseudonym - see User talk:Sam Vimes#Administrator? and Samuel Vimes :) --Thryduulf 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So when did editcountitis take over WP:RFA? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Over a year ago, now. Andre (talk) 03:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I consider it amazing to have gone through RFA without anyone either stating my edit count or linking to Kate's tool. I though that was impossible at this point. Dragons flight 03:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Every once in awhile I will see one w/o it, which I think is good in some ways. I am not interested in how many edits, but am interested how much someone has contributed. ∞Who?¿? 03:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
While I don't think edit counts matter all that much, I feel that at the very least there should be enough so that users such as myself can gauge the quality of their edits as well as be able to recognize the user as being responsible. K1Bond007 06:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

About a year back it was mentioned somewhere that candidates should have entered a valid email id. This seems to have disappeared. I think it is imperative that email ids be provided so that a blocked person contact the blocking admin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is possible for blocked users to reply on their talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

But autoblocked users need to be able to contact the blocking admin, who won't know to look on their talk pages. FreplySpang (talk) 14:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good point - I hadn't thought of that. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think its mentioned somewhere that when you are blocked 'you can contact the blocking admin via email' =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp; actually, I thought it was still a requirement. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I remember RickK refused to enter an e-mail even though he blocked more people than just about anybody else. So either it's not a requirement or nobody enforced it on him. Everyking 14:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a requirement. However, I think it would be good practice for admins to only engage in blocking if they're willing to have the email function available. --Michael Snow 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Actually, more strongly, I would support making it a requirement; adminship is a position of responsibility, and since the full spectrum of admin duties includes responding to users you've blocked I don't think it's too much to ask. If you find yourself not doing much blocking after all the Wikipedia email function won't get used much, anyhow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree as well. It shouldn't be a requirement for regular editors of course, but for administrators it is generally a good idea. Hall Monitor 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes...I've gotten a few e-mails myself about his blocks  . Anyways...I think it's a good idea overall. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently blocked users get tired of e-mailing before they reach "R" on the list, though I do have an active e-mail address listed. I agree that it should be strongly encouraged. — Dan | Talk 23:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to require it, that'll just lead to people using throwaway accounts they don't check. We should strongly recommend it though.
Also, I think a way for accounts without an email specified and anons to e-mail a specific admin would be useful, but limiting abuse might be tricky. Maybe a setting in your account preferences that specifies whether you want to receive email from users without an e-mail address specified? --fvw* 15:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've got a bunch of stuff to do as the Fall approaches (despite rumors, I'm not retired) so, now that a few of our bureaucrats have gotten more active and we seem to have two new b-crats on the way, I'm going to try to Wikivacation for the month of September. I know y'all are in good hands! Cheers to all, Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Try four. Oh well...I'll man the fort. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel sometimes that the generic questions are, well quite generic. So is it posible to query the nominee on my own set of specific questions? If so where should I put up the posers? Tx. Idleguy 10:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Stick them in the 'comments' section. --Ngb ^?!? 10:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yup, in fact as long as they're formulated nicely they're much appreciated as they make it all the easier to get a glimpse into the mind of the candidate. --fvw* 11:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

If the questions are many in number, or likely to provoke long discussion, I'd suggest putting the questions on the user's talk page (or on the talk page for the nomination) with a brief comment and link to the questions in the "Comments" area of the nomination. It's certainly not a requirement, but that might be the wiser move. Jwrosenzweig 14:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely! You can ask as many as you like. Ask them under comments, or add them to the generic questions, or as part of a ThreadMode discussion. Of course, be a bit careful what you ask, the candidate is under no obligation to answer. Kim Bruning 16:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)