Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfX candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Expires Notes No nominations since 08:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Current time: 09:02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions, again

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can we all agree that the practice of a user asking the same questions of every RfA candidate should be strongly discouraged? If a user believes that the list of standard questions needs to be expanded, then that user should obtain a consensus (here) for adding those new questions to the standard RfA template, instead of unilaterally inserting 7 additional identical questions on every RfA. I don't think we need to go so far as to impose a limit on how many questions a user can ask, but asking the same questions at every last RfA is essentially an end run around getting a consensus for extending the standard questions. If I'm over-reacting here, please don't hesitate to let me know, it might just be that this is a pet peeve for me. —SW— ^confabulate 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're over-reacting, I think. It's a practice that has been common from time to time for at least five or six years, and not just common but accepted for much of that time. There may not be consensus to change the standard questions (although that has happened too), but its convention that editors have generally free rein to pose their own additional questions as they like - with exceptions limited to obvious trolling or disruption. Nathan ^T 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the way to get consensus for new standard questions is to ask them oneself, and if others find the answers informative, someone other than the poser of the questions will suggest they be made standard. And otherwise, the asker will eventually get tired and stop posting the Q's. It's a problem that solves itself. Franamax (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave it alone. Thanks for the comments. —SW— ^converse 04:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SNOW closures

I wish to discuss the subject of the rather fast WP:SNOW closures that have become more and more common at RFAs during the years. I think this is something worth discussing, as RFA, in my view, is a process that gives the candidate valuable feedback, and I think we should let only 'crats perform SNOW closures when they see it appropriate. An obviously failing RFA should not be grounds for a fast, non-crat closure. The user can at any time withdraw if they so chooses, it should be their choice whether to withdraw or not, not ours. If bureaucrats feel they should WP:SNOW close a RfA, I got no problems with that, but we should leave this choice to the candidate and the 'crats, in my opinion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I managed to get a crat's opinion on SNOW closures when I last did one (thanks Deskana!) and since then I haven't made another SNOW closure. I'd happily do away with SNOW closures all together. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with Snowolf however, if the RfA gets too ugly that it could possibly drive the candidate away, I would then see it as appropriate to perform a non-'crat closure in an attempt from driving the candidate away from WP.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,233,690) 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants feedback on their editing, Wikipedia:Editor review is thataway, it's not what RFA is for--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Snowolf (ironic name, by the way), are there SNOW closures that you believe were made inappropriately? Please point them out. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you I performed this innapropriately. I believe this RfA would have gone under WP:SNOW as well.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,389,826) 15:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, SNOW closes were fairly rare. The only time we used it was when dealing with an RfA that turned nasty fast and the candidate likely didn't get a chance to close it. But if we were dealing with an established candidate (eg one not eligible for NOTNOW) we let them face the music as they wished.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone that closes it as snow the candidate would be allowed to reverse to let the RfX play through.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,637,564) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Candidates' objections to SNOW closures are redundant. WP:SNOW is simply an invocation of WP:IAR; you're deliberately ignoring process for the "good" of Wikipedia. If it's a probably NOTNOW situation but it's borderline, it's only appropriate to leave it open, if that's what the candidate wants. But if a candidate wants the RfA to run its course but is met with massive, pile-on opposition, it should absolutely be SNOW closed, regardless of the candidate's wishes. There's few things less productive than seven days of trashing an editor. Swarm ^X 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new crats

Per this thread, I just wanted to remind everyone that we are always in need of more crats and that now would be a good time for anyone who feels qualified to toss their name in the hat to help out. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would second that. There are a number of admins around who I believe would make excellent bureaucrats. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree but the standard is too high now and it only those who set high standards themselves for others to follow rather than those who follow others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would toss my name in there but, I'm not even a good candidate for and RfA yet. I suggest User:WilliamH would make a good candidate.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,558,573) 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest User:Moonriddengirl she sets standards which other follow.User: Acalamari who also sets high standards and he had been a candidate several years ago.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell is another great editor that should consider running for Bureaucracy.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,572,077) 17:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I might consider running after a few more months as an admin; IMO, anyone who's handled at least 50 AE threads without any being overturned should automatically become a crat, because that shows they're sufficiently capable of affording the right amount of weight to arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is sincerely a need, I would be happy to help. I have been an admin for some time (though recently back from an extended wikibreak). That said, my understanding is that RfB can be more of a fine toothed comb than RfA. So if any of you would like to go through my edit history, that would be most welcome. (Drop me a note or three at my talk page : ) - jc37 20:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Offered to nominate User: Acalamari and waiting for his response.He is truly one user who meets the high standards needed today.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone listed above should be informed that they were suggested for this. One never knows who might say yes : ) - jc37 20:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that those who proposed would (or i would have myself : ) - But regardless, nice job being on top of things : ) - jc37 22:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You should throw in User:Worm That Turned. This user is no doubt a very hard worker and helps out a lot.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,618,827) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll say neither yes nor no at this moment, but invite wider consideration from the community. Feel free to start a dialogue on my talk page, I'm happy to entertain anyone's thoughts and questions. WilliamH (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are all excellent admins, and I'm rather flattered that some consider me to be in similar standing to a list of admins whom I greatly respect. But I won't be standing at RfB—I've made my fair share of cock-ups and bad calls as an admin, and becoming a 'crat would direct my attention away from where I like to think it is useful and into areas in which I have little interest. I'm much happier just keeping the wheels turning than I would be at the dizzying heights of 'cratship. :)

I we're just tossing names around, though, I'd suggest User:WereSpielChequers, and if pushed, I could probably think of a few more names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. You'd really make a great bureaucrat.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,630,520) 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How about User:Bwilkins? He could possibly run.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,636,501) 00:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. He is a bully.  — Breadbasket 08:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm honoured to be mentioned, and would do so if the community desired. Obviously I am a good admin when the random, unknown editor above (whom I cannot remember having interacted with) drops by simply to call me a bully :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:OrangeMike is a great admin , very good in policy and he sets standards which few can even go near.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A request. It'll be nice if we don't discuss the actual names here but rather wait for the candidates themselves to come forward or be nominated formally. Some editors might feel slighted that their name is being discussed (and rejected in flat statements) without their even having shown any interest. If you're interested in nominating a candidate, do please suggest the same to them. I hope this request isn't taken negatively. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 10:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point, but additionally, cratship isn't simply about giving great administrators more power. If that were the case, I could go on and on with potential crats, and most of the above names would be included. But crats are expected to perform a few specific tasks, and they should ideally have some experience and an interest in working in those areas. And that aside, many great administrators have failed RfBs, some with WP:100 and WP:200 support. Several of our current crats have failed at least one RfB. The last person to request bureaucratship had been an admin for three years, a checkuser for two and a former arbitrator, and the RfB just barely met the threshold. The point is simply that it's not as simple as naming "good admins". Swarm ^X 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Despite the length of time since my last RfB (over four years now!), and the fact I have continued to decline running since that candidacy, I really appreciate and find it a huge honor that my name is still recommended as someone who should run (and I have no problem with me being mentioned here without me being prompted about it first). However, I regret to say that I do have to again decline: without wanting to insult the people who want me to run, at this point in time I feel I am happy with what I currently do as an admin and with what I do in the mainspace (I have some things to do this month that an RfB would distract me from). I am, however, open to changing my mind at a later date, especially if in a few month's time MBisanz is still having to perform a disproportionate amount of renames by himself. Thank you again for this. Acalamari 12:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed this with a few admin colleagues, and had decided not to go for it, on the basis of probably being insufficiently qualified and/or not well-known enough. But may I now take the opportunity offered, and see what comments, be they positive or negative, this posting generated? I appreciate that I could just post an application at RfB; this is a way of dipping my toe in the water before diving in.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to nominate yourself! As you requested for some comments: a brief look at your contributions in the Wikipedia: namespace shows that you've only made one edit at Wikipedia:Changing username (from Feb 2008 - now), and that was only to request a rename of your own account. Whilst you have made 71 edits to WP:UAA (/Bots included), I'm unsure that this will be enough as CHU is a major part of a crat's job, so a lack of clerking CHU could make it more difficult for users to determine your understanding of the username policy. However, you have made 146 edits to WP:RFA related pages - which is the other major part of crat work. This is, of course, just a quick review, so if you do nominate yourself for RFB I (and other users) would take a closer look at those 71 edits at CHU and the 146 edits on RFA. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm absolutely stunned to see my name here, thank you for thinking of me. Having said that, I really don't think I'm the right fit for a crat, I don't touch usernames and have strong opinions on what should be happening to the RfA process. What's more, I doubt I'd be active in the role - I have far more interesting things to do on Wikipedia, like helping new and disruptive editors improve. Finally, I've recently subjected myself to community scrutiny on ArbCom elections, for a role where I felt I could make a difference - I didn't quite meet the grade and certainly didn't enjoy the experience. The last thing I want to do is put myself in the firing line again, in an area which seems to have a much higher bar than RfA, for a tool that's rather over-rated. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)