Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Past recall requests; November 2006; April 2007;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:11, 20 July 2007

This category was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This category was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

"Re-confirmation". What's that?

Idiot alert. I'm not sure I entirely understand what is meant by 're-confirmation'. Does this mean that some existing admins want to be 're-confirmed' that they are admins, or does it mean there are users who used to be admins that want ot be re-confirmed that they are admins? I don't get it.
I believe this could be made clearer in the article. What do you think? Rfwoolf 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, too. If it means running an RFA to see if there's consensus to keep a current admin, I don't think the bureaucrats would agree to it. They've traditionally been cool towards official participation in processes related to this category as long as it's voluntary (and not policy).--Kchase T 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone in this category could always resign their adminship (by request to a Steward) and then re-apply. -- SCZenz 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet promotion requests and RFAs aren't the only way to regain adminship status. There's also ArbCom. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy renaming

Following a request for speedy renaming, this category is now Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall, and the original Category:Administrators open to recall has been deleted. As a result, its edit history is no longer publically available, and there are over 350 broken links. If the new name is to be retained, could we {{category redirect}} the old page and restore its history? Tim Smith 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any objections. Alternatively, I'd be happy to just fix those links (the two double redirects have already been taken care of, which leaves us with 359 instances). A lot of those are talk and user talk pages though. --S ^up? 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just crunched the numbers: out of those 359 redlinks, 111 are not on talk pages. Out of those 111, 45 are archived RfAs/BfAs/RfCs/etc. so there aren't really that many articles to fix. I also went ahead and fixed the broken links on some of the more high-profile pages (WP:FIRED, WP:MOP) which leaves less than two dozen userpages (plus all the aforementioned user talk pages) with redlinks. --S ^up? 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, S. Fixing all the links would be great, though there's still the matter of restoring the edit history. Also, Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall might actually be better as Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. The former suggests Wikipedians who are administrators of any kind, while the latter would denote administrators of Wikipedia specifically, in line with Category:Wikipedia administrators. Tim Smith 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either suggests anything, it's just a matter of personal preference. I was thinking of Wikipedian as an adjective, as in "British administrators." Feel free to change it if you want, the idea was simply to make it clear that this is a Wikipedia-specific category, and I think either works. Dmcdevit·t 04:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks to WJBscribe for redirecting the old page and Xdamr for restoring its history. Now at least the 340+ links to Category:Administrators open to recall are no longer red. Tim Smith 03:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just for the record, I originally fixed the links on a few pages but obviously left archived XfAs and talk pages alone. That's most likely where the discrepancy comes from. -- S ^up? 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be renamed like this, it belongs at "Wikipedia administrators open to recall", not this "Wikipedian" nonsense. They are administrators of Wikipedia; not administrators in general who happen to be "Wikipedians". For example, people who are Wikinews administrators but not Wikipedia administrators who nevertheless edit Wikipedia and call themselves "Wikipedians" would fall under the category as it is currently named. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedian seems not as good as Wikipedia. We are all Wikipedians and may be admins elsewhere. Did the category history get merged? ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:100??

It appears that there are now 100 admins that are members of this category. Interesting if not particularly relevant statistic (it shows 101 but there is a double count for one admin. There may be more than one but I tend to watch for that, and did not spot another. Please check my work!), except that it does show wide (if minority) acceptance, I think something like 7-8% of all admins are in it, and I'd venture to guess that is a larger fraction when only considering "active admins" and "active members". FWIW I do not know who was the 100th admin to join. That's a hard thing to determine, I think. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is 98 after I removed myself as I been having some complains over deleting some articles in AFD and CSD and I don't want to be recalled over that. Several other users removed themselfs as well. I still strongly support recall though, but there is a few things that needs to be changed before I add myself again. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 == [[WP:100]]?? ==
 It appears that there are now 100 admins that are members of this category. Interesting if not particularly relevant statistic (it shows 101 but there is a double count for one admin. There may be more than one but I tend to watch for that, and did not spot another. Please check my work!), except that it does show wide (if minority) acceptance, I think something like 7-8% of all admins are in it, and I'd venture to guess that is a larger fraction when only considering "active admins" and "active members". FWIW I do not know who was the 100th admin to join. That's a hard thing to determine, I think. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
+Now there is 98 after I removed myself as I been having some complains over deleting some articles in AFD and CSD and I don't want to be recalled over that. Several other users removed themselfs as well. I still strongly support recall though, but there is a few things that needs to be changed before I add myself again. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 23:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)