Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Archives

• Prior to June 2003, requests for adminship were made and discussed on the mailing list.
• For Archives of discussions from June 2003 to the present, please visit Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives.

"Moral support"

I'm not so sure I approve of "Moral Support"s. I know if the candidate is getting billions of oppose votes it can be a stressful time for them... but I feel "Moral Support" is somewhat unneccesary. Perhaps someone could explain their reasoning behind voting "moral support" so I can better understand this? Thank you. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering that myself. The reasons given for a "moral support" are almost universally reasons against them being an admin, so it's really an oppose. It's rather insulting to the candidate, as it says "you're foolish enough to think putting my oppose under support means I think you'd somehow make a better admin". --Tango 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moral support votes should go in the neutral section. Not that the RfA is ever going to come to the point where a Bureaucrat has to look into the votes, but by putting it in the neutral section you are clearly saying to the bureaucrat and the other voters that you do not intend to affect the outcome, but want to leave a nice message to the candidate. NoSeptember ^talk 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, they seem almost condescending. If you're not going to approve a candidate, don't support him or her. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to that. But I think people are trying to do it to be nice. It may not be working, and maybe it's a practice to be discouraged, but that's what it looks like to me anyway. and I thought that neutrals do affect the outcome by increasing the total number of votes? not that this one matters, it's a WP:SNOW already ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, neutrals are not counted... I can understand that people are trying to be nice, but "Moral Support. You're not ready yet" is like "Oppose, you'll be a great admin" in some ways, I think... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's people trying to be nice, but yeh should be discouraged for the possibly condescending reason, and also that you really should only say you support if you support them becoming admin. If you want to be nice just don't join in the pile-on in the oppose section and/or drop a friendly note with some advice on the candidates talk page/in the comments section. Neutral votes generally don't affect the outcome, unless it is very close and the closing 'crat checks for neutrals that look like weak supports or opposes. If they were counted for percentage purposes they would effectively be an oppose (which they are not). Petros471 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has voted "Oppose, you'll be a great admin ..." but never "moral support", let me explain to you why I have voted "oppose" in such way. In each RfA I have responded, I clearly stated (and so has many other voters) "Oppose, you'll be a great admin in the future." This means that the candidate has the potential to be an excellent RfA candidate, but is not ready at this moment. I have never voted "moral support" because I will not say "yes" when I mean "no". In fact, I see that a "moral support" is the opposite of a "kind oppose"; a "moral support" says yes when you mean no; a "kind oppose" says no when you mean no. I hope this clears things up about the intentions of those of us who vote "kind oppose"; we want to tell our true feelings, yet we are mindful of the future, not just the present. (^'-')^ Covington 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Moral support indeed doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's less troubling than the development to which it is usually responding: absurd numbers of people voting oppose. Put it this way: if your vote will be the 25th oppose, and there are less than ten supports, stop and read meta:Don't_be_a_dick before editing the page. Any point you have to make can be better expressed as a comment, or on the nominee's talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be discouraged. From a newbie point of view, moral support is a pat in the back saying "Continue this way and someday...", while an oppose vote is a kick in the belly shouting "Try 'gain when yer bigger, buddy!". Remember WP:BITE. It is not about the truth, but about how to say it. -- ReyBrujo 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It could also be seen as, "You are so not going to be an admin that we need to make you feel good because you aren't able to handle it." That's why Christopher Parham's advice is the best one: if it's going to be a pile-on, don't even edit the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's obvious to a user with ten opposes and no supports that they stand no chance. I have a hard time imagine it being taken as an additional insult; certainly, I wouldn't be insulted if it was me. I've only done one or two, and I agree that too many "moral supports" in a single RfA is silly. Once there are more than three, I would recommend that someone not add one. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 00:38 UTC

So that a votation may end 3-30? Instead of suggesting to stop moral support votes, we may consider Christopher Parham's advice and stop voting negatively if the candidate has little chances of becoming an administrator, as courtesy. Use common sense, don't bite newcomers, don't be a dick, etc, etc, etc. A votation ending 3-10 is the same as one ending 3-45 regarding the final result: rejection. But is it necessary to stomp a newbie that much? I would not vote negatively unless I have a reason to vote. Although I agree users with very low edit count or little time in Wikipedia aren't suitable (yet) for adminship, I would not vote negatively; I let that for others. And if I give a moral support, it is because I consider a 30%-70% result a bordeline, but anything worse for a newbie, a plain lack of respect.

Unless you have over 15,000 edits and get a moral support vote, I don't think anyone would get offended by them. -- ReyBrujo 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'll respond here, since I've dumped about 20 of these out since January... Most of the time I'll give this for someone in a boat such as (0/10/0), just to add a support vote and prevent a shutout. That said, the Moral Support pileon at Foxearth's RfA has been interesting. I voted at (1/7/0), with the one support being the nominator; since then, 6 more have been added on. Now, 7 moral supports is overkill, just like 4 nominators. However, I think a couple is okay, and I've always viewed it from the point of view ReyBrujo brings. Most of my moral supports are for editors I don't know (I only vote on RfA's of editors I've seen around) who are either getting piled on or who I see have no chance of passing (like 200 edits or something)... that said, maybe I should add the "suggest withdrawl" after each and every one? We'll see. I plan on continuing strings of moral supports when opposition gets out of hand. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that a Support vote means that you support the candidate's adminship. I have a feeling that were Support/Oppose called Accept Request/Decline Request originally, then we wouldn't have any of this "moral support" business... I do actually feel really strongly that it should be discouraged. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Accept/Decline will most definitely get me to stop, because a large number x opposes is quite awful to see. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally dislike "moral support" votes, as it makes my job more difficult; I have a standard of 4-1 opposition before I will close an RfA early (which is what needs to be done with a nomination that is failing so badly as to need moral support), and "moral support" makes it difficult to achive that standard. I have finally settled on the position that "moral support" votes are not support votes at all (if forced to say "Yes, I believe this individual should be promoted" (the definition of a support vote), I do not believe any of the "moral supporters" would do so), and I ignore them when making a decision to close early. I'd prefer users to trust the bureaucrat staff to close out these nominations in a timely manner, and to avoid making the decision to close early more difficult for the bureaucrat who draws the unpleasant task of doing so, nor for the unfortunate user who has to watch people expressing thier pity. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more practical method of showing moral support to a candidate would be to leave a message on their talk page instead of the RfA. That way, he or she is more likely to read it (in case they pass it over once noticing that their RfA is doomed), they're not misleading to the candidates/closing admins/other users, the "morally supportive" user could still cast the appropriate vote, and they could pave the way to later discussion and suggestions on how the nominee could improve. Speaking personally, if I were in a failing RfA, I would prefer someone voted according to how they predicted my capabilities as a future admin, and then came to my talk page to drop a few suggestions that I could work with if they thought I needed some work. More productive, still supportive, less misleading. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I only vote Moral Support when I believe that the candidate would be a good admin (i.e. fits my personal criteria), but he already gathered so many oppose votes that he has snowball's chance to get promoted. I don't see any problem with people supporting obviously failing candidates, because it doesn't affect the result in any way.  Grue  07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just vote "support" then? --Tango 13:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about moral support, but I will vote support when people are piling on 50 oppose votes to some guy who I think meant well in nominating himself for admin. I just don't get the need to keep making oppose votes way after it's clear the RfA will never pass... --W.marsh 13:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well on reading Essjay's comment I might stop the practice, but I think we need something to change to help out people who unknowingly nominate themselves when they have no chance. It must be a pretty discouraging experience to have 20 people tell you your faults in rapid succession. --W.marsh 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to remove the RfA, and leave a comment on their talk page. Someone did this to me (helpfully!) but strangely, changed their mind and added it back again! "Moral supports" corrupt the system - support votes are indications that you want the person to be an admin. They should not be used for any other purpose. Stevage 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know how much trouble I'm going to get when I vote moral oppose one of these days... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally find moral supports to be very condescending, though I don't fault anyone who does it to spare someone's feelings. I will vote oppose on RfAs only if it's not a pileon vote, but of course, not everyone does that. To address concerns about RfA candidates' feelings (which I don't think should be a priority anyway, since anyone submitting to the RfA process should be prepared to be criticised anyway), I think a general rule of thumb would suffice, just something we can fit in the back of our minds as common sense without setting any actual rules.

"Avoid voting oppose in an RfA if (# of oppose votes) - (# of support votes) > 10 and (# of total votes) > 20."

Note, this is not a hard-and-fast rule, and therefore doesn't count as the dreaded m:instruction creep. Or, to avoid actual numbers, a better rule of thumb is

"Avoid voting oppose in an RfA if there are a large number of oppose votes and a small number of support votes."

I'm not trying to add rules, just trying to think about what to do for common sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean total votes more than 20. I would suggest using a %age for the first condition, since that's what actually matters for the final decision. If %age support is less than 10%, say. All of this can't be more than a personal rule of thumb. Anything even vaguely official would have to say "close the RfA early if..." rather than "don't vote if...", since discourgaging people from voting should be avoided in anything that even looks official. --Tango 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(woops, corrected) I don't know if I want a definite number. To be honest, I'd be much more comfortable with the second version, and even then, this would be a general rule of thumb, guideline, or "common sense" thing that I wouldn't want to have in policy. Oh, and "avoid voting" is less set in stone than "don't vote if", IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could use a guideline, but it would be more to remind people of what RfA really is. Support only if you believe that the user should be promoted. Oppose if you really believe that the user shouldn't be promoted. And, which I found rather interesting, to avoid unnecessary pileons, in the spirit of WP:SENSE, WP:BITE and WP:DICK, consider abstaining if you would oppose but the RfA has already reached a point where there are no realistic hopes for a pass. Personally, I find it unnecessary to add adjectives to a "vote" (as in "super support", or "strong oppose"); we can praise or critique the candidate in the rationale, which is what a RfA participation should be: rationale + signature. It makes no difference if the oppose is "strong" or "weak" in terms of having the adjective in bold up there. If we were to follow that, then instead of writing "moral support", a user would write a rationale explaining that (s)he is supporting even though (s)he doesn't believes that the user should be promoted, because (s)he thinks that the candidate should get at least one support in his/her RfA. The closing Bureaucrat would have no difficulties in considering the merit of such a "vote". If the reason given to support is valid, however, such as: "moral support because I believe the user should be promoted but I can see that it's not going to happen in this RfA, but I'll support anyway", then it would likewise be clear that the "vote" is valid and should stand in determining consensus for promotion. Redux 21:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Strong and Weak votes are good. They are closer to what RfA should be - about gather concensus. It shouldn't just be a matter of counting votes. When the vote is within the 5% range of Buro's descretion, I would hope they use the adjectives before votes to help them decide - if most of one side is weak and most of the other side is strong, it's easy to see which should win. (Of course, care is needed when interpretting Strong votes, as they could just be an attempt to make your opinion more important than other people's rather than a genuinely strong support). --Tango 10:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's why I said participation in a RfA should [ideally] consist of rationale + signature. The validity or the weigh carried by a user's support/opposition should be determined by his/her argumentation, not by writing the words "support" or "oppose", with or without adjectives. And then, for the same reasons why it is unnecessary to pile on opposition in a RfA that is already certain to fail, and why we should avoid the "moral support", it seems to me also unnecessary to write in bold "strong oppose": one can write a rationale that conveys the problems perceived with the candidate, in a polite, nonconfrontational manner, and that should be evidence enough to indicate that the opposition is based on serious reasons. This would also help ending the confusion regarding the "vote or not vote" [non-]issue. Redux 15:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA Summaries

Should my RFA summaries be:

1. Moved to Wikipedia space and/or
2. Mentioned on the main RFA page?

Dragons flight 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Either and/or both, as it is dynamically generated would it be better suited to not be in wpspace for any reason? I have it watchlisted myself, and find it a very useful tool. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the raw data should remain in userspace, and then be transcluded into one or more WP space pages (which can have additional things added as preferred). I don't like WP:RFASUM because of the ugly shortcut link for example, so I can choose to look at your userspace page. I think it would be fine to mention it on WP:RFA also (my personal opinion, it depends on community consensus) NoSeptember <font color = "green">^talk 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best placed as per NoSeptember, as a transclusion from userspace, but not on the current page. It should be a subpage of RfA, perhaps at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Summary (which could have the shortcut WP:RfA/S). —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 00:34 UTC

Agree with Cuivienen, transclude onto a subpage of WP:RFA. It is a useful way of quickly checking which way the discussions are going. Kimchi.sg 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One factor to consider is that to see updates on one's watchlist, one needs to be watching the primary page that the script writes to. Watching a page that merely transcludes the data will not result in an edit appearing on one's watchlist. Hence if we direct people to a WP:RFA/S (or whatever) that transcludes userspace data, they may be surprised if the updates are not actually reflected on their watchlist. Dragons flight 01:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it not the case that the edit summaries that update the page are always the same anyway? So it's not like the edit summaries on your watchlist would be informative. I asked you about that on your talk page once. As long as the edit summaries don't say anything, doesn't really matter about the transclusion, does it? -lethe ^{talk +} 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summaries are always the same (for the forseeable future anyway), but having it appear on one's watchlist is a reminder to check for new noms, etc. Dragons flight 01:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think people should be encouraged to watchlist RfA itself rather than a support page. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 01:42 UTC

Well, as a new bureaucrat I find your RfA summary page (your others too by the way) to be one of the best things since sliced bread, Dragons flight. Very easy way to keep track of closing times and which ones need more checking into as an addition to reading the full pages of course. I think it would be a good idea to move to an RFA subpage if you're willing to move it out of your userspace and give it to the community. I actually don't like something popping up on my watchlist that often so I just like a shortcut to type in when I want to monitor it, but both are good for different people. Thanks for putting the work into creating and tweaking them. I like User:Cuivienen's even shorter shortcut idea too. - Taxman ^Talk 02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One little request: if the current page is also going to be kept, could the new page have the heading text enclosed in <noinclude> tags? It's slightly more appealing that way. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Contributions analysis

My edit count tool for history pages now looks at a whole crapload of things[1]. I am already starting to get editcountitis. That "significant article edits" number is soo harsh on almost everyone :)!Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA that fell through the cracks?

I just came across this RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mcphysical. It was created six and a half days ago, but never listed on the main RFA page. Obviously it's not going to succeed (the user in question has only four edits to the article namespace) but I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for handling things like this. Should it just be closed at the end of its run? —David Wahler (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tagged it with the headers, figured I'd save a 'crat the job seeing as it was never listed properly and the note of it being a sockpuppet on its userpage, I'm just not sure if I should straight out delete it -- Tawker 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As the user is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet, and the RFA had only 1 vote, I have taken the liberty of deleting it. I see no point in keeping a disruptive user's litter around once they have been banned. Dragons flight 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this was fine because it was a banned user. Tagging it as failed was not correct. This was never an active RfA, and did not fail. Until an RfA is accepted and transcluded by the nominee or nominator, we should leave these RfAs alone. They are "Draft" RfAs. People can create a draft and work on it as they wish. Many people have draft RfAs sitting out there for weeks or months before they decide to accept. We should not be jumping in to add an RfA we find to WP:RfA without their consent (or casting a vote) or anything else. Just leave the draft RfAs alone, or contact the user to ask them about it. (Related discussion) NoSeptember ^talk 11:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My RfA nomination page sat for around 2 weeks while I worked on it. (hey, it takes time to come up with those longwinded answers!) I have a nomination out there with a draft RfA which is likely going to sit for over a month. It's not failed because it hasn't started yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I encourage users not to use the Wikipedia: namespace as a drafting space; [[User:YourNameHere/RfA]] works just as well, and doesn't have the problem of gathering invalid votes and potentially causing problems (need I mention CSCWEM2 and the oppose votes that showed up on CSCWEM3 because of it...). Either copy/paste, subst: or move it to the right page when you're ready for it to start; don't create problems for yourself or others by putting it in the Wikipedia: space before it is ready. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Users should use userspace. Unfortunately most of these draft RfAs seem to be created by someone who wants to nominate a friend and they get created without the immediate knowledge of the nominee, and neither the nominator nor nominee knows better than to leave it in WP space. So it still falls upon us RfA regulars to not transclude these draft RfAs without talking to the users first. If we find one of these that is not ready for use soon, we should tell the user to move it into userspace. NoSeptember ^talk 09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, excellent points. But the guides don't say that now. Perhaps a quick add to say after you use the automation to create your page, (as outlined here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate the page created is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME) do a quick move to your userspace??? or change the automation a bit to create it in userspace??? I dunno, but if the automation creates things a certain way, and the docs around it don't suggest doing it differently, we can't fault people for going with it that way, can we? IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Where can I get the record on an old RfA??

I am curious abut a specific, approved RfA, and I would like to do further research. Alas, I am unable to figure out how to locate this user's RfA. Where are the RfA archives held?? Thanks, Madman 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YOUR NAME HERE should work unless someone's been doing something odd. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  If the RfA was successful, you might be able to locate it on the list at Wikipedia:Recently created admins. Redux 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  And if you don't want to have to scan the chronologically listed Wikipedia:Recently created admins, you can first look up their adminship date at List of Administrators (with service dates). NoSeptember ^talk 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  And if it wasn't, try Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• An even easier option is to Google! Just type "adminship YOURNAME" and Google will do the rest for you. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple nominators? Poor form or no big deal?

Now that my RfA is over, I don't feel it's improper to bring this up any more, unlike during. As many of you know, I had several nominators, 4 to be exact. (and a lot more that wanted to nom me... I could have had a dozen noms easily if I had let everyone that wanted to co-nom do so) Obviously, I didn't think it was too big a deal or I would have demurred and went with just one. But clearly some other folks did not agree. Some reasons given included it being indecorous, or worse, that it might lead me to believe I was slightly more invincible than someone that had just one. I'm interested in general thoughts... Is this really thought of so badly by so many that it ought to be a tip (optinonal of course) in a guide not to do? Thanks! Do multiple noms mean you feel more invincible? I certainly don't! ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? NBD. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think to most people it would be no big deal (within reason). But it is not what most people think that matters in the case of a potentially close nomination. If it bothers some editors enough that they will cast an oppose vote, then you should avoid doing it in order to avoid bothering those people. Sort of like the way the early votes on CSCWEM-2 brought about a number of oppose votes and a lot of upset. So, use multiple nominators at your own risk ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen multiple noms before, so it seems a bit like instruction creep to put a guideline in (not to mention WP:BEANS for other people!). Ziggurat 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember: I would ask, is it appropriate to do things because of how they might influence close outcomes? It seems to me that one ought to do what one thinks is right. (I was cautioned against being wordy in answering questions, but I did it anyway). To do otherwise doesn't seem quite true to one's self. I know you weren't suggesting that per se but it's good to make clear. Also, Ziggurat, I wasn't suggesting a guideline so much as a "tip" so people could then decide for themselves ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that doing things because of how they might influence close outcomes is inconsistent with doing what is right. What does the having of multiple nominators have to do with right or wrong? It's only about appearances. An overabundance of nominators could be seen as an attempt to steamroll opposition, just as the early votes for CSCWEM were seen that way by some. We should be voting on you, not on the size of your nomination cabal ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a nuance there, sorry if I'm not being very clear, but I do think that doing things (merely) because of how they might influence outcomes IS wrong. at least at one level, because it smacks of being political. Politics is inescapable in any situation with more than one person, of course, but I'd rather see stuff judged on merit as far as possible. I suppose that if you had two choices that were exactly equal except for how they influenced outcomes, choosing the one that influenced the outcome in the direction you wanted might be ok, but choices never are exactly equal. I think it fairly clear that my weight on what other people think compared to other factors is very low. I try to do what I think is right, regardless of appearances. At least I'd like to think that's what I do, but who knows for sure? Hope that helps add clarity rather than subtract it. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't merely about affecting the outcome, it's about respecting the opinions of those who may think that too many nominators is an attempt to steamroll the community. I don't see that as being political. NoSeptember ^talk 14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I'm trying to get to. So is it true that multiple conoms is perceived as steamrollering, as is multiple pre-public votes (that's why I struck those) but having a boatload of people turn out quickly to support isn't? I honestly don't know. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you really didn't care about affecting the outcome but just doing what is right, wouldn't you have started this topic before your RfA was concluded? ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, good question. I don't know! Maybe I should have. But it felt to me like I would have been trying to cock things more by not waiting than by waiting. Interesting thread even if no clear 100% unanimous consensus emerges. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with multiple noms but please try not to make half of the RfA page filled with noms. Ok ok, if I opposed it I'd be a hypocrite as I "stole" Mindspillage's nomination as she was talking and talking and talking and I finally gave up and nominated. -- Tawker 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I too have no problems with multiple noms. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tawker did you see the length of my question answers? There was NO DANGER of the noms taking up half the page, trust me! Smile. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a peculiar thing to do but it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for multiple noms - anyone can add lengthy comments to their support vote, so why not just put it there? That said, I don't think it does any harm, within reason. --Tango 12:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problems with multiple noms.... but keep the extolments short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a big deal within reason, but I'd perfer to just have one nominator (who ever created the rfa), with anyone else that wanted to nom voting support (with a comment to that effect if they want) when open for discussion. Having too many co-noms before the rfa is open could be seen as similar to having support votes too early, which should be discouraged. It's not a major issue, so long as one of the comments are short (nom or support), or otherwise the same person opinion would appear twice, which might easily be missed. MartinRe 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think multiple noms can be useful, especially if the co-noms don't just say "he's a great guy, I co-nominate", but add to the information in the nomination statement by mentioning other good sides of the candidate. More than three nominators are probably useless, because it is hard to come up with any new information unless the first couple nomination statements are substandard. But no big deal anyway. Kusma (討論) 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Three out of four of my noms I think added significant information the others did not contain but I do agree one didn't add much, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

4th one was just a joke, frankly. I think it was verging on poor form because with that many noms it looks like a "fait accompli" and/or some IRC admin cartel trying to push the promotion of their buddy. I privately urged you not to allow multiple noms and decided not to co-nom myself for this reason. All that said, I know you'll be a good admin - even if you do sometimes bite my head off :P - and we got the right result. It ended up as "no big deal". --kingboyk 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think it ended up being no big deal here, but it could have been. Other people have drawn analogies to the CSCWEM case, so I won't belabor the point. I loathe the (appearance of) "IRC cabal" behavior in RfA, so it may have made me less likely to vote support; I'm not sure I'd have opposed for it, since that's voting on the behavior of your nominators, not the candidate. If it becomes more common, it may become an influencing factor in RfAs, and therefore I think it should be discouraged as mentioned above. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Stats question

This is minor, no pun intended...but I programmed by edit summary tool to mark any edit it though was minor as minor, in addition to ones the user marked. The problem is that for edit summary use, do only look at the ratios of based on what the user marked as minor or not, or do I look at all edits that likely where minor as minor (even if it was not marked by the user)? I can program it either way, but I can't decide what to do. Right now, it counts edits it sees as minor as minor for edit summaries.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all totally arbitrary, but what people probably expect "minor" to mean is when they tick the "minor" flag. If you want to have some other meaning, use a different term lik "significant edits" or something. Stevage 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can it do both? I.e., show both minor edits and "non-significant" edits (minor edits according to your tool's algorithm). Although I like the idea of the tool considering edits not marked minor for insignificance, I agree with Steveage that calling these "minor" will probably confuse some people. Kimchi.sg 09:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the tool determine significance? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting adjectives - question about/for b'crats

Do b'crats take into account the adjectives people use to support/oppose? Obviously I don't mean the joke ones ("support on wheels" and so on) but "weak support", "weak oppose", "weakest oppose possible"? Or even "strong support" and "strong oppose"? It would probably be silly to be give people double their say just by letting them add "strong" to their vote, but in RfAs where a lot of people cast "very weak oppose" votes, do those get taken into account, or do they count as full votes anyway? --W.marsh 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would consider more the strength of the additional comments and reasoning than just the adjectives used, but if there are lots of strong supports and most of the opposes say weak oppose, that would be one thing that would tend to tip the nom towards promotion. Bare oppose votes without reasoning are harder to take into full account. Solid reasoning is much more helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If it comes within our discretionary range, I would weigh in each oppose vote and its corresponding reason carefully. I believe that adminship is about judgement and oppose votes which are downright silly will not be given due weightage. For such opposes and those votes that say weak oppose I won't negate 4 support votes, I'll negate less. I've clearly outlined this during my RFB. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Crap, I should have opposed that, you're using numeric standards! *sigh* :-( (not your fault, but running anything on a wiki in that manner is known to Not Fly in the long term :-( ). Maybe the discussion below can bring further insights. Kim Bruning 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Amgine

This one closed with no consensus. It did numerically seem to be at the low end of the range but I have to say I was hoping this would have come out as a promote. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• This was discussed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Amgine.27s_RfA_more_time_to_come_to_consensus. --Durin 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pointer, Durin. I retain my "hoping" sentiment but that's a very good read, lots of profound thoughtfulness there, and I think that my "hope" aside, they did the right thing... as usual. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • He got nowhere near enough community support, so it was absolutely the right closure to my mind. If the Foundation want to give him the sysop bit anyway that's fine but as was commented on at WP:BN they can't expect our bureaucrats to fudge the closure of a debate for them. So, top marks there I think. --kingboyk 14:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "Nowhere near" ? We're talking about a few percentage points, certainly well less than 10%, of difference here. Top marks though, agreed. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        • 80% is a 4 to 1 ratio, 75% is a 3 to 1 ratio, 71% is less than a 2.5 to 1. That's a big difference. NoSeptember ^talk 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        • 71% with 33 opposes and 7 neutrals. I don't think that's anywhere near enough - but I'm not a beauraucrat (nor do I want to be one :)). --kingboyk 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
        • The RfA closed at 76-33-7. That's 69.7%. To get to 75%, there would have had to have been another 23 support votes without any additional oppose votes. That's quite a bit. --Durin 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Or a just a few opposes switched to supports somehow ("votes" do change... and changing one oppose to a support is a far larger impact than garnering another support.). But ya, the leverage effect as the percentage climbs does impose an increasingly steep barrier. Good points all... ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After my compromise suggestion and the other one that followed, the support percentage needed to be higher than normal not lower to show solid support for this alternative type of admin. It needed to be in the 80% range supporting a specific alternative. IMO, anything less would not show the type of community consensus needed for something out of the ordinary. --FloNight ^talk 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Echoing Flo somewhat, non-standard arrangements should face a stronger burdern of evidence to show consensus on them, not a weaker version. JoshuaZ 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship needs to be reviewed

Hmmm, Amgine didn't make it, and I did spontaniously say (wisely or not) that "if THIS nomination fails, RFA should be shut down", or words to that effect. Well, that was spur of the moment, this is now. I won't push it if you won't! ;-) (Though I reserve the right to still yell words to that effect in future, if there's no improvement)

Now, the thing is, it's very nice to have procedures and percentages and bells and whistles. Rube Goldberg could make a living out of it! :)

But at the end of the day, if those percentages and procedures and bells and whistles and whatnot don't actually lead to logical results, that needs fixing. (Come ON! If you can do OTRS, being an admin on wikipedia is a walk in the park by comparison).

I don't understand why people say we should give more power to office either. Do we WANT the foundation to take control of our wiki? Other wikis are independant, but are we such wusses that en.wikipedia is the only wikimedia wiki that can't figure out what's good for itself on its own?

I think yes, possibly we are such wusses, and should be ashamed.

In conclusion: perhaps "we should shut down Requests for Adminiship" was a spur of the moment thing to say, so I'm not going to push that too hard yet. BUT we should certainly review and discuss our current RFA setup, because we just screwed up in a fairly obvious and visible fashion.

Kim Bruning 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ps. I'm not so worried about Amgine himself. He can take a beating, he's a grownup :-P It's just the fact that rfa managed to get it so wrong!

It would seem doing OTRS *isn't* enough to become an admin, since the RfA failed. The only way doing OTRS could be considered enough would be if there was concensus to that effect - there wasn't. RfA worked as designed in this case. --Tango 22:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Only the most trusted people are given OTRS access, and that trust is more than enough to be given admin abilities. Therefore RFA failed, quite miserably, in this case.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Like Sean Black said as well, I've had both admin and OTRS access, and admin is definately a lot easier, (the skills needed to be an admin are in fact a subset of those required for OTRS). In conclusion: Somehow people came to the wrong consensus. Kim Bruning 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is whose trust. If the community doesn't have trust, it won't give admin abilities. If only the Foundation has trust, then the Foundation has to give admin abilities themselves. You can't put a person to an RFA vote and say "you mustn't oppose - he's trusted anyway" -- grm_wnr Esc 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What procedure is used to award OTRS access? Perhaps we could incorporate elements in the RfA. -Will Beback 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, someone asks one of the contacts (currently, either myself or sannse, as listed on m:OTRS). We decide whether we need any new personnel and try to judge carefully, asking around and delaying decisions where necessary; it is not much of a procedure and does not scale, but has been on the whole reasonably successful. (Not only does Amgine have access to the regular messages, he also answers the "urgent" tickets, which is currently about 10 people who are particularly good with sticky situations.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well not "you mustn't oppose", but more like this person ALREADY has been granted higher levels of access and trust.

So rephrasing: it's more like "This guy even does OTRS, and people are insanely happy with how he's doing there. How on earth is it possible that en.wikipedia suddenly thinks he's too st00pid to even handle a simple admin bit?"

In short: I'm one flabbergasted dude here! Kim Bruning 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion is that the community does not like to see things like wheel warring and unilateral deletion of userboxes in a prospective admin's recent past. I guess OTRS handling just doesn't matter as much to most people. Also, remember OTRS is out there where nobody can see it (I hazard the guess many don't even know what it means), while diffs from Wikinews are readily available. Also, be careful: There's no such thing as a "wrong" consensus. There's just consensus. Consensus for the wrong reasons maybe. Or consensus among the wrong people. Or consensus for a decision you don't agree with. But consensus. All you can hope for is to educate the voters that OTRS is a BIG qualification for adminship, but I guess that's pretty hopeless. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If we are failing to educate the voters on this page, then that's a problem. We could hope to educate people better, we could bar people from voting until they prove they are somehow sufficiently educated, or we could use a system that does not require voting at all. :-( The options seem somewhat bleak. I wonder if people have better ideas? Kim Bruning 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To springboard off of Kim's comment and soapbox for a minute: while there seemed to be some valid concerns about Amigne's RfA, there is a common problem that RfAs seem to rarely work for the more unique cases. For example, AzaToth's RfA failed to reach consensus despite his definite needs for the tools and everyone agreeing that he wasn't going to misuse them. Similarly, Tawker's RfA was barely successful. In both these cases the admins were people who didn't fit the cookie cutter mold of an admin and were treated poorly as a result. Other similar problems abound: Master of Puppets was accused of being argumentative even though one can routinely find far more argumentative comments by admins on WP:ANI. A further data point to the brokeness of the system is my own RfA; there is no good reason to justify my having the fourth most supported RfA ever. The two possible explanations for that level of support are that 1) I've really been as incredibly helpful as some of the supporters seem to think or 2) Blnguyen concern's that I'm overly political have some validity. There is something wrong when a political hack who has been involved in a multitude of conflicts and only one Wiki for about 3 months gets one of the highest support totals in Wikipedia history while a template wizard like AzaToth doesn't get adminship. (Note that I'm not saying that I shouldn't have been made an admin, I wouldn't have accepted the nom if i thought I shouldn't be, but I do think that my overwhelming support may be another symptom of the problems with the process). The way I see it(I know I've said this before but I'll say it again because I think it is important) the key issues are 1) Will the project benefit from the user having admin tools? 2) Do we know that the user won't abuse those tools? 3) Do we know that the user has the competence and experience to correctly use the tools?" If the answer to all three is "yes" then they should have the tools. It isn't much more complicated than that. JoshuaZ 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that these issues are far more important than the number of edits or their distribution on different namespaces or whatever common oppose reasons are. In the case of Amgine, though, many people apparently thought the answers were "yes, no, yes" due to the Wikinews incidents, and I think it was that more than the low edit count etc. that made Amgine's nomination fail. So I think AzaToth is a better example for the "brokenness" of the system than Amgine. Kusma (討論) 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of users is only increasing so I don't find it odd that RFAs are getting more votes over time, as long as people do not only vote on those where they actually know/have interacted with the person it will happen. I thought you got a high number of support votes, but I am not sure that is a sign that the system is broken. There is a problem with the system if people that are not qualified or will abuse the tools are promoted and people that have a need for them and will use them responsibly are not promoted.

I can only speak for myself on Amgine, but I opposed because of the wikinews blocking wheel war. It happened not even a month ago and he made (imo) vindictive blocks, reblocked someone 4 times, and continued to use admin powers when blocked. These are things that should not be done, even if they were not against wikinews policy (at the time, it mentioned unblocking more than 3 times in 24 hours, but not reblocking). If the foundation wants/needs him to have the sysop bit I'm sure they can find a steward to do it, but I do not see this case as a failure of RFA as while he is qualified I am not sure of his judgment. Kotepho 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not too late to help us out and write a decent WP:DFA proposal :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a problem with the RFA process, it's a problem with the community (the RFA community in particular - call it RFA culture if you wish). Of course, the process has some influence on the culture, but it boils down to the following:

1. RFA asks the community if someone should be an admin
2. In this case, too large a part of the community said no

How can this be adressed? Well, we could discount notvotes that don't meet some rule (which is always dangerous and instruction-creepy). We could lower the bar at which an RFA is considered successful (might work for this case, but there's got to be a border somewhere, so this doesn't really help in general, at least not for cases of this kind). Or we could not ask the community at all (which is already an option in special cases and could have been in this one). So, Kim, I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're asking the wrong questions. Any RFA process will give undesirable results if there's somthing about the candidate a part of the community doesn't like. To JoshuaZ: Your three points in the end certainly do make sense. But they're also not so rock hard as to be completely non-trivial to interpret, which just ends us with a process where we poll the community, and we have that already. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree, yeah. But really, we don't need a hard and fast "this is a valid vote, this isn't.", we just need bureaucrats to judge the arguments, not the number. Unfortunately, that isn't happening.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you just make a blanket generalization like that? I saw the RFA too, and some very respected Wikipedians were concerned about the Wikinews incident, so it isn't an argument you can just discard like that. Bureaucrats have the hardest job on Wikipedia, as any judgment call they make is going to cause some sort of controversy. In this case, they erred on the side of caution after listening to both sides, so I can't blame them for the decision they took, even though I supported. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking more generally. Idiotic crap is happening on a whole bunch of RFAs, not just Amgine's.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A number of people raised serious concerns regarding Amgine. In particular two different RfArs at Wikinews that showed Amgine to have deleted templates out of process and engaged in wheel warring. These are very serious concerns that led to a number of people voting oppose, and for good reason. That Amgine happens to answer mail and performs other tasks requiring trust does not automatically vacate these concerns. RfA did not fail in this case. For the people that voted oppose, it is perhaps some relief that a nominee who has a history of wheel warring and out of process deletions on another wiki project did not gain administrator privileges here. Wheel warring and out of process deletions has been a major factor in a number of very heated debates on Wikipedia in the last six months. Having a new admin with a history of precisely those problems is something that obviously several people were not too keen about. Somebody, at some point, has to be the first person to note problems with an individual who was previously otherwise considered trustable beyond question. Of the wiki projects in this case, Wikipedia happens to have been the first. That doesn't make the RfA process wrong. In fact, rather the opposite. --Durin 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Typically you are very observant, so I always pay attention. Just to check though, did you notice that Eloquence ("the jimbo of wikinews") came forward in at least one of those RFArs, and politely requested/suggested/reccomended to drop it?

Amgine is a very old hand at handeling wikis, so I wonder what's up now. We should certainly ask Eloquence to come in and take a look at your statements. Kim Bruning 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Historicaly OTRS is not equal to adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2.Geni 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me: Why didn't the community from it's grave mistake in that RFA?--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Becuase there are a large number of high quality zero baggage candidates around. Thus those with baggage are going to have a much harder time. People who chose to get involved in wikipolitics before running for adminship are going to have a harder time.Geni 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

By that reasoning, some of the people most suited for admin are those least likely to get it! Kim Bruning 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. A skilled potential admin will figure out how the community works.Geni 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But someone who has already figured it out and is acting like an admin should, would not then get admin. Kim Bruning 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because "the community" is not necessarily of your (or my) opinion as to what constitutes a mistake. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for another (possibly even heavier, I mean we're talking shell access here) example. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All that proves is that there's something wrong with "the community". Alphax should be an admin, and those who think otherwise are simply wrong.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An anti userbox admin who clearly doesn't think much of policy? We have enough trouble with the current lot.Geni 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That statement clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Alphax made anti-userbox and anti policy staments around the time of his RFA. Admins who combien those two qualities have a tendancy to desturbe the peace.Geni 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious how many people simply saw that some outside incidents occurred without looking into it for themselves. The culture of Wikinews is somewhat different (I say this having spent more time there recently—it's quieter and smaller than this project, and no one expects me to do anything other than copyedit). It's a small community with little over a dozen core contributors. Amgine's userbox case was its arbitration committee's very first case, and the incident involved may not have even made it past an unspectacular RfC here. Was it a bold move that several people disagreed with? Well, sure. But it nipped the userbox problem in the bud. Would the same outcome have come out some other way? I can't say. Does he go around deleting things on Wikinews willy-nilly? He does not. This is not a pattern. It was a perhaps extreme approach to solving a problem. And as far as I can tell it worked.

The blocking incident also needs to be looked at on its own. It's one incident that came to a head after... well, a long history. It's not incomparable to the sort of blocks and unblocks that happen here without too much notice, where admins disagree. Is it part of a pattern of unreasoned, inflammatory action? It isn't; Amgine is usually ridiculously cool-headed. His actions are not without disagreement, but on the whole he is an extrememly valued and respected contributor there.

More importantly—this is a user with a long history of positive work, and where the only areas in which anyone could be concerned, he has no desire to engage in on this project, and has stated his intent not to involve himself in them. Fewer edits here than your usual candidate, but his familiarity with the project and use for the technical abilities were vouched for by several longstanding and reputable users. (Yes, myself, but I'm not that arrogant; others such as Essjay and Danny who have had a great deal of experience working with him also spoke up for him.) I think it would have been a positive thing for en.wikipedia for Amgine to be an admin, or I would not have made the nomination. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see Amgine promotoed, but at the moment I don't feel like that much of a rogue bureaucrat :(. I think that the community didn't understand the underlying circumstances (*cough*) because they weren't given a chance to (or didn't want to?) BTW, I personally don't have much background, but did Amgine perhaps get caught up in a similar mess as Kelly Martin? Another user I respect that got caught up in this ridiculous userbox deal. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes are a slightly unique case. In past conflicts it hasn't really mattered very much how many admins are on each "side". This time due to the rather nasty way the battle has been fourt it does.Geni 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Ilyanep, You might want that cough looked at! I think a review of Requests for Adminship could certainly help with a Discussions for Adminship design. Kim Bruning 02:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I definately hope so :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this is why requests for adminship needs review. I'm pretty darn certain about Amgine, since I've had the chance to observe him for quite a long time, and know for sure that he is a decent admin (note: IS, on other wikis at least ).

So apparently people are failing to take into account factors that show that people can be a decent admin, and instead, are taking into account factors that are not relevant to a person being a decent admin.

Or perhaps they're simply not reading far enough. Gosh knows it happens to me too, I used to review people's entire edit histories and interrogate them at length. (*sigh* yet another side effect of editcountitis... how can you expect a person to review 2000+ edits? )

The reason I'm focussing on the Amgine case is because Amgine is a very helpful and well known person. So many people know (or think they know) all about him. Especially at the foundation level. So we can check and doublecheck everything, and do a thorough review to figure out what happened.

Hypothetically we might even find nothing wrong! But with the RFA result being so different from the predicted outcome, I think that would be too much to hope for. On the other hand, finding things that are wrong will help us fix things :-)

Kim Bruning 02:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is very simple. Admins are not just editors with a few extra features availible any more.Geni 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explicate what additional requirements there are for admins? Or link to them? Formally it looks like admins are users with 1500+ edits and 3months+ experience. Kim Bruning 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your list of requirements is pretty much correct. The only thing it misses is "little bagage".

(ps. The thing is, I haven't actually seen a consensus on additional responsibilities or requirements explicitly stated anywhere. Maybe I've missed them. If not, then at the least we'll come up with a new more accurate description of what an admin is and does) Kim Bruning 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We should in fact do so. Because I think we're holding people up to an informal unwritten standard which isn't usually a very good thing. It can be flexible, but people should know the range. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional responsibilities? None. Responsibilities suggest on some level accountability. In that case the only responsibility admins have is not to screw up really big time. Additional abilities? The ability to use their admin powers in a conflict and not be instantly jumped on by all the other admins. The ability more and more to use their powers in situations that require subjective judgements. The ability to use the deference people generally have towards admins instead of having to make a show of not doing so.

That's not good :( (in reply to Geni). Sometimes I wonder if I would even pass if I ran again. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You got 70% in the arbcom elections so I doubt you would have any problems passing.Geni 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)