User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Should I apply

Should I apply? (Archive 4)

I have been here for more than a month. I have a couple thousand contributions. I don't know if I should apply for adminship. Can someone tell me if I should? Green Mountain 01:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't. --Wik 01:44, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Asking "should I ask" is unnecessary. People won't hate you for asking too early, they'll just be really nice about it and tell you to come back later. Lots of people have been made sysops on the second attempt. I say go for it. -- Tim Starling 01:57, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Although you have to consider Alex... -- Tim Starling 02:00, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

There's no harm in asking. Give it a go and see what happens. --Camembert 02:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

requests for my Adminship (Archive 17)

Please review the following link, esp. if you are thinking of nominating me for admin [1] Sam Spade 03:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I liked this typo in the linked comment: "nobodies getting paid". We are nobodies... but if we're getting paid now no one told me about it :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say were paid according to our status, just like anywhere. We just havn't got much status ;)Sam Spade 09:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Questions about running for bureaucrat (Archive 34)

It's been about a month and a half since my bureaucrat nomination failed 50/10/1. Nichalp mentioned on Redwolf24's nomination that he thinks we need another few bureaucrats. Thus, I'm probably going to run again soon, so I have a few questions I'd like to ask the community.

1. Have I addressed all the concerns from the previous nomination?
2. How long should I wait until running again?
3. Regarding the users who indicated that they would like to know when I run again (see User:Andrevan/Archive14), would it be appropriate to contact these (and only these) users? If not, how should I go about it?

Thanks! Andre (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

My passing thoughts...

Looked at your previous nom opposes and noticed "your actions have the appearance of rounding up your friends in order to get yourself elected." Three of ten opposed with similar reasoning. Won't you simply set up the same accusation if you notify people in the same manner this time? I actually think you'd have a better chance if you contacted no one, as you'd be removing one reason to oppose.

Further, a month and half strikes me as much too short (and this would in fact be a third nomination). At some point, over-eagerness can itself become an oppose justification as it appears an editor may be more concerned about the feather in their cap than anything else. I'm not saying that's the case here as I haven't interacted with you—just that you may create that appearance. Patience. If nominators exercised it a bit more I think the oppose rate would be close to zero on this page. Marskell 02:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll echo Marskell. Be patient. Wait at least a couple more months. --Durin 14:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The concern that I had during your nomination has been addressed. You've been explaining yourself when you vote on RFAs, which is a good sign. As for running again, I don't think it would be a good idea if you ran... say tomorrow. However, I don't think you have to wait too long. Maybe sometime between Halloween and Thanksgiving. Acetic'^Acid 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ADMIN! (Archive 42)

i am requesting for an adminship, for the hardwork i have done.

Also for me being an admin, i can spot Vandals, because recently i have being reverting articles back to normal

>x<ino 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I am offering to become an Admin (Archive 42)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin (Archive 44)

How do I request to be an admin? Astroview120mm 05:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You should perhaps read up on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards and I quote "Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list and how-to guide, as well as the guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request." NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing the answer to this question is ample indication that you can't be one (at this time). General qualifications (beyond knowing the answer to the question you've asked) include perhaps 3 months of activity here, plus a significant number of edits demonstrating understanding of at least most of the local procedures and processes. Out of curiousity - what makes you think you want to be admin? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Selfish? (Archive 44)

Well since you selfish fools won't give me an award for my hardwork:P

I demand an admin!

Why? you ask!?

Because i can have access, and requickly rverted stupid External Links to weakling sites. I have just reverted some edits by some fool puting some sites on Doom articles not actually containing Doom information.

Also for other articles, because some fools think they are smarter than me/wiki, by putting there link to a random article, so we won't know nor detect it.

Thanks for admining me, for an Adminship:P

>x<ino 03:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm..... if you don't even know how to self-nom.... I'm sorry. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything. I'm not going to say anything. I'm not going to say anything. Must hold it in... ;) -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. :-) Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to say something - that was funny! thanks for adding some humor to lighten the page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Xino, this is Wikipedia: Requests for adminship. I think the page you want is Wikipedia:Requests for Pwnership :). Grutness...wha? 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's so tempting to create that page...-gadfium 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On my washlist, I read sell fish. Xino, there are no fish here to fish, to sell or to buy! Cool stuff! -- Szvest 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Replica of an Aztec stone of the Sun.

On a selfish note, I hereby award those Wikipedians who survive trial by RFA an AdminStar^[2]. Wear it in good health. Beware the power. Note that it has 8 points, three more than a U.S. Marshal's. Admins, where might I post this link to thank others? --Ancheta Wis 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

^ For other details, see the Aztec calendar article. See also: "36 hours: Mexico City" The New York Times Friday, Dec 30 2006 page D3.

I am almost tempted to create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xino, write an entirely objective description, and vote neutral instead of support, just to show Xino how RfAs are done correctly. — JIP | Talk 10:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Me? (Archive 52)

I’ve only been here for four months and have had about 300 posts. I know people won’t vote for me right now, but I’m just wondering... how long do you guys think it would take before I stood a good chance of being voted as an admin? --EKN 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

At least a thousand more posts. --maru (talk) contribs 03:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And learning how to sign posts properly. NSLE _(T+C); at 05:17 UTC (2006-04-16)

Also, see the guide to RfA. It may help explain things further. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not posting jokes about dead Jews might help too. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, That one is a showstopper for me. If EKN were to start all over again with a new ID then there might be a chance. It's only 300 wasted edits. --Ancheta Wis 01:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, if there is one place in Wikipedia that that joke was appropriate, that was the place. Stevage 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for admin candidates (Archive 52)

There seem to be quite a lot of failed nominations, including many with comments along the lines of "come back in a month". Might it help to have a separate page for people why want to say: "I plan to nominate myself for adminship in a month, what should I spend the next month doing to best meet your criteria?"? Such a page would serve the same purpose as a failed nomination without people getting hurt and without wasting an admin's time closing it. --Tango 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that idea if it were entirely voluntary but it can pretty much be assumed from past ideas like this that like the questions on RFA's they would be technically voluntary but would in reality become required by the fact that people would vote oppose just because people didn't go through it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it would need to be made very clear that it's voluntary and anyone opposing purely because someone didn't use it would need to be hit with a large stick (or just told not to - personal preference). --Tango 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's several, including Esperanza's Admin Coaching. However, there seems to be a lack of "peer reviewers", as you've called them, and no shortage of requesters. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't work and here's why... We'd implement this and people would take part in it. It would become the norm then when it becomes mandatory by default due to opposes for not going through the process people will object to that fact and they'll be shouted down for proposing more policy-cruft and thus it would become a new default procedure for all time (or until Ed Poor tries to delete it, though that would be tough since he's no longer an admin) and that's why this is an extremely bad idea. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ref note for all the newbies, in my previous statement I referred to User:Ed Poor who used to be a bureaucrat and admin and is notorious for his deletion of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion now Articles for deletion. </reference section> Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That page seems to be similar, but not quite the same, to my idea. If I understand it correctly, the coaches take a personal responsibility for the candidate and work with them over a period of time. In my idea each peer reviewer would just make a one-off comment and move on, as they do on RFA or article peer review. I imagine there aren't many coaches because it looks like a lot of work - a review, however, would take no longer than voting on RFA. --Tango 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

God, things are bad enough already. Adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal. All this would do is add another layer of bureaucracy that's completely unnecessary, because, as Pegasus said, there's no possible way this would stay optional. john k 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, about six or eight months I believe, it became fashionable for admins to request "confirmation" of thier adminship. That is, they would put up a new RfA and promise to request desysopping if it didn't "pass." These requests were quickly stamped out (quite rightly) by the bureaucrat staff as they added unecessary requests to an already overburdened page (anybody on a slow connection that has to wait several minutes for RfA to load will know what I mean by overburdened).

The suggestion made at that time was that if you wanted others to comment on your performance, you should set up a page in your userspace in the style of an RfA, and invite people to comment. I encourage those who would like to be "screened" or "vetted" to determine readiness for adminship to do the same thing. (Advertise it off your user/talk pages, and perhaps a few messages to some of the people you know; it'll grow from that.) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a peer review for users already existing on Wikipedia. The founder, Computerjoe, is taking suggestions. Just to let you know. (^'-')^ Covington 02:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've MfD'ed it, please share your thoughts on it there.Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reason people seem to have for not liking this idea is a fear that it will end up becoming a de-facto requirement for RfA. Certainly a legitimate fear, but I don't think that's reason enough to dismiss the idea straight away. Is there no way to avoid it becoming compulsory? Is a firm policy saying you can't oppose someone for not going through it not going to be enough? It would also be worth saying not to suggest people go through it when you're opposing for some other reason - it serves no purpose if people have already commented on a RfA. --Tango 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Demandation (Archive 58)

You know, I am still waiting for my own Adminship!
All the sweet and good edits I have been doing!
I need a adminship, when I have one, I can be get the respect I need!

>x<ino 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're really serious about that, then simply follow the instructions. Given your past and on-going conflicts with other users, I personally doubt that an attempt would be successful though. -- g026r 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. These 4 lines scream to me "Do not make me an admin, I'm immature." Period. You don't become an admin to "get respect", you have to be respected before you become one. Kimchi.sg 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I feel somewhat the same way, but I don't feel the need for more respect from other users. Whatever they give me (if they do...) is fine with me. Also, "be get the respect" is awful grammar. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Several reasons I would vote no if you were nom'ed: "Demandation" is not a word; this edit violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; and it seems that the only reason you want to be a mod stems from these three edits. Want respect? We'll give it when you earn it. Want adminship? Show us that it's about the encyclopedia, not about you. RadioKirk talk to me 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more reasons why Xino will not be an admin any time soon... RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino is this some kind of joke? Sonic Hog 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the RfC regarding Xino, which contains a somewhat clearer description of his behaviour than the links already presented. I'm guessing Xino wants to become an admin so he can block and/or ignore other users, and myself. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly explains a lot, thank you. On the other hand, this edit provides new insight into User:HappyVR... RadioKirk talk to me 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: it certainly does. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And what would you all think, feel and say when I am a admin? It will be a L.O.L in your face and asses.

And as for you RandyWang, you can suck that RfC in your cheap skinny ass!

>x<ino 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? What exactly are you planning to do "when I am a admin"? RadioKirk talk to me 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm- the way we've been voting on "indecorous language" issues, you might want to rephrase . . . Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 09:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino, your case has been submitted for arbitration. Now may not be the most appropriate time to make personal attacks - particularly, it may be a bad idea to suggest that I suck anything, RfC or otherwise. Furthermore, as others have said: if you'd like to become an admin, and believe that you'd be successful, why don't you request adminship for yourself? RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino was blocked indefinitely after this edit. Conscious 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Demandation. You know, I like that word. I may have to start using it. "My demandations have not been met, prepare to face my wrath!" User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ut oh. Zoe and a new shiny word. :-) Kim Bruning 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All your demandation are belong to us! --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New: when should I start? (Archive 58)

I have been using wikipedia for months, but registered only yesterday, and have around 60/70 edits only. When I shall be ready to participate in RfA? Please give me an idea. Thanks. --Bootblack 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:GRFA and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. Also, showing a lot of early interest in becoming an admin is a red-flag for many people. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're voting, start at about 125 edits. If you're running, wait until about 2,500 good edits if you're nominating yourself, or until somebody else nominates you. SushiGeek 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I mis-communicated. I meant as regards my participation in the voting process. I never thought of standing for the job of an administrator - with 2 days as a registered user and with hardly 100 edits, only a fool shall think of the same. Right now, I want to know about by ability to vote in the RfA. --Bootblack 17:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bunchofgrapes&diff=prev&oldid=55598612 Thank you. --Bootblack 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ha! My bad. (We've seen a lot of fools by that definition around here, I'm afraid -- very glad to see you aren't one.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I am a real fool to do this to an administrator: . You shall find me a difficult student to adminisrter. BTW, the day I reach 1,000 edits, I shall vote some one: let me see who shall be the "unlucky" person - I mean the "lucky" one! --Bootblack 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You can vote far sooner than 1000 edits. You just need enough so people know you aren't a fake account. --Tango 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A note: you shouldn't join the waterfall. Having 50 people before you voting to support a user doesn't mean they are all right (CSCWEM's second nomination comes to mind). You need to read all the comments posted before, examine the user's background, and determine which (if any) of the previous comments fit what you think about the user. It is always better to explain why you are voting. With time you will develop your own "minimun requirements" for new administrators; be sure it is just. In my case, I only vote for administrators I know and can vouch, either positive or negatively, as currently I don't have the time to examine backgrounds. -- ReyBrujo 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh tosh, how was CSCWEM a bad candidate in his second nom? --Rory096 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the user should not vote for the side that has the majority "just because", as it is possible they are not right, either about the candidate suitability or about the technical aspects of the nomination. In his case, his nomination was 59-0 when he accepted. I am assuming good faith in all possible cases (whether he did not know about his nomination until 10 days later, he had a 10 day wikibreak and found himself nominated when returned, or guessing it was right not to accept the nomination for 10 days). However, someone who does not contribute to RFAs and suddenly finds a 59-0 nomination may consider supporting (or oppossing, had the votation been 0-30) for the sake of joining the majority ("1 vote more or less won't hurt"). It was a technical point, sure, and CSCWEM was (again, AGF) innocent, but (for me) an extremely valid one, pointed by someone who took a second to review the situation and did not just vote for the sake of voting.

Disclaimer: I believe CSCWEM is one of the best Wikipedia contributors, and several times I have pressed the "Save page" button to see he had already done that. It was just a comment to enforce the user to make his own decisions, whether they match the majority or not. -- ReyBrujo 05:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanding some on Tango's comment, which is quite right: there is no minimal number of edits (editcountitis can be fatal...) for anyone to be able to start participating in the RfA process. What you need is just to establish yourself as a solid contributor, not because we have a rule written somewhere, but because it is all about trust here. We need to know that any given account represents one individual (no sock puppets or meat puppets) and that this person will be participating for legitimate reasons. Don't focus on counting your edits, but rather on doing a good job in the project. The rest should pretty much take care of itself. Redux 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A user should dive in and start voting whenever they are ready to. Since one vote won't affect the outcome 95% of the time, it is a good way for us to get to know you. The few times your vote would affect the outcome, it will be discounted if you are truly too new, but within a week of active participation, you won't be truly new anymore, and if your opinions are expressed with thoughtfulness, they will be respected. NoSeptember ^talk 11:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just yet. (Archive 61)

Not yet, but I should be one by doing 100,000 edits. --RCT Locomotion Wikipedia 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What do I have to do to be an admin? (Archive 61)

What do I have to do to be an admin?I want to be one.I have a good attitude and always contribute to wikipedia.I am in the wecoming committe.Well,I guest I can wait. --Cute 1 4 u 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding Adminship, I would suggest you see this as a consequence of good activity in WP rather than the aim.

1. Make good contributions in the article namespace (i.e. edit articles, create new articles, help fix articles, etc., categorizing articles. See Special:Uncategorizedpages, etc.)
2. contribute to the community in the Wikipedia namespace (i.e. contribute to WP:AFD for example or to any articles that start with Wikipedia:)
3. Fight vandalism of wikipedia by monitoring Special:Recentchanges

Once you have proved to the community that you care, then it will be very likely someone will nominate you for adminship. You will do fine, Just be useful, be always civil and help others. And most of all, be patient and DO NOT give up hope! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Do good work
2. Get recognition for your work
3. Be nice to fellow editors
4. Stick around for at least 3 6 months --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) That's more accurate.
5. Discuss issues in wikipedia-related workspaces
6. Contribute to editing articles
7. Show an inclination for janitorial work

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember to apply only when you "need" it. Adminship is not a reward for work on Wikipedia. Most of the work on Wikipedia does not need Admin powers. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to have many friends on wikipedia as well. rfa is a beauty pagent of the like, so regardless if you are a valued contributor, your fellow editors will still oppose if they don't like you. -Zero^Talk 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to somewhat disagree with this comment, having "name recognition" doesn't warrant you an automatic admin. Look at Terrence Ong's latest one. Alot of people whom seem to be "big names," sometimes get shot down. Having a successful RfA, from what I have seen, comes down to: A) Will you use the tools for the benefit to Wikipedia, B) Have you shown habits that will indicate that the use of tools could be malacious and C) Have you contributed positivlevy (more specifically uniquely) towards Wikipedia? Yanksox 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's often helpful to have someone respected nominate you. If it is too early, they are likely to say so, and if they support you, their voice can carry weight. Most of the failed nominations are rejected because of lack of experience, and this could have been spotted at the start by an experienced admin. OTOH, there are some people with lots of edits who don't need admin powers or who people don't trust to stick to policy. Stephen B Streater 15:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not recall using the term of name recognition. I commented that adminship certainly doesn't rest upon the qualities of our editors as it did previously. I will not cite names, but there are many successful nominees who passsed on anything but their quality as editors and their devotion to the encyclopedia. Its a popularity contest in my view. -Zero^Talk 15:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like when editors who are going through RfA are rejected because they don't need the tools. My best friend has a key to my home; he's never been here when I wasn't. I doubt he ever will be. If he ever does need them, he'll have them. RfA should be asking, if I give this person the keys to my house, will he be throwing raucous parties when I'm not home? Will he come in while I'm sleeping and eat all my food? Will he break or steal my valuables? If those answers are "no," give him the keys. If any of the answers is "I don't know" or "yes," then hold off. If an editor can identify what a vandal is and isn't, participated in enough processes that you're sure he knows how they work, give him the admin flag. The strain on resources is negligible (nothing?—the database space required to have a flag on is the same as it is to have it off), and since you've decided you trust this editor, the cost to integrity of Wikipedia is also negligible. —D-Rock 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Aah, exactly what I wanted to say, but put more precisely and concisely. Thanks, D-Rock. Henrik Ibsen rightly said, "A community is like a ship; everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm." Bestowing the mop to a good editor not too interested in the admin chores doesn't hurt as we'd always have the required slack in case of emergency. Also, by "Adminship is no big deal," I believe that adminship should be no big deal for a good editor. --Gurubrahma 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My failed RFA (Archive 64)

I nominated myself for adminship and withdrew after several Opposes. Can someone helpful here give me an idea of what I need to accomplish here to succeed an RFA? Thanks, JPotter 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Standards vary and are often disputed, but generally most voters/discussers (see above) look for >1000 edits (as a bare minimum), significant WP space involvement (shows knowledge of policy), and a good record (e.g. no blocks). It helps to have been involved heavily within the past several months and to involve yourself in the community.

Don't get disheartened though. Look at this as an opportunity to receive some constructive criticism and suggestions. αChimp ^laudare 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My general advice is as follows. Bear in mind this is just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect what anyone else thinks:

1. Get a solid number of edits under your belt, say at least 2500, preferably twice that. This allows editors to see you react to a wide range of situations
2. You should be active for at least 4 months before you apply for your RfA. Some editors like to see a longer timespan. Again, as you spend more time here you see more of the kinds of situations an admin will have to face, making it easier for us to decide if you will handle the tools well in the future
3. Get involved with Recent Changes Patrolling. This will give you lots of opportunity to learn policy and demonstrate that you know how it applies
4. Read, think about and comment on article for deletion debates. Don't be afraid to express contrary opinions where appropriate and where you can back your opinions up with policy. Again this gives you good practice in the sorts of work an admin will do.
5. Read, think about and comment on other RfA debates. Similar to the above, plus it gives you an idea of what editors are looking for and what they don't want to see in a good RfA candidate
6. Communicate with other editors (admins and non-admins) on article and user talk pages. Demonstrate that you can remain calm and civil even when faced with people who are not. This is an important quality for a future admin.
7. Keep adding to Wikipedia articles in big ways and small, because ultimately we are here to build an encyclopedia

These things allow you to learn policy, learn how to apply it and demonstrate to others that you can be trusted with more responsibility. Good luck, Gwernol 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is very sound advice. Speaking for myself, I'd be looking for all these things, but moreover, I'd be more likely to support someone's adminship if I had seen them around. I'll be looking out for you from now on. Deb 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking for 5000 edits (double of 2500) is an overkill I would think. Everything else sounds as good advice. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Its just my opinion. I'd originally started considering an RfA when I passed 2500 edits. I'm glad I waited (I had around 7500 when I finally accepted a nom, I think). I learnt a lot about policy and good interactions in between. I know I'm a better admin now than I would have been at 2500 edits. I certainly wouldn't oppose a candidate with 2500 edits but it comes down to this: do you want adminship at the earliest possible opportunity, or do you want to be a good admin? Those are very different things. Gwernol 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And it'll build up in no time, I racked up 5000 edits since my last RfA. Which shocked me. Just keep doing the good deed and you'll be ready. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Durin's charts, the general "magic number" of edits for adminship is around 2000. Above that, the success rate of candidates levels off, and actually starts going down slowly once you get above around 7000. (Presumably, this is because a small percentage of high-edit-count candidates are people who have some issue that's kept them from adminship in the past.) I suspect that while there are some people who might draw a line somewhere above 2000 in order to support, there is virtually nobody who will oppose solely over edit counts once that general number has been reached and, as a result, raw edit counts cease to be a major factor in RfAs at a little over 2000 edits. From 1000 to 2000, you get about a fifty percent success rate, and below there you can usually forget it. --Aquillion 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now what? (Archive 64)

My RFA ended at no consensus......I am confused about........

1. Spamming. It's good manners to do so, but it's technically against policy and the RFA failed, so there isn't much to celebrate. Still, I appreciate everyone who took the time to support/oppose, I just don't want to be chastised for sending thank-you notes. I am in a conflict about what to do here. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Reapplying. I don't plan to re-apply until I have at least 1500 article edits, but other than that, how long should I wait? Two months? Three? Four? Pegasus1138 was criticized for having an RFA about 6 weeks after their last failed one, so I'd like some input. Does it make a difference that the RFA was "no consensus" instead of "fail"? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as my personal opinion goes, I would thank people by "spamming" and wait about 2-3 months before applying for adminship again. Most people (myself included) think that users are too anxious to become an admin if they try again sooner. —Mets501 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents, worth nothing more. I haven't seen anyone get chastized for leaving thank you comments after failed or successful RfAs, but it is indeed against policy. I would avoid doing it. As for re-applying, I would wait 3 months and continue the good work you've been doing. I'd also consider getting another 2500 edits; don't forget more is better. Three months will pass sooner than you expect and its not hard to rack up 2500 edits in that time. Adminship is definitely a mixed blessing, so enjoy this time before you become one. All RfAs end as "Consensus" or "No consensus" (unless withdrawn early) but yours had a lot of support and most of the opposes were asking for more experience. to edit articles, comment on AfDs and RfAs and I expect you'll do well next time. Good luck, Gwernol 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And here are my 2 cents... if you leave a rubberstamp templatised thank you with the same thing in every one, more people will be annoyed than if you paste in markup and put some thought into what you say to each commenter... in my collection of comments you can tell who templatised and who didn't because a lot of them say "dear Lar/RFA 1" Don't do that. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As Lar/RFA 1 says, personalization is the best way to go, especially to those who actually gave you advice or reasons for their votes. NoSeptember 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(to original poster, edit conflict)Aside the from already solid base you've outlined above, consider finding a respected user who is active in the RfA process and ask them to mentor you. Once you've met your personal goals you've outlined above, visit someone like Durin who has demonstrated both high standards and who has publicly announced that they will provide guidance. I use Durin as an example because you will find his stringent standards extensively documented (versus those who simply announce their standards piecemeal, usually while opposing an RfA). There are, of course, other editors who have done this as well. The more of a 'hardass' they are, the better your chances of being accepted become after you meet their approval.

This aside, you may also wish to examine your motivations. Adminship is not a status symbol, it's a license to work. Much of what an admin does is unthanked and unnoticed by all. You do not need to be an admin to do 99.9% of what makes WP great. Know what you're getting into. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize adminship is not anything of influence and status--there are easier ways to attain that on wikipedia. Normal users can participate in things like ANI and AFDs where a lot of influence is thrown around. My reason for applying for adminship was to basically say, "Hey, adminship is no big deal, I wanna clean some backlogs and help out, but I don't want it to affect my character." For instance, deleting an unlikely redirect after an article has been moved, removing obvious speedy deletion canidates from Special:Newpages......perhaps I won't be an uberadmin, but at least I'll help (considering the various long lists of admins who haven't done anything in the realm of deletes, blocks, and protects). But I want the community to be comfortable with me before I recieve a mop. There is no malicious power trip hidden in the depths of my soul, as there seems to be in certain RFA canidates. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry too much about thanking people - it says not to in the RfA instructions, but almost everyone seems to, and I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble over it. (I looked, actually, a while ago, and that part about not leaving thank-you notes was added by a single user, and never discussed that I could find, so I wouldn't really call it against policy. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If it was only added by one user and reflects neither actual practice nor general consensus, perhaps it should be removed, or at least worded down a little bit? --Aquillion 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My imaginary self-nom (Archive 65)

The following is officially semi-humorous material under the little-used but critical standard WP:Not Really Very Funny. I’m way too exo to even vote on an RfA, must less submit myself to the torture process.

Uh, hi. You probably don’t know me because I stay out of trouble and edit articles like Escrow payment that nobody with a life would ever read. My big claim to “fame” (ha-ha) was getting Henry James (the article, not the guy’s ashes) up to FA status. FAC was almost as much fun, frivolity, and fabulousness as RfA. But then some admin said I couldn’t call James’ autobiography “charming” because that was POV. Really p.o.ed me. But hey, who am I to argue with an admin?

Anyway, I’ve got about five or six thousand edits now, though a couple thousand or so were anonymous when I was trying to dodge admins like the anti-charming lady. Now I don’t care because, gee, I’m going to be an admin myself (I hope)! I’d like to give you a breakdown of my edits but Essjay’s edit counter is busted or he took it down and I can’t get that damn Java doohickey to work.

If promoted to admin I’m not going to do a lousy thing except what I’m doing now. That’s right, I ain’t gonna promise to AfD and RC and PDQ and Zowie and all that other junk admins promise to do but then they never do it, anyway. (That’s what SlimVirgin says and I don’t argue with virgins of any weight class.) If somebody vandalizes an article on my watchlist I’ll fix it and forget it. Otherwise, I’m just gonna write articles. This is an encyclopedia. You don’t like it, vote me down!

I will promise to be brave, trustworthy and clean. I will take four showers a week, help old ladies across the street into the crack house, and not eat what I find when I pick my nose. I also won’t post on Wikipedia Review (oops, I'm not supposed to link to that) and I think Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway are just swell as long as they don’t bother me. Plus, I’ll read all the TROLL stuff in the Signpost and made stupid remarks about it on my user page.

Thank you for your consideration. If I don’t get 80% support, I won’t kill myself. This is no big deal, right? Casey Abell 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'd have my vote! --W.marsh 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, there are backup counters available:

Edit count for User:Casey_Abell
Counted at 15:48, Thursday August 3, 2006 (UTC)
(main)         2706
Talk           238
User           363
User talk      36
Wikipedia      132
Wikipedia talk 56
Image          248
Template       53
Template talk  1

Or see these results in a stupid level of detail

Article namespace: 2706

Manual vandalism reverts: 39

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 10

Removals: 31

Redirects: 62

Deletion-related edit summaries: 16

Addition-related edit summaries: 202

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 146

Unrecognised edit summary: 1461

No edit summary: 738

Talk namespace: 238

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 10

Unrecognised edit summary: 108

No edit summary: 118

User namespace: 363

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 3

Welcomes: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 150

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 13

Unrecognised edit summary: 141

No edit summary: 53

User talk namespace: 36

Welcomes: 3

Addition-related edit summaries: 2

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 22

No edit summary: 7

Wikipedia namespace: 132

Removals: 8

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 3, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 26

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 22

No edit summary: 72

Wikipedia talk namespace: 56

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 14

No edit summary: 40

Image namespace: 248

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 2

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 4

Unrecognised edit summary: 240

Template namespace: 53

Addition-related edit summaries: 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 51

Template talk namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

There's probably some spurious information in the above, as my edit counter is new and tries to figure it out from the summaries with a bot-like intelligence level... anyway, reasonable, but probably too exo for you to be voted in, as you say. (You'll get people complaining about the low Wikipedia: edit count.) See, just posting on RfA's talk page will get your edit count dissected and insulted. (Revenge attempts to count my edits are welcome, so long as there is some comment about why the User: space count is skewed). --ais523 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I figure I'm a shoo-in. I got "non-deletion voting-related edit summaries" for crying out loud. If that ain't admin material, what is? Casey Abell 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be tempted to vote for you. I would probably just ask that you participate in a little more process first. (And yes, that means getting the WP count up.) Themindset 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for you in a heartbeat, which probably tells me you wouldn't pass at the moment. I'm somewhat of an iconoclast on RFA now. Honestly, during my RFA, I was angry at the reasons people opposed me, but I held my tongue. Now that I'm an admin, though, I guess I could launch on an emotional tirade now, and just block people who complained about me :) . My advice is to read RFAs which are failing, and make sure you could dodge having the same criticisms leveled at yourself. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Halfway seriously, I don't know how anybody can go though RfA without spouting off. I know you're expected to just take the less-than-flattering comments, but sometimes the talk gets pretty trying. Funny thing, the admin who got her knickers in a twist over my use of the dread word "charming" was sysoped way back in February, 2003. Back then they did it on the wikien-l mailing list, and it was maybe a half-dozen people deciding. Getting adminship really was no big deal. Now it's become godawful torture a lot tougher. Casey Abell 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not an admin already? alphaChimp ^laudare 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeesh, I'm hardly even a respectable editor. Though the more I post here, the less exo I get. Casey Abell 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. More edits in Wikipedia space would be good, but you seem to have a good attitude.--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Increase your shower count and we're in buisness. Yanksox 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the edit counter from ais523 I have 47 edits in Showers Talk. Is that enough? Casey Abell 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminstation. (Archive 67)

I'm not sure how to put my vote up, but can somebody help? I am very succesfull with English and Croatian Wikipedia and I learn quickly, I am friendly, I am a reverter and I love to help. Although I am only one month into being a user, that doesn't mean I haven't been using Wikipedia for years! I have. I know how to debate, be proper and nice and how to watch and be on guard. When you need me, I'll assist. How do I put up my name for administration (oh, yeah, I'm kind. I can relate to kids because I am a responsible, intellegent 11 year old. I will communicate with the kindly but firmly when adults have no contact. Things have changed oveer the years. Kids attitudes and minds are ruder, and they just seek comfort. Now I'm a kid of today and I will do what I can to help Wikipedia!) Who's with me? Put my name up and vote! If the vote passes, I will succeed to all duties and show pruod worthiness. If anyone has anyhting to say about this, please say so on my talk page. Thank you for reading this debate speech in order to become an admin. Thank you. *Appluase*. (I'm funny too, so kids will get along and be nice in response to a block or warning!) Lindsay1980 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to review WP:GRFA and also the standards page. SynergeticMaggot 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. ForestH2 t/c 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Masssiveego (Archive 67)

Please vote, as I'm curious what you think.

User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey

--Masssiveego 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I encourage people not to feed this... he just seems hungry for more attention to be paid to his troll-esque behavior. --W.marsh 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

About what. :) Dlohcierekim 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Question (Archive 70)

I would like to nominate myself for a sysop, but I am having difficulty formatting the nomination because I have a prior unsuccessful nomination. The screen keeps going to the old nomination and I am not sure if I am supposed to delete that and replace it. What do I need to do to set up a new nomination? Ramsquire 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are supposed to add a 2 after your name in the new nomination. Michael 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Ramsquire 16:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is open up a new page with the postscript "2" or "(2nd nomination) or whatever, and fill in the {{subst:RfA|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} there. It's a little less automated, but it'll work about the same as the instructions at the top of WP:RFA (remember to link to your old RFA, and make sure the "Voice your opinion" link goes to the right page). Good luck! -- nae'blis 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Self nomination (Archive 72)

Since I don't really want to nominate myself for adminship as I doubt I would make it, what would anyone think I should do to see how much more I must do to become one with a successful RfA? thanks Teh tennisman 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've compiled my personal advice for RfA candidates here, which may be of use. A better suggestion would be to put yourself forward for editor review which should get you some specific ideas on what you need to do. Good luck, Gwernol 13:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Teh tennisman 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Request (Archive 75)

I would like to be a Admin for Wikipedia. I stay up late at late and see alot of bad things happen on Wikipedia. I would like to power to block someone if they mis-use wikipedia. Thanks, Senator Heimermann 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I should be intermittently reloading that talk page to see what you are about to say... ;-) Maybe I'll be patient and wait for you to stop writing! :-) Carcharoth 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A diff will probably have to suffice now: [4]; Asher deleted most of the text on his talk page about six hours later: [5] John Broughton | Talk 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Request for Adminship (Archive 76)

Hi,

I would like to know where or to whom I would request adminship. I have been editing since late December of 2006. I now it is not long and if you all feel that my request should hold off for a while until I have put in some longer time in editing on Wikipedia I will be more than cooperative to do so. Anyways, I would like to learn more about adminship, mediating in disputes, and starting Wiki projects. Your advice will be much appreciated. Regards

Wiki Raja 12:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship is the right place, but unfortunately you are still definitely too new to obtain adminship. There are no universal standards, but there is a collection of what various people have considered to be important qualifications. Good candidates often have several months of participation (across various parts of Wikipedia) and a few thousand edits. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Dragons flight 12:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in mediating disputes, you might want to take a look at WP:MEDCOM. --Tango 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. Wiki Raja 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Spaceboy(Archive 77)

One question that i could not find at both pages, how to I make a request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpaceboy (talk • contribs) 16:57, January 4, 2007

A request to have someone nominate you? I'm not sure there is such a page... usually nominators already know the candidate and approach them. You can nominate yourself if you like, but I strongly encourage you to let your Editor Review run to completion first to see what things you should work on before requesting adminship (having more than 100 attributed edits would help, though if most of your anonymous edits were under a single IP that you feel comfortable sharing, that may help). -- nae'blis 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above editor; if you're looking for the nomination instructions, you can find them here. —bbatsell ¿? 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)