This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What's the current temperature of this particular cup of tea? I like the pictures and the social contact. Others seem to hate/dread it. In real world politics, they are sometimes an absolute must. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most people don't see any problem with it, but I don't think it's to the point where it's considered a "supposed to" -- nor should it be. As long as someone hasn't expressed that they do not want to get thanks, there should be no problem if you choose to do it. - Revolving Bugbear 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I'll state that I didn't send out a single thank-spam after my RfA, including my noms. (I did thank them, just not a pretty-picture-thank-spam) Did anyone notice? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a notice on my userpage for a few days thanking those who participated my discussion. Personally, I enjoy thank-spam, it's nice to know I'm doing a service. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't send any out, I only thanked my nominator. And in case I forgot to do that and only thought I did, "Thanks" to the editor above this comment. Useight ( talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lol - Just great. Regardless of how people voted and what my RfA's outcome turns out to be, I've been working on my message to thank them for participating, and now I have to worry about whether anybody views it as spam. (I really like getting those notes.) Doczilla ( talk) 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't call them spam, either. And I enjoy getting them, too, because it makes a little orange "New Message" bar appear on my screen. You know, I've been editing for so long now that whenever I see an orange bar (sometimes not even online, but anywhere), I think I have a message. Send 'em out if you want. Useight ( talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's hard to keep up with discussion here, might it be a good idea to put a notice on one's talk page? Or maybe a "yes, please" or a "no thanks" at the end of ones !vote if one thinks it matters? Dloh cierekim Deleted? 02:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the thanks, and I collect it. It's nice to see the friendly, oragne "you have new messages" bar appear, and it's someone thanking you for participating in their RfA, rather than the bar appearing and it's someone vandalizing my talk page, trolling, or complaining. Acalamari 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if given a thank you, I give the person who gave the thanks this in return. Acalamari 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with these messages, unless you had to thank a lot of people. By the time you end you will have to start a wikibreak or go mad. -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Mwa ha ha ha. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, does commenting in an RfA establish a relationship (business or otherwise) with the nominee, or perhaps the nominator? Will I receive other offers from said parties? Mackensen (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. We've already had a quid pro quo offer this week @ Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kim_Dent-Brown#Neutral. Sorry. No. <<grin>>04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim ( talk • contribs)

I wouldn't refer to them as spam, although I must admit that regaular RfA participators do find their talkpages becoming overloaded with them. I don't mind them too much, as it is only other users expressing their gratitude, but I didn't send any out after mine, thinking that people get enough of them as it is and chose instead to put a thankyou notice on my talkpage. Lra drama 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sending out thank you's after a successful RfA is prima facie evidence of....nah. Can't do it. Great example of DIYDDIYD. Speaking of that, I need to go delete something. Or include something. Or perhaps barter it against one of my own pet projects being kept... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the whole dislikes side, hell it's one of the reasons I don't usually voice my supports(bullet 3 and yes it is true, I lurk wikipedia way too much :P) not that I would consider it spam, I just don't feel the need for them in this format, the candidate is judged based on certain history of that candidate(or hell even peoples preconceived notions of that persons abilities/ability to be trusted.) I don't see a need for the candidates to thank us as a community for committing to support/oppose for them. Dureo ( talk) 07:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the above idea (a "no thanks!" message) would be a good one for people who don't want the messages. Another option, especially for frequent participants, would be a flag/banner on their talk page.

I think it's fun to see what people come up with. (And I, like someone mentioned above, like the orange banner. Maybe that makes me kind of a nerd, but whatever.) I personally had fun drafting my themed thanks (and loved bibliomaniac's clutch themed congrats). - Revolving Bugbear 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with a banner is that a lot of time, people just hit the + button without looking at the rest of the page. As you can see on my public accoun't talk page, people sending RFA spam ignore the message at the top, and give me it here anyway. Malinaccier Public ( talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of you fixing that font at the top of your public account talk page? The text overlaps and is unreadable on IE. And please don't suggest FF - bear in mind that ~80% of our visitors will be using the dreaded MS product and we should fix it for them, not the other way round. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't work in safari temporarily, so I put </br> </br> to clear it up, but if it doesn't work in IE...then down in size it goes. Malinaccier ( talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool - fixed in lousy old IE - thanks! Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to thank an old "friend" who you might not have talked to for a while and another to go down the list and thank everyone on it. I like the idea of thanking everyone as a group on your own talk page or maybe the RFA needs to have a final comment section before it is closed where they can say "thanks" or "ok, I hope you will consider me again after I have more main space contributions" Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy thankspam; however, I firmly believe that it should be done correctly. If one goes and looks at Acalamari's collection page, you'll see my big problem with thankspam: several of them are addressed to "Acalamari/Rfa-related awards." The whole {{PAGENAME}} thing, while convenient, is incredibly impersonal, and makes me personally feel as if the candidate believes that a supporter (or an opposer) of his or her own RfA is not worth more than a quick copy-paste. I don't need a HTML-encrusted behemoth, all I need is a note that says "Hey GC, thanks for supporting. It meant a lot to me and I won't let you down." Glass Cobra 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The thanking of my collection page is quite amusing though. :) Acalamari 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Passing RfA for fun and profit!

I should get in contact with some publishing houses. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry beans! Majoreditor ( talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope PeeWee Hurman doesn't see it. However, I'm already on step 5 It's a terrible idea, and I, for one, am not already on step 5. Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed the essay. I'm not sure how passing RFA will get you a profit, unless you start selling admin accounts to vandals over PayPal. Useight ( talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to buy my admin account, it's available for a cool US 1 Million. I would be happy to sell for that amount, nothing less. Please notify me on my talkpage (for transparency) if interested. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine's available for $999,999, and it has less wear and tear on it than Keeper's does. -- barneca ( talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

$999,998. Going once...going twice.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

<joke>I'll buy both!!!! Muhahahahaha...</joke> ~ Dreamy ^§ 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! Mine is on eBay for $100,000. Comes with one Main Page deletion, one Jimbo block, and a car. :P   jj137 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mines retails for $250,000 and comes with one main page deletion, one mass crat-block, and a sandbox deletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good deal... I'll take it for $200,000.   jj137 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

$235,000 minimum. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

$225,000   jj137 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you rogue/rouge. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now with images! dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now it's amazing. Useight ( talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn, somehow I get the feeling I'd never pass RFA anymore these days. :-P -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to pass! Just buy one! (Several priced above) Remember, you get quality by buying quality..Ignore those "cheap, throwaway 200K offers." You need the $999,998 high quality, platinum grade account. That one's a real keeper. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you want a fresh admin account, mine was only sysopped in December. Useight ( talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HA! I've got you beat! Even fresher!!!! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not fresh, that's still in beta version. Ha! Useight ( talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look at the kitty! Oh, rolling around with a sock HE'S SO CUTE!!!! Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't fall for it. It's how the rouge admins bait unsuspecting young users actually concerned about the encyclopedia for assimilation ... oops, did I just divulge that? bibliomaniac 1 5 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OH, BUT LOOK HOW CUTE!!! Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a Barnstar for funniest user subpage? Dloh cierekim 05:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor should suffice. Although if you want, you could make a contest... bibliomaniac 1 5 05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! I was going to give him the barnstar and claim all the credit! Well, on to step 6 Beware step six. Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I wouldn't seriously object to getting more than one barnstar. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar? For that? I was going to indef block. Shrug. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 09:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you settle for adminship without RfA? Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he already has the Good Humor barnstar. Dloh cierekim 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to adopt an article building criterion to bring my RfA standards into greater alignment with the community. I'd appreciate some feedback as to how others evaluate for this. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that "article building" includes things like copyediting, fixing things up? Or do you feel that "article building" means DYK, GA, and FA? Or is that what you're asking.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! What do others think? I see things like GA and FA as big bonuses. Copyedting and fix up seem to be wikignome tasks. I've created tiny stubs. I've improved articles by winnowing rather than adding. Most of my article improvements have been on a small scale per article. I've seen others not support based on "lack of article building experience". I'm trying to decide how to quantify that for myself. Dloh cierekim

Of courses peoples opinions differ, but I think the current "mood" at RfA is that main space editing consisting entirely of vandalism reverts does not quite cut the mustard. Some evidence of article building is essential. I take "article building" as;

• DYK's - either brand new or moving articles out of stub status
• GA's FA's
• Talk page evidence showing collaboration
• Fixing up to bring articles in line with WP:MOS
• Well referenced additions to existing articles

and I'm sure there's plenty more. The key is that mainspace work needs to be more than clean up of vandalism and fixing the odd wikilink to demonstrate "encyclopedia building". How much more is probably up to the indivudal when commenting on a candidate. But please don't look for much of the above in my last 2,000+ contributions - so really I'm talking out the back of my head! Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to have no standards, and ask yourself one question: "Will this user be a good admin?" If yes, support. If no, oppose and say why. Nothing else actually matters. Majorly ( talk) 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, of course, because there will always be the exception that breaks the rule by setting defined standards. One can, of course, throw the onus on oneself instead ... Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Compared to some standards I've seen, those are pretty sound. Majorly ( talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't stop agreeing on stuff pretty fast people will talk.... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. :) Acalamari 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

...so please stop replying to or otherwise commenting on his opposes. John Reaves 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the end, the closing bureaucrat should decide whether power hunger really is a problem for the candidate, and regard or disregard the vote as such. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He's entitled to his opinion. Full stop. Pedro :  Chat  23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

During Kurt's last RFC, I looked at all the RFAs Kurt commented on to see whether it was a few people repeatedly replying, or different people replying each time. I came away thinking it was the latter - and rarely the nominee replying, but different people each stepping up on the behalf of the nominee. I would be glad to be proved wrong. Re Pedro's comment, I'll point out that nobody is "entitled' or has a "right" to make comments that have been so thoroughly proven disruptive. Even such temperate souls as Newyorkbrad have asked him to stop. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Carl. Wrong. This is a Wiki. Unless blocked everyone has the right to edit and express opinion. Whether their opinion is outside of community norms or beneficial is another thing. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I'm not planning to continue the discussion here; I'll wait for the eventual RFARB. Please feel free to continue without me. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's really no reason to reply to Kurt's comments. He's entitled to his opinion (regardless of how much we hate it or find it annoying) and after much discussion and debate on the issue, it was determined that he wasn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. So, just let it go. Useight ( talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on Kurt, but you do not have a right to edit nor a right to express an opinion. You have a right to fork and a right to leave. Mr. Z-man 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I inserted "technical ability" instead of "right" ? In addition it was Carl that mentioned "rights" - not me - I said entitled. I decided not to wiki-lawyer the point to Carl, but entitled to a belief does not actually mean allowed to then make them public. I'm sorry if I've not made my comments clear to you. Pedro :  Chat  00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the response was to your comment "Unless blocked everyone has the right to edit and express opinion" (emphasis mine). But off semantics and back onto substance sounds good :) Daniel ( talk) 04:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the point! Carl used the word "right" and rather than debate semantics with him as I used the word entitled I used the word "right" back, taking in good faith his usage of the word to be synonymous with "entitlement" rather than the more contentious usages available. As above, there is no point arguing semantics. But my original thrust was nothing to do with "rights" and has now been mis-interpreted, disapointingly. Pedro :  Chat  08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Countering Kurt's highly mysterious Opposes is probably futile from the standpoint of trying to get him to stop, but sometimes the counter argument still needs to be made. Especially when people oppose "per Kurt". His opposes are no different than anyone else's, and he is entitled to his opinion. I suspect at this point the 'crats are discounting him out-of-hand. But isn't that thought a little scarier than his lone-wolf stand? I say leave him alone. Maybe he will grow weary, maybe he will find a more productive way of addressing whatever is bothering him. Or maybe he will gain a following with other's endorsing his view. I agree with one thing-- it would be pleasant if the Wikidrama would end. Beyond a simple, "I disagree" or "Kurt's argument not withstanding" the matter should be let drop. Dloh cierekim 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just common sense not to reply. I'm not saying Kurt is a troll in any way, but the general principle behind WP:DNFT still applies. IronGargoyle ( talk) 05:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It think it's gone beyond that-- Two RfC's, an attempt at an ARBCom case, and comments on his talk page. All-in-all, you are right. I wish others would just leave him alone. Dloh cierekim 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My replies are pretty much intended for the morale of the administrator candidates. RfA can be stressful enough without having to put up with this nonsense, and I thought it would be useful for someone to say so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. RfA can be hard enough. Dloh cierekim 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Like CBM said, it's different people stepping up to Kurt each time, so telling people not to respond to him doesn't really accomplish much. However, I echo those above stating that Kurt has the right to !vote however he likes on an RfA, even if I don't agree with him. Glass Cobra 05:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems decided that we can't do much in regards to votes like Kurt's, so replying each time he casts what is supposedly an unfair vote is, indeed, pointless. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just let Kurt oppose anyone for any reason he wants to. Then let the bureaucrats ignore him. Kurt ought to stop his campaign against self-noms since it's futile and unhelpful, but I see no reason for anyone to force him to stop since it is not disrupting anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If he wants to act like an ass, the bureaucrats are free to ignore him. Just like they eventually ignored Boothy443's "sheep votes". szyslak 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has a reason to oppose, which he provides. It would be very easy for him to write "oppose per the above" or some other noncomittal phrase. Just because you do not agree with his reason for opposal does not make it worthless, nor does it make him an ass. Two RFCs have ended with the community concluding that "yes, Kurt Weber can oppose RFAs based on a dislike of self-nominations", irrespective of what a vocal minority think. The bureaucrats are entirely capable of judging whether such an oppose vote does or does not have substance. Neıl ☎ 11:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's up to any one person or group to dismiss his reasoning. Like Neil says, it's the easiest thing in the world just to wait a bit, and pick a few reasons out of the other opposes or indeed not even give reasoning. He's at least being consistently honest. Much worse for me are tendentious editors following contributions to these RfAs and leaving resentment opposes or opposing just because their "enemy" has supported, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with mopship. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt's objection is quite reasonable and should taken seriously See Power: A New Social Analysis for an extensive analysis of the lust for power and its consequences. Colonel Warden ( talk) 13:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oftentimes what happens is Kurt will oppose for power hunger, and then four or more people will give a "strong support" for being bold and nominating themselves. It almost cancels out. Malinaccier Public ( talk) 15:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I view opening threads about Kurt and/or replying to Kurt on WT:RFA to be prima facie evidence of horse hunger. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL... Well said. Would somebody uninvolved archive this please? IronGargoyle ( talk) 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody have a problem with archiving this page? It's getting pretty long. Useight ( talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait a bit. The first few discussions are relatively recent. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to archive up to the B-crat call. -- Avi ( talk) 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The first 4 subsections could go, haven't been edited in 4-8 days each. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The third was hit on 2/28, the other three are now at Archive 118. -- Avi ( talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't be on this website as long as some of you have. What is the origin of the idea that simply because a user seems unlikely to "abuse the tools," that makes him/her a suitable candidate for admin (I am aware of WP:NOBIGDEAL, so there's no need to point me to that other cliché)? I see the phrase over and over again, but I'm curious if it emerged as consensus in some previous discussion of adminship criteria.

Personally, I believe that some admins who never technically "abuse the tools" are nevertheless unresponsive, foul-tempered bullies who generate more detriment than good to the project. On the other hand, there are rare cases where an otherwise productive, helpful and gentle admin might abuse his/her powers for the sake of an ill-adivsed, pointy experiment. I'd like to see more focus on character, temperament, common sense, common courtesy, editing and dispute resolution skill and whatever the wiki-equivalent of customer service is and less focus on whether a candidate is likely to run amok with his/her new buttons.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you've answered your own question, TFMWNCB. "Abusing the tools" isn't deleting the mainpage. That's not abuse, that's stupid. I consider someone who is an "unresponsive, foul-tempered bully", to use your words, is someone who is abusing the tools, I don't care how many FAs they've done. So if I sayin an RfA, "Support, won't abuse the tools" I type it to mean they have character, temperament, common sense, and common courtesy, or to put it in one pillar, WP:CIVIL. Everything else about the "tools" can be learned. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Righty-O. As keeper says. I see "unresponsive, foul-tempered bullies" as abusing the tools in a bad way. I have and will oppose adminship for the very reason you mention. I also mention this as a disqualifier in my standards. We just had an RfA where the nominee appeared to have the technical knowledge but not the interpersonal skills. This is the reason for Q3. The community has historically opposed giving the mop to those with demonstrated incivility. Some have gone so far as to oppose because the nominee had not been in any conflicts because their conflict resolution skills were unknown. I review the user talk pages. That can reveal a lot, though it is not perfect. I'm no expert on ARBCOM, but I suspect that many of the cases there are due not to technical inexpertise, but to a lack of people skills. There is an RfA reconfirmation running right now where the main oppose rationale seems to be the nominee's interactions with others. So yes, incivility is a problem, it's hard to know in advance, and we may need a better way of screening for it. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PSEverything old is new again. Two years ago we had Wikipedia:Concordia, an effort to deal with civility issues. It has apparently fallen by the wayside. Before that, we had Wikipedia:Esperanza. Some felt it made Concordia redundant. It to seems to have fallen by the wayside. Some saw these as Cabals. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Things do not fall off the wayside until they are pushed. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I won't use that as my basis for supporting an RFA. To me, that pretty much means, "This editor is not a vandal." Useight ( talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The criterion should be "won't misuse the tools", that includes intentional abuse and mistakes due to incompetence. If someone is competent and can be reasonably expected to act in good faith, there is no reason not to allow them to be an admin. -- Tango ( talk) 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When I say that, I mean that the editor has my trust to be a good admin and not abuse the tools, which includes a full history of civility and consistent editing throughout a significant amount of time (no specific time/edits, but case by case). If the user has gained my trust, I feel that he or she should have the tools. No editor needs the tools. I don't need them, and Fat Man, you don't need them either. It comes down, in my opinion, to whether or not this user would harm the project. If he or she won't abuse the tools, then let's give him or her the tools. For further elaboration, see User:Hmwith/rfa. нмŵוτн τ 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you answered your own question. You asked where the idea originated, but said there's no need to point out WP:NOBIGDEAL. Well, that's it. If it's not a big deal, then any editor with the community's trust should gain the tools. нмŵוτн τ 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Dloh cierekim 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But, to bring up the tirelessly debated point, for most people, it is a big deal, ergo why everyone isn't running around with the tools. To refactor back to the original topic, though, I agree that "wont abuse the tools" is generally a poor reason for support, but I also agree with Keeper76 that generally, you don't have bad-tempered arses who don't misuse the tools to boot. -- David Fuchs ^{( talk)} 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that kinda circular? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a general request for all admins: if you think you can take on the role of a bureaucrat, please nominate yourself for bureaucratship today! At the moment, there's only (I think) 3 really active bureaucrats, and I believe that a new face or two would be a good thing at this time. Thanks everyone. Majorly ( talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of the frying pan into the fire! Oh, Ow! Dloh cierekim 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I just wet myself... bibliomaniac 1 5 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This really is what we need now. There's occasions when bureaucrats need to discuss things, and if there's non active then this simply won't work. For very controversial discussions we need well respected, active bureaucrats who are willing to discuss any concerns with the decisions they make - some fresh faces would certainly help when we need a consensus between the 'crats. It wouldn't hurt to share the workload as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of the three or four people I'd like to see stand, you Majorly would seem to be a front runner IMHO. Even after opposing last time. WP:SOFIXIT ?!?! Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think some more bureaucrats would be a very good idea. The trouble is finding some people to run. Acalamari 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, I promised myself never again. I'm rude, controversial, have many enemies, etc etc. I also dislike the process. I'm happy as an bcrat on Meta. If no one does run in the end, or no one passes, I'll consider it in the summer. But it's so unlikely. Majorly ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you made that promise to yourself. Ah well, I'll have to persuade Ryan then.... Pedro :  Chat  23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think someone like, say, User:Newyorkbrad would be an awesome candidate. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see prior experience as a big plus. :) Dloh cierekim 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support him, but I have the feeling he'd say no, due to being busy on ArbCom. Also, there's never been an active arbitrator pass an RfB. ArbCom takes up a lot of time. Majorly ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is an excellent candidate, but I think ArbCom duties would be a priority in his case. Also, I believe that some people are uncomfortable with someone holding both the arbitrator position and the bureaucrat flag at the same time. Acalamari 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who would willingly take on a responsibility to promote admins, knowing they cannot even fix their own mistakes? It seems a rather bad position to try to put someone in. Fix this problem and we may see more volunteers. Friday (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To let everyone know, I've recently proposed the idea to User:DerHexer. Shot down. Now, we should pick someone who really has a great chance of passing. Now, Ryan P rocks, I'd strongly support, but are we sure everyone's over the Durova/Mercury CF? Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the community that really promotes them, we just use the crat as the means to enforce our will. And I also think Ryan P would make a good crat. *wink* *nudge* *cough* Malinaccier ( talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ECX2Crat's determine consensus. They don't decide whether or not to promote. In any even, the community promotes and the community has remedies for those who do not work out. Maybe we should draft Pedro? If we all rush him, it'll done before he knows what hit 'm. :)_ Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

already discussed ! Pedro :  Chat  23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who could really pass one? I really can't think of someone off the top of my head. It is extremely hard to pass an RfB, and harder for those who would pass to tell they would. Prodego ^talk 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which actually identifies another issue - RFB has a high "pass mark" and if you've done more than a modicum of treading on toes then you won't attain it. Knowing that just 5 or 6 users is all it make take to sink your RfB puts people off running. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Friday) Well, the two dozen or so users who are bureaucrats obviously did. And more will too. It's a matter of what is defined as "mistake" really. Bureaucrats don't make mistakes - it's kind of an unwritten rule. Majorly ( talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the support ratio for superadmins? I ask because that's one of the reasons why I asked DH. If it's the same, we should try someone who has recently been stewardized. Lar, perhaps? Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apx. 90% - i.e. "clear consensus" Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, we kinda need Lar at Commons (he's an admin, b'crat, checkuser, oversight, unofficial co-ruler there :-D). I'm not sure it's best to have him be a b'crat here. -- Agüeybaná 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It looks like it won't work, but look at how many people are supporting the idea here. If we all work together to support a candidate, we can probably force one through =). Malinaccier ( talk) 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect we may see a new trend. I for one would be part of it: before voting for a crat, I want them to explain under what circumstances they would promote. People don't like surprising results in RFA. Given it's one of the few actions on-wiki that's not reversible, it makes sense for crats to be very conservative in using their promotion abilities. When they've departed from this, they get lots of flak. Friday (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can say they will be an 80% robot though, do we really want that? Prodego ^talk 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I think they should stick to 75%. That way there will never be controversy. Majorly ( talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A robot would be better than a controversial close. It would remove the drama for sure surrounding not normal closes. Majorly ( talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. There is one sensible rule for crats to follow: promote anyone who's RFA lacks objection for good reason. Even a single objection for good cause should be enough to prevent promotion. This may sound crazy, but promotion is not reversible. It pays to get it right. Friday (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "good reason" then? Majorly ( talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We depend on the crat's judgment for that. We choose (or, should choose) them for their good judgment. Let's take that next step and give them explicit go-ahead to use it, instead of waving our hands and pretending they merely interpret community consensus, as we currently tend to do. Friday (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I'm most certainly active, but I have other things on my plate. If you need something done, though, give me a poke. Raul654 ( talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have done in the past :) Majorly ( talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm here too. -- Deskana (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollcall! Hey, how about teh giggy? :) Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be the slight lack of +sysop that may hinder him at RFB. Pedro :  Chat  23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the +sysop specifically required for Cratship? Malinaccier ( talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically no. In reality yes. Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if the RfA regulars discussed who they'd like to see become a 'crat here before any RfBs go up it would save some drama and help to prevent people from being scared away from nomming themselves. John Reaves 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some names have been put forward here already. Majorly ( talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If everyone participating in this discussion agreed on someone, then got a nom going it would probably pass. There are some pretty big and respected RFA names here: Biblio, Pedro, Majorly, etc. If these people supported one person's RFB, it would help to convince others. Malinaccier ( talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like last years July rush! Let's put all the names through! Someone has to pass! Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted) You listed me?! If I happen to pass RFB, hell, Earth, purgatory, heaven, and the entire universe as we know it would plunge into absolute zero. Apparently it was a misreading, but I don't take any of my words back. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you would make a fine bureaucrat actually, Bibliomaniac15. Acalamari 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of an essay I wrote back in May 2007: Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, the fact we have so few crats actually makes them somewhat invisible, which is a good thing in some respects (as far as I know, there haven't be "relist my RfA" comments based on a 'crat's discussion at RfA.) David Fuchs ^{( talk)} 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of bureaucrats really doesn't matter, as the Spanish Wikipedia has shown. There is no reason why having many bureaucrats would be a problem. However, we are extremely selective here, maybe we should think about why. Prodego ^talk 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but a few more couldn't hurt. I think if a potential crat promised to perhaps extend an RFA that they believe should go the other way, they would be supported more easily. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we give bcrats leeway. If they closed it as a vote, then we could trust every admin who wanted to do the job. Majorly ( talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl seems like a reasonable candidate. Perhaps her relativeness newness as an admin means she hasn't collected enough detractors to sink her. Ronnotel ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's nom the next passer of an RFA with 100 % support! </sarc> Malinaccier ( talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh. A few people told me they'd like to see me stand. I'd like to know what other people think first, before going through a huge RfB smackdown. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We should try a new "Be a crat for a day" program and see who gets the least amount of objection. =) Malinaccier ( talk) 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly endorse you, Riana, but I can't guarantee a dzasta wouldn't happen. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I could support Moonridden or Riana. Dloh cierekim 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Riana is a very good choice. Acalamari 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I really think we need some new crats now, so I urge people to run, but I'll probably consider it in a few months time - I do a lot of work with the username policy so could certainly lend a hand to WP:CHU. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please do run if you think you can devote the time. You'd be great in the position. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since RfB is discussion, not head-counting, I would expect we could separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of legitimate beef and grudge editors for any candidate. Worries about your nemesis shouldn’t stop admins from taking the plunge. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up Malinaccier ( talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to inturrupt or be rude or anything like that but has anybody been selected to become an beaucrat yet or are you still deciding?-- Sunny910910 ^{( talk| Contributions| Guest)} 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! Go Z-Man! :D ~ Riana ⁂ 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Malinaccier beat me to it. or Yes. Dloh cierekim 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is running. :) Acalamari 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've got the answer I've needed.-- Sunny910910 ^{( talk| Contributions| Guest)} 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else want to go? Good luck to Zman btw. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up! Malinaccier ( talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to run, but i dont see a user with <5000 edits passing. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm available to run, if I'm a viable option. Useight ( talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TPE, it's more how long you've been an admin than how many edits. Edit counting is for RfAs :P Majorly ( talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, 4.5 months is still too short. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then my 2.5 months must be waay too short. Useight ( talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dang, this mass rfb wave made me unretire. Nice going. :P Wizardman 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Wizardman is back.   jj137 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this a smart semi-recruitment drive for bureaucratship. Though I do not think too many users should possess crat powers, there is a truly desperate need for them and there has been for some time. Thanks for posting this Majorly :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I don't know if I've ever seen four admins up for cratship at once.   jj137 (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there were as many when Essjay left, and [IMHO] suddenly everyone wanted his position. -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the bureaucrat group is the only one that is handling all its tasks without material backlogs. Even if there were backlogs, none of the tasks associated with the flag are particularly time-sensitive. (If all our bureaucrats went on strike for a month, the impact on the encyclopedia would not be significant.) Christopher Parham (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The admin backlogs are more urgent. And I, for one, should do more in that area... Carcharoth ( talk) 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also wondering, are there any bureaucrat tasks that are backlogged? WP:RFA looks fine to me, WP:CHU looks fine, too, and so does WP:CHU/U. So, why is there a supposed need for more bureaucrats? -- Conti| ✉ 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention WP:BRFA, but that doesn't have a 'crat backlog either. -- ais523 15:36, 28 February 2008 ( U T C)

Well, I think this is all a response to the ^demon RfA. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal rant: I don't like these "Hey! Go request bureaucratship now, it is open season!" threads. If an administrator does not know when is the best moment to apply for bureaucratship and even needs a push to do so, I don't see him taking the initiative when dealing with controversies. If they didn't know bureaucrats were needed until someone asks for them, they didn't care about bureaucratship enough until someone else asked for them. Sure, you don't reject a blood donor who has arrived because there was a request for them on TV. But will such donors come regularly, or instead wait until the next time they are needed? In this aspect, I would trust Majorly more as a bureaucrat, not because he is an example of Wikipedian (he has had his problems, just like I have had), but because he is apparently the only one who cares enough about bureaucratship. -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There could be some instances where it never crossed their mind, or maybe they were wondering whether they'd have the communities support. I don't think that it's an open season thing, I just think RfBs come in chunks, and seeing other users there who certain users have been working with for a while is inspiring to some. Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is another problem. Piling requests for bureaucratship is another thing I complained about in the past when Essjay left: it reaches a point where you wonder whether a candidate applied because he thinks he is qualified, or just because there is general "feeling" that a new bureaucrat is required and therefore subconsciously he thinks it is the right time (increasing his chances of becoming one), just like when you wait for your mom to be happy to tell her you want to go to a friend's house, or wait until you are ill to tell her you broke a pot ;-) Nobody applies when the discussion is that we have too many bureaucrats, but everyone does when the discussion is that we have too few of them. I just get this "opportunism" feeling, and I don't like it. -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree I like the idea of a few more. The more there are the more everyone can share the work around and more crats can write articles, participate in AfD, FAC, GAN etc. My idea was editors who were able to think in shades of grey (rather than black and white) and had been active in enough areas to really get a feel for what helps the 'pedia progress and what doesn't WRT overall flow, in order to best adjudicate in marginal pass/fails. The editors I had in mind were Bearian, Carcharoth, and possibly DGG though DGG hasn't been an admin too long (?). I mused on nominating myself but recent wiki-mud-wrestling in AfD and the TV episode wars have probably schmeared my reputation somewhat (and possibly justifiably so :) ) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any good ways to guess at a candidate's motivations, so I try to just stick to what I do know about them. On the other hand, having a whole bunch of RfB's at once does make it a little hard to look at each candidate's contribs in the depth that I think is necessary for an RfB. At least for us profoundly lazy editors. delldot on a public computer talk 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger, and I view waiting for someone else to nom as prima facie evidence of laziness and lack of initiative. :) MastCell  ^Talk 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no stance as to whether there should be more bureaucrats or not - but I still want to add my two cents. There have only been three new bureaucrats over the last 12 months. It is outlandish to think that less than thirty of our admins are trustworthy enough for burueacrat tools. That's less than 3%!! My hunch is that editors do not want to put their feet into RfB fire because of the level of scrutiny that takes place. Sure the bar should be high, but <3% of admins?

I don't see there being a crisis involving too much for bureaucrats to do and not enough bureaucrats to do it. Renames seems to get back logged, but I think the bureaucrats who focus on that have it under control. Also, although some bureacrats aren't active, I am sure they all would act on a requests made to them. Still, it may be healthier for our community to have more bureaucrats. Such a tag shouldn't be so exclusive.

I do see there being a future crisis involving too much for admins to do and not enough admins to do it. It feels like admin work is daunting, neverending, and snowballing. We only have 1,000 active admins. That's such a tiny amount. I hope we continue to get more able and willing candidates for RfA.

My 2¢, Kingturtle ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that giving an admin the bureaucrat flag means they would no longer carry out admin actions. I know I would continue to chip away at the admin backlog in the same manner I currently do. I'd just be able to help out in other places, too. Neıl ☎ 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my words are misleading. I am not coupling increased bureaucrat work with decreased admin work. I meant my bit about needing more admins to be a separate argument all together. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're right, we absolutely need more admins. Sorry for misunderstanding. Neıl ☎ 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin, but as a wikignome I barely use the tools. I delete some articles here and there, block vandals here and there, but nothing too spectacular. However, this is typical of me: I am one of those who think adminship is not a big deal, and that people who are confident and haven't had problems in the past should be given an opportunity, even if their tool usage is limited. Bureaucratship is different, I see them as, well, bureaucrats, who should live primarily to deal with, well, bureacratship. Ryan is a very good example, he is a rather weak editor (not in quality, but quantity), but he really likes spending time in these kind of discussions. Same as Majorly. But if an admin wants to apply, I don't reject that. In fact, I think I almost never opposed someone applying for bureaucratship. I prefer giving a neutral with an opinion to let the closing 'crat guess whether it is a useful opinion or not.

I have mentioned it before that I also think the Spanish Wikipedia got it right: every administrator is a bureaucrat. The only visible problem I detect is that, with 1500 bureaucrats, none will get experience enough to deal with controversial requests (considering every admin'crat will want to close at least one in his life.

In my ideal world, anonymous can create pages and have the undo and rollback feature, registered users can delete pages, and administrators can restore deleted content and block and unblock other users. But I don't think I will live to see that :-( -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good News! Plenty of us around already! I never knew I had it in me! Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, me neither. All i've done is grant rollback, but yet that says I'm a 'crat. - MBK ₀₀₄ 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And it must be true! Wikipedia says so !! Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All hail Wikipedia! - MBK ₀₀₄ 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

zOMG! I never remember going through an RfB. Awesome :o And Acalamari is already the second-busiest 'crat. Who knew!! - Alison ^❤ 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All hail Peter, Pedro, the Spaniard. Rudget . 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have very few promotions, but my count is 41 coz I removed rollback from all admins. And clean up after crats, too. Maxim _(talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me a minute while I kill whomever promoted me to bureaucrat. (Nuts. They must want Wikipedia in ruins.) Sean William @ 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Renamed the section. Prodego ^talk 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are RFB really supposed to be this fast? Some of the recent ones were create yesterday and now I can't even find them without looking into my contributions! Wouldn't lack of time cause problems?-- Sunny910910 ^{( talk| Contributions| Guest)} 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They're being withdrawn, not passed. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The editors have withdrawn. They are, by nature, experienced, and know when the request is unlikely to pass even if it has been running for a short time. In that instance they tend to be removed to avoid time wasting/drama/trouble/grief (insert anything else you fancy here!) and that is, as ever, to the credit to the respective candidates. Pedro :  Chat  00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so they have...that's rather...unfortunate. That they would all rush to try and then withdraw just as fast. Well at least they can always go again sometime in the future.-- Sunny910910 ^{( talk| Contributions| Guest)} 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they can. And to re-iterate' I find personally an early withdrawal by the candidate (at RfA and RfB), when they recognise that the request is unlikely to pass at that time. to be respectful to the process and a sign of good judgement. Pedro :  Chat  00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see benefit in letting the nomination run its full course in non- WP:SNOW situations as that that allows for a wider response by the community, and a better understanding for the potentially unsuccessful candidate as to what the community would request of them before they re-stand for nomination. Of course, WP:SNOW situations are different. SOmeone running for an RfA/B with a tally of 2/143/6 on the second day most probably has a good idea of what the community wants at that time :) -- Avi ( talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I had to laugh when I saw your first comment, Sunny. I'm sorry, I just thought it was hilarious. Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This probably is not the best time to mention this, especially with the above talk about what the administrators initiatives are, but, if anyone is still looking for a good candidate for bureaucratship, what about Zzuuzz? I don't know if he would accept, it is just a thought. Maximillion Pegasus ( talk) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support. Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He has been an administrator over a year, not saying that is a requirement, but there are some people who want Rfb candidates to be administrators for a year. Maximillion Pegasus ( talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They're withdrawing because going through RfB sucks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the process "sucks", but it is not necessarily a pleasant experience . I am also using it as constructive criticism as to what the community would require of me (or other participants), and in my case, it seems 80+ RfA/B's and an open essay as to my philosophy for over a year is not enough for some editors, which is their right. I appreciate that those that have opposed have stated specific rationales--that is the only way to find out how to correct any perceived errors. In my personal case, however, I would like more specific feedback to some of my responses so I can better gauge what is required -- Which RxS did do, thankfully, but he is the only one so far. -- Avi ( talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm kinda enjoying it. Then again, I've clearly been identified as a real sucker for punishment. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very quickly becoming one of my heroines. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's easy to defend the process when your first RfB is clearly passing, while EVula has had two unsuccessful ones :) Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Heyy. I didn't mean it to come across that way. It's me being a little tongue-in-cheek, as I see to be so much these days. I enjoy it insofar as it gives me an opportunity to observe this crazy anthill of a community under my personal magnifying glass. All the little interactions, the groups, the back-and-forth of opinions. For me personally? It's stressful and I can't pretend it's not. The process needs fine-tuning. Most processes do. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And it sure ain't "clearly passing". Not close! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is :) And yes it does. Not necessarily in that order. Justin ^(Gmail?) _(u) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's unfortunately at 86% right now. Hopefully the lower limit is lowered to 85% so that it can pass. ;) Nousernamesleft ^{copper, not wood} 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: the above is a joke, based on the "bad timing" discussion below. No part of the comment is serious, except for the parts that are.) Nousernamesleft ^{copper, not wood} 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be bitching about it had my second RfB been more productive. I got some damn solid feedback from my first one, but my second one garnered me some truly mind-boggingly inane criticism (including some not-so-veiled insinuations that I'd promote via an IRC bias, despite the fact that I'm rarely there, and the few times that I am, I'm only talking to other admins). When I'm pretty much slapped across the face like that, yes, I tend to get pissed off. I find it funny that there's some sort of "we need more 'crats!" call when just a few short months ago, one of the contributing factors to my RfB is that we didn't need more. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB do not show up on User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. Is there a separate page for RfBs? I asked User:Tangotango to consider adding RfBs to the report? but I haveb't heard back. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBR. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kingturtle ( talk) 16:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why the report doesn't show the single oppose on The Rambling Man's RfB. Darkspots ( talk) 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe TangoTango got a job with Diebold? ;-) <ducks and runs> -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) more likely the software didn't pick up the oppose correctly due to some formatting issue?

One possibility is that there are two usernames listed in that one opposition. Maybe that is confusing the robot. I've seen the robot confused like that before. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the reports to the top of the page under the RfA reports, however in order to prevent conflicts with the TOC, I had to put in a bunch of <br>s, which I know is probably not the best way to do it. If someone that knows how to do it correctly, I would appreciate it. SorryGuy  Talk  19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I look further into the three templates that we have, the RfA and RfB report for BN and the Tangobot one transcluded here, I am wondering why we even have this third one? Wouldn't just the first two suffice? Also, there are inconsistencies between all three, which isn't a huge deal, I'm willing to fix them, but will wait for response to the above first. SorryGuy  Talk  20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks kind of goofy the way it is now. Useight ( talk) 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that before or after I messed it up? Dloh cierekim 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(conflicted) I think we should just merge the two. Generally, people who like to participate in RFAs would like to see how RFBs would be doing. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having the two tables the way they are looks strange, at least on my screen. Shouldn't the RFB table be aligned on the left? Useight ( talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be left messed up at the bottom? Dloh cierekim 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For usability and style, I do not think putting them at the bottom is a great idea. I think combining to the two into one template is definitely the best option, I am just unsure of how workable it is. At any rate, I am going to leave a not with TangoTango and SQL. Also note that they are currently aligned opposite each other because with each new update SQLBot realigns it to the left. SorryGuy  Talk  04:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

De gustibus non est dispuntandum. I happen to like them just the way they are: at the top and offset. Go figure :) -- Avi ( talk) 04:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, given it seems everyone wants it that way, I've made it so. How's User:SQL/RfX Report grab you guys? If it looks good to everyone, I'll re-target it towards BN. Note: This task is up for approval still at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#SQLBot_4. SQL ^{Query me!} 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems useful to me. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. How controversial would it be to ditch the decimal place? -- Dweller ( talk) 11:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it :) I think, it's a function of the template, I'm not the best at the advanced template functions, someone else designed it... SQL ^{Query me!} 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That got the round, I think. Was easier than I thought it'd be :) SQL ^{Query me!} 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, that's far more readable. I anticipated opposition, along the lines that a bureaucrat should know (e.g.) if an RfA is at 74.9% or 74.0%, but any bureaucrat worth his salt is going to look extremely closely at any marginal figures regardless of decimal places. And if they made definitive consensus decisions based on less than 1% of contributors, they're doing it wrong anyway. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Those reports are mostly for our benefit, I really hope there aren't any crats that use 'em, to decide an RfX's outcome :) SQL ^{Query me!} 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to say align it to the left, but that is being nitpicky. It looks great. Thanks SQL. SorryGuy  Talk  03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I have suggested adding a "float" parameter to the archive template (see Template talk:Archive box#Float parameter) in order to get rid of some of the whitespace on top. It has gotten some comment/concern. If the archive box has to stay right, I'd like the report floated left too, b/c all the whitespace is a td much. -- Avi ( talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Evula, to make the report float left, I think that changing the code on User:SQL/RfX Report to

clear: right;

to

clear: left;

may help, but I am loath to try without SQL's permission. -- Avi ( talk) 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(u) Go ahead and mess with it all ya need to, but, remember that the bot will overwrite it, on the next run... So, if you find something that works, lemme know, I'll implement it at a bot level :) SQL ^{Query me!} 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Look above. Changing the parameter to "clear: left" and putting it after the archive box (and before the {{ clear}} ) allows the archive box to ride up to the right of the report. There has been only one comment, and negative, on my suggestion to allow for user-defined floating via a parameter on the archive box template, so this may be a more immediate solution. -- Avi ( talk) 05:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana ( talk · contribs)'s RfB is in the hands of the Bureaucrats, and has been tagged as "On Hold" pending a decision. I saw that it had fallen off the RfB report and thought it had been withdrawn or some silliness - gave me a go, no question. With the discussion on RfB Reporting, I thought I'd note the fact here. Good luck Riana, BTW - UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)