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)
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)
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頭 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)
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.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.
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)
Nah, RfA is the initiation process everyone has to go through, though it doesn't give you certainty that you will be iniciated. → Call meHahc21 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)
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, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 07:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)