Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Village pump (RfA))
Jump to: navigation, search
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 16:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline

Latest RfXs update
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
harrybrowne1986 RfA WP:NOTNOW 17 Apr 2014 0 5 0
Randykitty RfA Successful 17 Apr 2014 85 3 0
Nhajivandi RfA WP:NOTNOW 14 Apr 2014 1 19 1
Little Mountain 5 RfA Successful 13 Apr 2014 97 0 1
TheGeneralUser RfA Withdrawn 3 Apr 2014 19 17 6
Cyphoidbomb RfA No consensus 29 Mar 2014 46 23 3
FreeRangeFrog RfA Successful 27 Mar 2014 106 1 1

Current time: 08:32:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Purge this page

Other Wiki's Bureaucratship[edit]

Hello all,

I was wondering if here is the proper place to ask for bureaucratship for CKB Wiki? I want to ask for bureaucratship rights for CKB wiki, so do I need to create the request page here or in CKB wiki?

Best, Broosk (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

ckb is too small for local bureaucrats right now, but stewards can handle anything that needs a bureaucrat. If you want temporary adminship, you can request it at ckb:ویکیپیدیا:داواکردنی مافی بەڕێوبەرایەتی, and then file a request at m:SRP one week later for a steward to grant the right. --Rschen7754 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I actually read somewhere on Wikimedia that small communities does not require Bureaucrats, but when it will be the proper time to have bureaucrats?

Thanks for your help. --Broosk (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At least 15 established users supporting the request, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 23:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WOWIndian RfA[edit]

I noticed this RfA, which seems to have been transcluded incorrectly WOWIndian RfA. Could somebody please investigate? JMHamo (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe they've been talked out of running, so best to just leave it. Writ Keeper  17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I just didn't see it listed as "NOTNOW or SNOW" in the latest RfXs table, so that's why I mentioned it up here... JMHamo (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

JonaQwer RFA[edit]

On a similar note I just patrolled Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JonaQwer and commented and transcluded it, but on seconds thoughts maybe this wasn't the right thing to do? It looks like I stuck my nose into a process I know nothing about so if someone could please correct me if if I've blundered that'd be grand. benzband (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's probably not a good idea to transclude an RfA for someone else unless they want you to. I think someone could safely close that one as SNOW/NOTNOW. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be closed because it never should have been live ... all !votes should be struck. We have no knowledge if this was ever planned to go "live" DP 21:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
True. At any rate, someone should do something to make it clear that it's not still open. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why in God's name would you transclude it without being asked to? That's the biggest disservice you could ever do to an editor DP 21:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reverted it to the pre-transclusion state. Someone might want to contact this user at their talk page. –xenotalk 21:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the transclusion before you did that, and have attempted to discuss at their talkpage. However, I did notice that they announced on their talkpage that they're running ... DP 21:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It's also announced on their userpage. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x2 Well, given this and this and even this kinda, I kinda think this JonaQwer meant this to be live, regardless of how ill-advised it might've been. Writ Keeper  21:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    Still, I'd prefer to 1) let them either figure out the problem and how to transclude it themselves or 2) let it sit, untranscluded in obscurity, rather than us helping give them a shove off the cliff. That being said, I know benzband was just trying to help. –xenotalk 21:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, disservice or not I'm sure this was done with the best of intentions. And if an editor cannot figure out how to transclude an RfA, they're probably not ready yet to attempt a candidacy. -- Atama 19:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Disservice or not, he sent me a whale for my sincere attempts to prevent him from making an ass of himself. DP 20:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Just goes to show you, no good deed goes unpunished. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well thankyou kind editors and I am sorry for the bother I caused. (Also @DP: if anyone deserves a whale it is myself...! ;) benzband (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm...the real drama may have just begun! DP 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have thought about it and will come back for over a year or so with 2000 edits (atleast). Thanks for the people who supported me and, well, thanks for the people who gave me some... tips. JonaQwer (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Replace RfA with paid upgrade[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many sites nowadays are requiring payment for premium access, and Wikipedia should be no different. Therefore, I propose that the existing RfA process be replaced with a simpler system where users can make a donation to the foundation to upgrade their accounts to be admins, with no discrimination towards newer editors. There are no downsides that I can see: this would get rid of the broken RfA process as well as raise funds for the WMF. Thoughts? ~huesatlum 04:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How much $$ are we talking? — Status (talk · contribs) 04:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah, RfA is the initiation process everyone has to go through, though it doesn't give you certainty that you will be iniciated. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Great idea! I can only see one problem. Given the current discussion on paid editing, it is very important that the whole process be kept super secret. I am happy to take charge of an anonymous Paypal account where users can send as much money as they like with the promise that they can be an admin. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 04:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Shut up and take my money! ansh666 04:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Shut up, I don't have any money. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In-Wiki Payments[edit]

In addition to the above idea, which I fully support, I believe the introduction of in-wiki payments would be a great way to boost income while keeping Wikipedia content top-quality. Proposed additions:

  • Adding an infobox costs $1.50.
  • First file upload is free; each additional file costs $.99 for first megabyte + additional $.50 per extra megabyte.
  • Using styling (bolding, italics, font properties, etc.) will be part of the Wikipedia Glamour Bundle, which can be enabled for one month for $5.00.
  • First 10 articles on a user's watchlist are free; each additional article will cost $.10.
  • Reverting an edit costs $.50.
    • Revoking the three-revert-rule would allow for a steady supply of income as the most conflicted users will never stop reverting each other (at least, until their banks go empty).

By asking users to pay for their contributions, vandalism will be virtually non-existent, quality will be top-notch, and Wikipedia would have a new source of funding. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Love it! ansh666 07:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • B-but, a bully stole my lunch money last week. Well then, I do believe I shall be indefinitely retiring until I can rob a bank get a job. Toodles! ZappaOMati 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
So an average of $2000 per image, going by the usual format cameras use nowadays? sounds fair - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Another money-maker WP could have is a virtual swear jar...every curse word used in a personal attack costs the editor $1. Or would $5 provide more incentive? Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Or a pedantic twit jar. Or something that requires a flat fee of $500 for every wiki-lawyering attempt...Intothatdarkness 21:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd have been wikibankrupt long ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
LOLOL fak u. Dang it, now I'm in debt! ZappaOMati 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New RfA needs closing[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hooperag which is obviously a non-starter (besides being so new, we don't normally want Admins who state they will defy our polices, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Request for Respect of our Religion and our Prophet. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't transcluded, so I would presume it isn't actually open to be closed (if you see what I mean). QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep. –xenotalk 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I left them a note at User talk:Hooperag#RfA. We can see if they reply and what their intentions were. Mkdwtalk 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)