Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

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 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 19:15:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Zzzzzz

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.

---

Once again it's too quiet here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Shhhhhhhh. Some people are trying to sleep you know. Tsk. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

:(—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go for it Cyberpower? Yasht101 23:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Cyberpower678 should run at this time. 65.40.155.250 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Although I wish to run an RfA sometime, I can garauntee that mine will certainly get killed quickly. In other words, I don't feel the community trusts me with the tools at this time.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite indeed. It is quite quiet here, makes me quite tired of all this quiet. --MuZemike 23:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Try nominating someone. User:Steven_Zhang for example. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct about quite quiet though quite quiet is not quiet boring. It is quite fruitless talking about how quiet it has become. A discussion about quite quiet situation will always be quite boring though this quietness is quite strange. Yasht101 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just a hunch - but there's probably a few folks active out there somewhere. :-) — Ched :  ?  23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This has no connection with this but Pedro and Ched have almost similar signs. I was really confused. One of you should consider changing it as it can be a G12 Yasht101 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one copied off of the other and made sight modifications to link it to their user page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did the same thing few months ago and 7 article created by me were deleted under G12 (I was a very bad newbie and editors enjoyed biting me and even I do now) Yasht101 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. biting newcomers is discouraged.--Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody can copy my signature and its functionality. It transcludes from 4 different pages. :D—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just kidding. I bite them while patrolling new pages (by only posting the sad news about their article to be deleted in future)

Cyberpower, I seem to recall one user imitating your signature on April Fools Day, maybe you should sue them? :P--Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It never had the functionality that my signature has right now. It's a fully automated signature that indicates my online status. My online status changes automatically where I can override if I chose to. You can see my status changer here where the current setting is set here. The signatures adjusts according to the holiday or season with a schedule that knows all the Easter days up to 2020. You can see the scheduler here. It determines which signature to use (the main one is this). All of that information is then sent to User:Cyberpower678/Signature where my signature is then substituted from.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off-topic, please take this to user talk pages or elsewhere. The Helpful One 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes! I am an eye-vitness of that craziness Yasht101 00:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been much more horrible off-topic talks here! Yasht101 00:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that there should be... The Helpful One 00:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree... Now we should go back to quite quiet Yasht101 00:28, 13 April 2012 (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.

Reform RFA suggestion

Maybe RFA could be reformed into a selection process where adminiship is granted unless there are really good reasons that it shouldn't be? If you're generally a good editor, have a good history of warnings, good history of tagging files for deletion, etc you'd be granted adminship unless someone can prove you'd be untrustworthy due to bad behavior? That surely would increase the number of successful adminships. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea because just like an RfA they will come up with reasons to not grant one adminship so your suggestion wouldn't work. Now let us go back to sleep.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

By good reasons I mean things like vandalism and dramamongering and such. If a person is free from those sorts of disruptive things then they should be given adminship. That was in keeping with the original description for selection an admin by Jimbo at WP:NOBIGDEAL. Isn't that the policy anyhow? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PEREN#Adminship PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That was back then when Wikipedia wasn't as complex as it today. Potential admins today need to have a lot more skill and experience here as well as be able to demonstrate the shit load of policies we have here. They need to be able to demonstrate good judgement by participating in back stage discussion such as MfD and perform accurate closures. This stuff didn't didn't exist back then which is why adminship is to get back then. Adminship gets harder and harder and harder every year as the bar always gets set higher.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you re-read your original proposal from a different perspective, you'll see that what you propose is exactly the way RfA currently works. Candidates pass if they have a good history, and they fail if someone can prove they'd be untrustworthy due to bad behavior. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing Scotty.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the way the IP may have been meaning it is that it should be more of an automatic process. In other words, no need for nomination and all the questioning. However that would not be allowed, it would be more damaging to the encyclopedia than good.--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean that someone who applies for adminship should be granted the bit unless there is a majority vote not to accept them. Questions would be included but it would be a much friendlier environment, not the CIA-level examination that it currently is. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But it has to be like that, it's to determine how the editor would react in certain situations and to get their views on how they would handle Wikipedia's policies--5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the community needs to trust the user in question, not just some of them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the process itself that's out-of-line; the process is actually very efficient. What's out-of-line is the way that people interpret the candidate's edits. People often pick one small error in a candidate who's well qualified, and they oppose over that small error. These "nitpick opposes", as I call them, often lead to a pile-on that causes the RfA to fail when it otherwise would've passed. Granted, not all people are like this; there are many that oppose for perfectly justifiable reasons. But there are also many who like to nitpick, and it'd be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop this nitpicking from occurring. There needs to be reform, yes, but it's not going to be as easy as changing the RfA process. Don't get me wrong; I respect you for wanting to help. But changing the RfA process isn't what needs to be done. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not who easily opposes a candidate. There was even a time where I wrote a big bold statement in the oppose section to all the opposers stating how ridiculous their opposes are.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)