Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Archive
[edit] Okay... sorry...
This debate has gone on for too long and is not healthy for Wikipedia at-large. Let us just take a break from debating this. The two sides will never agree, so it is pointless to continue to throw insults, and general incivility around. I urge all involved to perhaps take a deep breath and relax. I don't know where this is going to end up, but this argument is not the answer. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why can't the two sides agree? I may have been a bit terse at times, but I see little reason why we can't keep this guide as a useful indicator of the current situation and still alleviate my and Tony's concerns. The only problem is that we've been met with the "my way or the highway" attitude from two or three people. Ambi 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- We all know we won't fully agree on this issue. We just need to take a step back and look at this situation as if we were outsiders. We have been acting retarded. We have been squabling like little kids. We just need to relax. I think there is a fundamental difference or possible misunderstanding over what this guide is intended to do. We just need to lower the tension level on this page.--LV (Dark Mark) 18:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps you may consider joining in the discussion about what we should be doing, as opposed to making condescending and rude comments. Ambi 18:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I wasn't making condescending comments as I was a party to them. I have been acting retarded too. All I am saying is that we just need to de-escalate the level of intensity in here. Nothing good can happen if we all just butt heads together. We all, me included, need to relax a bit. Sorry if I came off as rude, that was never my intention. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you, and vice versa. Ambi 19:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] "your record as a Wikipedian needs to be near-exemplary"
I removed this. "According to recent RfAs, your record as a Wikipedian needs to be near-exemplary. " This simply isn't true. cf: MONGO, and Brenneman who will certainly be adminned soon despite a fairly serious faux-pas. We really must stop carelessly sending such bad signals to potential admininstrators. We don't ask for angels, and we wouldn't get many experienced editors if we did. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- With this one, I do agree. However, I'd like to make the guide mention that some editors will see signs of incivility as very serious violations, and that might derail entire nominations (e.g. NickBush24). Titoxd(?!?) 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree with Tony. This is patently untrue. Not only is it completely irrelevant to being able to do a good job as an admin, but there are a very great number of us who would not have been adminned if this were the case, including most of the parties to the discussion above. Ambi 04:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think I added that phrase originally, as a substitute for another form of words: but on reflection yes, ditch it. The Land 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree with Tony. This is patently untrue. Not only is it completely irrelevant to being able to do a good job as an admin, but there are a very great number of us who would not have been adminned if this were the case, including most of the parties to the discussion above. Ambi 04:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Archived (a.k.a deleted)
Whew, that's better. Any baby that went out with the bath water? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's not really how archiving is generally done...I'm going to go ahead and create an actual archive, not a link to a diff. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What RfA contributors look for
While this is sound advice, it was a bit too off-putting and seemed to hint that all the points were necessary, so I've tried to soften it. In particular, someone who writes a featured article might be great at that but unsuitable as an admin...dave souza 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nice edit. Ta. :) Ambi 01:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What happens if you want to look up a users nomination?
I can't seem to find the nomination for user:Neutrality or user:woohookitty, can anyone tell me how to get that? And what happens if we can't find it? What happens if we feal an admin, may no longer be a good candidate, can we afd again and see what happens? --CyclePat 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Woohookitty. Currently, you could take it to WP:AN. Not AfD or RfA, though. Hope this helps some. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voting on RfA's before theyre open
I changed the wording to indicate that it's a bad idea to vote and comment on an RfA before it's officially opened by being linked from the RfA page. This is both my personal opinion and in response to the recent controversy over an RfA that had already aquired approximately 60 votes before being officially opened on RfA. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is this page?
User:Ambi removed the template:guideline from this page- probably the right thing to do, since it's not really a guideline. So what should pages like this be classified as? I see WP:GRFA as something equivalent to WP:WIAFA, and I have started a discussion there on the same topic.Borisblue 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps not the answer you're looking for: This page is a stale conflict between what WP:RFA is and what WP:RFA should be. At this time, without that conflict resolved, it serves neither interest very well. Comparison to WP:WIAFA is therefore a bit apple/orangeish. --Durin 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe just Category:Wikipedia essays? Not really sure it's a guideline. It is a guide, though. I dunno. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contributions in other languages
I am curious, do folks who vote on RfA's tend to consider contributions in other languages? Even though one might not be able to discern the nature of those contributions due to language barriers? Aguerriero (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Part of the section about edit counts removed
After a conversation with User:Rebecca, I decided to remove the following content from the page:
- A good rule of thumb is probably at least 1,000 edits and two months of activity on the English Wikipedia. This is flexible, especially for well-known users from other language Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects, but it is an unspoken rule rarely broken. You can use a tool commonly called Interiot's tool (after the user who made it) to find out automatically how many edits you have done.
I removed the first sentence because I feel that it can give people false hope. I've seen several times where people have self-nominated with ~1,500 edits, and then are baffled when they get lots of opposes based on edit counts ("but the page said 1,000 was enough?"). While we could also consider bumping up those numbers, I'd like to quote Rebecca who said, "The problem with defining specific numbers with a guide such as this (particularly where not absolutely clear-cut) is that it becomes self-reinforcing. New people read the guide, interpret this as the way they should vote, and thus a criterion which wasn't necessarily a given before becomes such."
I removed the second sentence because from the RfAs that I've seen that involve admins from other wikis, they're generally not given too much more flexibility, if any at all. Finally, I removed the link to Interiot's tool because it doesn't work any more (and because I removed the first sentence). Perhaps if it starts working again, the link could be put back up.
Anyway, that's my reasoning behind that edit. All comments are welcome, and I suppose it's up to the consensus to decide whether it stays that way. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S.- I also replaced that text with: If you are unsure if you have enough edits or experience, consider asking another Wikipedian or two that you trust before leaping into an RfA. which I feel is good advice all around and should stand the test of time. Generally, if you don't know another editor or two that you trust, then you probably haven't had enough experience in the proper namespaces to have a successful RfA.
- P.P.S- After reading through the archives a little bit, I realize this sentence isn't without a little bit of controversy. However, I do feel it is potentially harmful to keep "1000/2 months" in the guide. If it's put back, I'd recommend bumping the numbers up to at least "2000/3 months," as I feel that's the current reality. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The controversy centers around two concepts as to what this guide should be; Either a guide to how RfA should be or a guide to how RfA is. The guide in its current form serves neither purpose well as it is a failed attempt at compromise between those two positions. --Durin 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote
New guideline. It does what it says on the tin. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not very clear
Some expect use of edit summaries to approach 100% of the time. What is this supposed to mean? ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 14:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This page is worse than useless
Questions? Carefully crafted answers discussed in concert with the nominee? What sort of Orwellian process are we running here? Adminship is intended to be given to anyone reasonable, without much of a hassle to get it, since it can very easily be taken away again if it turns out to have been given unwisely. Therefore there is no need for this sort of inquisition. Honestly it seems some more recent admins are trying to turn it into some sort of prestigious club, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia's aims. --Delirium 11:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
The guide says "Do not post 'thanks for voting' messages to the voters' talk pages...", yet it seems to be fairly established practice. Which is correct? -Amarkov blahedits 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
