This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We don't have enough admins. 1305, half of whom aren't active, is a ludicrously small number that barely keeps our menial backlogs clear. It's not nearly enough to deal with the current problems of nationalist crankery, tendentious editing, and the influx of POV-pushing revert-warriors. 5000 active admins is a much more realistic number, with that number rapidly increasing.. RfA is too slow for such expansion, so an alternative process must be thought that isn't quite so slow and isn't quite so ludicrously hard to pass. Moreschi ^Talk 10:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That good sir, is a whole 'nother issue! :) Jmlk 1 7 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's a though nut to crack at that. -- Chris  G  10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I think we just need more noms for now personally. Jmlk 1 7 10:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Won't work. The user creation log shows how many people come to the Wikipedia each day. Even if there were twenty RfA noms up every week of the year, we'd still be promoting far too few admins in proportion to the number of ordinary sods. Moreschi ^Talk 10:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem long and hard discussed, although, according to some page I can't find somewhere, "we have enough, when the number of total users are considered". I'm not sure I agree though. :( Can someone find that page and ref it here please, by the way? -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The percentage of inactive user accounts dwarfs the percentage of inactive admin accounts. If you want to talk about whether the admin workload is increasing or decreasing, you have to look at trends in the total number of edits being performed on the site each day, or the total number of active editors, not the number of user accounts being created. If you can find a way to increase the number of admins by a factor of four and prevent the tendentious nationalist revert warriors from becoming admins in the process, that would be something else. As it stands, RfA prevents almost all of those editors from being put in a position to further damage internal workings or our external reputation... which is a good thing. If we're being eventualist, that way is preferrable. Dekimasu よ! 10:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have too few long term users, that includes admins. There are a LOT of users who join and make 10-50 edits then forget about Wikipedia, not to mention the number of anons. If we had a higher percentage of people staying then there would be more admin nominations and hence more admins. Perhaps if we find a way to encourage editors to stay we would have more admins? James086 ^{Talk | Email} 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of those editors leave either because they've written/amended the one article on their hometown/school/favourite band they came here to edit, and never had any intention of working on other material; or, they leave in disgust when their first article gets speedied/AfD'd. In the case of the former I don't see what we can do as they never intended to stay; in the case of the latter, there's an enormous can of worms. Personally, I think far too much salvageable material gets deleted (and certain editors are ludicrously trigger-happy), but rectifying this situation would mean some major policy-rewriting. If anyone's collected the stats, I'd be interested in how many WP editors drop out as compared to related projects — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Knowing someone who was part of the project for about a month before getting turned off, it seems that the sheer amount ond complexity of Wikipedia policy is a real turn off to the casual person who really wants to do something good, but is completely blown away by all the policy that seems to be thrown at them so quickly and inevitably. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking. When an admin 'retires' from editing Wikipedia, are they still listed in the admin list? You see, when an admin i knew - RadioKirk - retired from editing Wikipedia, he came back a month later to remove administrative access. What does that mean? Does everyone do this? Lra drama 10:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

James086 is right that we have too few long term active editors. If I recall correctly we had about 10,800 editors eligible to participate in the foundation election. The standard there was 400 edits (any namespace) and participation beginning at least three months before the foundation election began, regardless of recent current activity. Anybody who has a shot of becoming an admin will meet those standards. (So will many of the "nationalist crankery, tendentious editing, and the influx of POV-pushing revert-warriors" editors that Moreschi wants the additional admins to deal with.) We have more than 10% of that group already an admin, and more than 5% as active admins. There is no point in making admins of people that aren't active, so the usefully eligible for admin population on this project is going to be lower than that 10,800 number. We have about 2,760 editors with more than 6,500 edits (see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, the 2 August 207 version); again, some of those haven't been active in over a year and a few are IP editors who we can't make admins. I'd guess that 33% to 50% of that group are already admins. 100% is too much to hope for even at the best case. I don't think there is a large pool of reasonably qualified candidates that aren't admins and would be willing to be an admin, maybe a few hundred at most. The choices are drop the qualifications far enough that many problem creating editors could become admin or to work on creating qualified candidates out of new editors that aren't qualified yet. The RfA process isn't the problem, the problem is the lack of experienced and active editors who aren't themselves an editor whose behaviour is cause for administrative attention. GRBerry 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to offer an alternative veiw. I don't think the percentage of active vs. inactive has a huge bearing without more information as to why they are active or not (smell of survey lurking in background). More to the point of perceived too few editors for workload - to me it would seem that some tasks could be made more effecient and even automated in some cases freeing up editors to do more thoughtful and less redundant tasks. Benjiboi 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoring former admins

*Cough* There are some people who have the experience, but made (a) bad call(s), and should be but aren't being given another chance to serve Wikipedia. Before we can have more admins we need RFAs to pass, and for that to happen for a select few out of those on that list (those who didn't do what they did maliciously) - I'm thinking people like MONGO or Essjay, we need more people to be willing to ignore old events and give them - give us - a fresh start. – Chacor 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, what you are saying is highly dependent on the case and person in question. We are not soon going to return admin rights to someone who used their tools in an obviously malicious and hateful way. And such acts will never be forgiven by the community as a whole; no RFA can pass when something like that darkens a users history. But I do agree. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that admin tools should be returned to "someone who used their tools in an obviously malicious and hateful way". There are plenty of people on that list who obviously had no primary malicious intent to Wikipedia, and unfortunately it takes far too long for any of them to be forgiven. The last desysopped user repromoted without controversy, I believe, was Guanaco - in February 2006. – Chacor 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, putting me in the same sentence as Essjay is a bit harsh, but no doubt, I could run again without first asking permission from arbcom to do so [1]. I can't imagine aiding a notorious banned editor would ever been seen as a forgivable offense, and not something I ever did or would ever even consider. I also wonder when editors change their usernames as some effort to possibly cover up past maliciousnesses.-- MONGO 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • One of the reasons I ultimately gave up my admin bit was due to the MONGO desysopping. The ArbCom ruling against him was blatantly wrong. I lobbied heavily against it, but the decision went against him anyways. The general lesson from that experience is that if you use your admin bit on articles you've ever edited, it's considered abuse. I couldn't possibly avoid that. The MONGO desysopping was a lynch mob, using a convenient excuse that had nothing to do with reality. Ref discussion above about a desysopping process; if ArbCom can make so fallacious a desysopping, I have zero faith that a non-ArbCom desysopping process won't become a cesspool.
  • In the more abstract, this feeds into another of the reasons I gave up the admin bit; the social currency system that one must observe if you are an active administrator. It's a sham, and hamstrings the ability of good people to do the work that needs to be done around here.
  • There's other reasons I gave up the bit too. But, in sum, giving it up was possibly the best decision I've ever made on Wikipedia. -- Durin 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In light of your "giving it [the sysop bit] up was possibly the best decision I've ever made on Wikipedia", what would say to those considering an RfA in the near future, but uncertain as to how it will change the balance of time they spend on certain areas? Some people would want to at least try a spell as admin, before coming to the same conclusions as you have (or possibly different conclusions). Sometimes it is difficult looking in from the outside to appreciate what adminship is like (be it a big deal or not). Sometimes only hindsight can really tell you what it is like. Carcharoth 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Each to their own. I personally am much happier as an admin than I was as a non-admin, and I've received comparatively little stress from the job (this is possibly because most of my work concerns AfDs and speedies, and I rarely block anyone). So I certainly can't see myself voluntarily surrendering the sysop bit. In terms of having affected the balance of time I spend on each area, the effects have been minimal; it hasn't reduced my mainspace work (writing articles takes more energy and concentration than other tasks, so it was never something I did on a daily basis). The only area in which I'm less active since my RfA is vandal-fighting; to be honest, I find it quite boring and I prefer to contribtue in other areas. I don't totally agree with Durin about the "social currency system"; in fact I think it aometimes works the other way round. Non-admins who want to become admins spend time building up a network of wiki-friends, and, all too often, mysteriously become a lot less communicative once they get the admin tools. Walton ^One 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Like doing research and getting tenure... -- barneca ( talk) 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• In reply to It's not nearly enough to deal with the current problems of nationalist crankery, tendentious editing, and the influx of POV-pushing revert-warriors. I don't think this has much to do with the number of admins. For one things, this does not require much admin assistance and as far as I can tell, things like the 3RR and COI noticeboards are relatively efficient. Now it is very much true that we're having trouble dealing with long-time POV pushers but this is because not enough editors have the energy, time and patience to deal with these things on the long term but giving people sysop access does not affect that reality. A solution would be to be less lenient towards long-term POV pushers but as far as I can tell the community prefers to be forgiving and to tolerate them if they also contribute positively (and certainly that's not an unreasonable position) but again, that's got nothing to do with the number of admins. That's not to say we have enough admins, more of them would mean less time spent by experienced users on purely janitorial tasks and perhaps more time spent on resolving long-term conflicts but that may be wishful thinking. Pascal.Tesson 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just gave Mongo's ArbComm case over, and he should still be an admin. But re-sysopping him (and most of the others on the list) would only act as a band-aid, and not a long term fix. New England ^{Review Me!} 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• But how are we going to decide which out of the former admins should be given another chance? Both of the ones you suggest, I think deserved a lot more than just desysopping (which Essjay never really did get actually, he just resigned), and definitely shouldn't be resysopped. - Amarkov moo! 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What more could have been done to Essjay I wonder? Maybe he should have been drawn and quartered?-- MONGO 02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not needing the tools

• Request for feedback: Numerous times, I've seen RfA reviewers reject a candidate on the basis of "not needing the tools", even when (apparently) there is no compelling reason to believe that the candidate would be a detriment instead of a benefit. My request is this, can anyone suggest whether "I simply want to have the additional tools, and plan to use them only rarely, until I get a feel for where I'm needed most." would ever take hold as a legitimate motivation for a prospective admin?

• This question is posed as a follow-up to Carcharoth's post about "only hindsight" (immediately above). Carcharoth seems to make a good point here, but it doesn't seem to get addressed very often. dr.ef.tymac 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I would support such candidacies if there were no reasons to oppose. I fear that some people would still oppose though with 'reasons' like "doesn't need the tools", "doesn't know if she needs the tools", "needs more experience to find out if he needs the tools"; "needs to know where they want to work"; "we need to know where you will work"; "we can't judge whether you can be trusted unless you tell us where you want to work". There is a grain of truth in such responses, but not enough, in my opinion, to be a justifiable reason to oppose. Carcharoth 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Been there, did that, got the t-shirt. -- Hex [ ^t/ _c] 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That is simultaneously a problem and a beauty of RFA: everyone is allowed to have their very own opinion, no matter how stupid or ridiculous it may seem to others. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Curiously, since I have become an admin my standards for candidates has become more lax. The sysop tools can be tested before adminship, so it still ends up being a learning experience, even if you've been involved in 5000 XfDs, and single-handedly solved a dispute involving every religion and ethnic group on the face of the Earth. You will often end up using the tools more or less than you originally anticipated, too. The whole "doesn't need the tools" is never an acceptable opposition: wikipedia would still be a lot better off if we had even just 500 more admins who stayed as active editors but only used the tools once or twice a month. I also believe that users and admins here make a much bigger deal out of a corrupt or inexperienced sysop than need be. We've already had a worst-case scenario: a large number of sysop accounts were hacked and abused. The community didn't collapse, and the problem was taken care of. Admins are still basically users, they can only do tasks in small amounts, so there isn't a lot to worry about if some new admin screws up. </ramble> The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per Ikiroid. The "doesn't need the tools" thing has been done to death before and I thought consensus (much as it can change) was as follows; If someone uses the tools but once a month, that's one less thing in that month on the ever increasing list of administrator tasks needing attention. A need for the tools is a meaningless oppose at RFA. Pedro |  Chat  17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wish you would have said that a month ago ;) -- Aarktica 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that such opposes are meaningless, only a consensus that most people won't oppose solely on that basis. I personally don't ever oppose solely because of "doesn't need the tools", but I am more likely to oppose when both "doesn't need the tools" and minor evidence of risk of misuse are present. GRBerry 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Daddy, can I have a hammer?", "Why do you need a hammer son?", "Umm, no reason..."(the preceding was meant in the spirit of humor and does not refer to any real people). ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm almost certain that if a child asked for a mop (which I believe is currently the accepted metaphor), his father would trust that he would be trying to clean up, and I don't think any parent would object to a child cleaning up :) J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What about guns? The huje majority of people who have them expect to never have to use them. They may be useful, however, as admin tools may be useful if you see vandals vandalizing Wikipedia. A.Z. 08:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Active admins - list of last edit times

The claim that half of the admins aren't active is, I think, too strong. Look at this list of the last edit time for all admins, compiled on Aug 21. Over 1000 admins have edited in August, over 900 in the last week. This doesn't answer whether we need more admins, or whether these edits were admin related, but it does show that our admins are, by and large, still editing. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice User:Katefan0, User:Gator1, and User:H may be on the list somewhere. What they went through, forcing them to quit is completely unacceptable. Admins willing to handle the tough cases of POV pushing and other problems face the potential of harassment. For that reason, as an admin myself, I stay away from handling those situations and stick to more mundane, uncontroversial tasks like blocking blatant vandals, clearing speedy deletions, etc, and mostly spend time writing articles. -- Aude ( talk) 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is a real shame, for the admins who do stick their necks out, all end up dealing with the most notorious trolls on the site...and, from what I have seen, they either leave the project in disgust or get forced out if they make a few mistakes.-- MONGO 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to CBM, the issue isn't that admins are not active editors, it's that to many do not spend enough time on the hard admin cases and leave it to just a few people who get a) burnt out/frustrated and then b) react inappropriately with some manner of admin action which leads to c) mostly helpful people leaving the project. If all admins spent just a bit more time on disputes and such people like MONGO or JzG don't get booted or leave. So, to you admins who read this get into the conflict areas, and help. -- Rocksanddirt 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide examples of "the hard admin cases" you allude to? -- Aarktica 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I mean by hard cases are the defacto dispute resolution stuff that is on the various admin noticeboards [2], [3], [4], and [5]. My observation is that only a few (maybe 20) admins seem to be dealing with the cases there, and that many of the posts to espcially the AN, ANI, AIV, and 3RR are from a consistent set of topics. My personal observation regarding folks like Mongo or JzG is that they bring a lot of the aggravation they feel on themselves because they like controvertial topics and like to be combative. That said, more help getting everyone on those hard topics to either work together or admit they can't (and appropriate restrictions placed by others) would be helpful. It's stated all over that being an admin is "no big deal" in the scope of wikipedia. I disagree. I think that most users (especially newer ones) feel that the admins are defacto supervisors or parents of the interaction here. Hence the challenge to get people "promoted" to admin. -- Rocksanddirt 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Does anyone else share the sentiment that said editors are needlessly combative? Also, are there any controversies around here that did not involve disruptive editors? -- Aarktica 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "needlessly" combative, just that the seem to enjoy it more than others (me). And yes due to the nature of the topics they enjoy also, they seem to get involved with some of the more disruptive users. My point is that if more admins were spending more time helping folks be civil, and work on their point of view issues there would be less disruption in general, and what there was would be more contained and it would not fall to just a few to resolve the disruptions. -- Rocksanddirt 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps everyone with a BELLY button (instead of just those with ADMIN buttons) should listen more often to those who need help. Afterall, regular editors have EARs as well... -- Aarktica 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, everyone participating is a volunteer. (Even the vandals, they are volunteering to vandalize... though we wish they wouldn't.) Volunteers generally prefer to do tasks that are 1) pleasant to do, 2) effective, and/or 3) in line with their personal interests. Working on the tough cases is generally not pleasant, not effective, and interesting to few people. Unless someone comes up with suggestions to make working on the tough cases pleasant, effective, or interesting, we aren't going to see large quantities of volunteers. I certainly said in my RFA that I was unlikely to spend any significant fraction of my effort on tough cases, and I've mostly lived up to that. I've taken multiple hours to close a single tough DRV, because I'd volunteered for the role of DRV closer at the time, but I'm glad Xoloz is back and I don't have to close anymore. There is no way I'm getting heavily involved in the WP:AN/I snakepit. GRBerry 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are policies in place to deal with troublemakers; I suspect even POV-pushers can end up on the chopping BLOCK if they are "doing too much." Sure, there are those that will try to GAME the system; but how long do they last once they deplete what goodwill the community might have to spare? -- Aarktica 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the while are negative consequences to making a mistake, there are also negative consequences to doing nothing. At some point, the cost of doing nothing will exceed the cost of making a few mistakes. At that point, we are better off bringing in people we know for sure will make a few mistakes. As long as the cost of their mistakes doesn't exceed the cost of continuing to do nothing, we've made the right choice. -- Shirahadasha 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What's really the problem here?

What's really the problem here, though? You say RFA can't keep up with the amount of new admins we need, that's not really the case here, as there's plenty of space on the page. The important thing to consider here is, why are there not enough admins? There are a few different things that are a bottle neck to adminship. The first, lack of a nomination. A lot of editors that would probably make fine admins just don't think about running, or nobody thinks to nominate them. The second, in the RFA itself, would be fairly high standards in voters, and opposing. The third, is the ratio of support to opposition where a bcrat will fail it. So what can we do to fix this?

• The first one would be the easiest to fix in some ways, simply make a list of editors over a certain amount of edits, review each of them to make sure they're in fairly good standing, and nominate them. This would be "burning the RFA backlogs", in a sense. The biggest problems with this, in process, is that it's slow, takes a lot of work, and will probably bring up a bunch of failure RFAs. Another problem would be editor's lack of desire to run, or fear that a negative RFA will have a bad effect if they try to run in the future.
• The second one would probably be the hardest to fix. I don't think anyone looks at RFAs and thinks "Well well well, how can I make this one fail?", when people oppose they're doing it because they have real concerns over how the person will use the mop. At the same time though, I'm sure we can all think of a few RFAs for people we think would make fine admins, but were opposed for one reason or another. I don't see any solution to this.
• The third one would be hard to fix too. Lowering the standards for promotion would be almost as bad as discounting criticisms purely because we need more admins. I don't see a solution to this.

So what's the real problem? To see this, I think we need to go back to bottleneck two, why people oppose. The three most common reasons to oppose are:

1. Lack of experience

   And rightfully so. Who wants to promote an admin that doesn't know what they're doing?

2. Incivility or POV problems

   Again, rightfully so. Who wants an admin that will abuse the mop?

3. Poor judgment in general.

   Again, who wants an admin that knows what they're doing, won't abuse the mop, but will instead misuse it, and block someone who didn't break any rules?

There's no real way around it, most people have valid reasons for opposing. The only logical answer to this question is that there are not enough people on Wikipedia who are willing and able to perform as administrators. It's simple, when you think about it. Many people edit wikipedia. But how many register an account, edit constantly, continue editing constantly for months on end, and are civil enough and familiar enough with the rules to be an admin? This again somewhat goes back to our standards being too high, but do we want an admin that doesn't understand Wikipedia? -- lucid 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Standards are too high - simple. In all the "rightfully so" issues raised above, there was nothing quantitative. How little experience is too little? How much incivility before it's over? 1 instance in 5000+ edits (a random number, don't kill me for it) really shouldn't be enough to kill an RfA. Same with 1 POV edit in 5000+. How do you define "poor judgement" - it may have been a mistake, they may have been tired, whatever.

The most important thing (I think) is that admins are human, they make mistakes, but the mistakes can be undone. It takes less then a minute (as far as I know) to undelete a wrongly deleted page, unblock a wrongly blocked user, etc. If it's a one off incident, is it really that big a deal? 1 instance of poor judgement = 1 incorrect deletion = 1 undeletion. Oh noes, 1 minute wasted! It's no big deal, yet we pile on opposes because of it. Giggy ^Talk 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern is partially because it takes a lot of work for someone to be desysoped. I think people would be more willing to support, or at least abstain from voting, if they felt it would be easier to have someone's power taken away. The thing is, that changes where we draw the line from "Someone I'm almost positive won't abuse the tools" to "I hope they won't abuse the tools, but if they do...". You bring up a good point, that most administrator actions can be easily reversed, but just because the content can be restored or the editor unblocked doesn't mean it doesn't still hurt the project. Look at BJAODN and all the time being wasted there because someone decided to delete it. Think about how easy it would be to turn off a new editor by blocking them. Even you realize the next day that you were wrong, they could already be long gone. Just because the action itself can be easily reversed doesn't mean the consequences of that action can be -- lucid 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then again, Giggy, the two of us might be just a little bit biased in talking about it like that ;p -- lucid 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I made 2 errors of judgement (chatlog and essay) - so no, I'm not biased :P Giggy ^Talk 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucid took the words out of my mouth, I was formulating a response when I read the above. I think the standards are about right, it's not about content that may or may not be handled correctly. For me it's about new users, they are the life blood of Wikipedia and it's future. One bite and we may never get them back. We already don't treat them very well sometimes and we already have admins that are ridiculously quick on the block and speedy delete buttons. If we could get around that somehow we could lower standards but not until then, not until we create a much stronger culture of respect toward new users. RxS 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree in essence, but I really don't think that if you act quickly, and give a full explanation of why the hell the user was blocked in the first place, it will make that much of a difference. 1 or 2 may still run, but I think the majority would stay. Giggy ^Talk 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucid's mind might well have thrown up all over his keyboard (see the edit summary), but those are some excellent points. RxS's point about how biting new users cuts off the lifeblood of Wikipedia is also excedingly important. Does anyone monitor the rate at which new editors become productive long-term editors (by time and number of edits)? If that rate is declining, then something does need to be done. Carcharoth 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there's some sort of bot research in to that. I can't remember where the cat is, though, but I get the feeling it's on {{ welcomeg}}. Giggy ^Talk 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:WelcomeBotResearch. Interesting idea. Carcharoth 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring programme

One thing that might help editors to become more familiar with the admin tasks so that a higher proportion might become both (a) confident enough to run for adminship; and (b) competent enough to get passed would be the admin coaching programme, which unfortunately appears to be at a standstill at the moment. There are 74 people there who've expressed a tentative interest in becoming admins just waiting for assistance. Espresso Addict 08:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I note this point has already been made further down the page. Espresso Addict 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, can't find it (CURSE YOU, OVERZEALOUS ARCHIVERS! :)). Well, speaking as someone on that magical list, I am willing to wait. I believe I can be trusted with the tools, but at the moment, I am content with the tools available to me. I actually do not think I can even handle coaching right now, as I have a few adoptees coming in this month. I'll be pretty busy. I would take myself off, but I don't want to lose my space in line. By the time I get close to the top of the list, it will be November. J-stan ^Talk _Contribs 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No RFA's now? Are my eyes deceiving me? Someone nominate now before the emptiness of the page gives me suicidal feelings! bibliomaniac 15 Prepare to be deleted! 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When was the last time this happened? Good grief ... -- B 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

About 13 months ago. I'm into my second year of watching RfAs, and there is always a downturn in August/September and March/April. I'm sure NoSeptember has a chart somewhere. Keegan ^talk 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's busy from heading back to school... -- W.marsh 02:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Sounds about right :) Gracenotes ^T § 03:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's no trick. [6]: "no outstanding requests". That's it! Game over. Time to go home. :-) Carcharoth 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

:'(. Get Majorly to nominate someone! ~  Wikihermit 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Game over, man! Game over!" EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eeeek! Zero RfAs! Captain panda 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

zOMG! No voting and corruption today folks! --( Review Me) R ^Parlate Contribs _@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's going to be at least one before September, and that's certain (I'm nominating someone.) Maxim _(talk) 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I blame Deskana. -- lucid 02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I blame Kurt Weber... he's scared off all the power-hungry self-nominators, and we're left with nothing. MastCell ^Talk 03:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And now whoever is the first to get an RFA up again is going to be showing prime facie evidence of attention whoring -- lucid 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been asked if I wish to be nominated via email, and I'm holding it off until tomorrow. So maybe that'll give everyone something to look forward to. ^^ // DecaimientoPoético 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

!!! Canvassing!!! Just kidding; but really - too much more there and it could almost have been considered that! ;) -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 10:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose this! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. -- B 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun's over :-(. New RFA. ~  Wikihermit 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• sighs* Damn. To think I was but a few hours away... // DecaimientoPoético 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This one will probably get snowed pretty quick, so you may still be good. ;) -- B 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Having active RFAs is undesirable, now? <.< Gracenotes ^T § 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• When it snows, yes, it is. I'm half considering running now just to ease the tension and get some controversy...nah, better off if my bot does. Giggy ^Talk 03:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I notice there are 74 editors, several of whom I know would make really good admins, lying around at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests sorta just begging for someone to mentor and/or nominate them. -- JayHenry 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of those (such as The Random Editor) are seriously old, and most are currently getting coached/have gone for RfA/are admins. Giggy ^Talk 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The accuracy of the number 74 wasn't my point. I'm just saying that I definitely see names on that list that are not being coached and not going for RfAs, but would do a good job if they were. -- JayHenry 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Someone interesting should throw his name in the pot for RfB to stir things up. Dekimasu よ! 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That really would be interesting. Imagine having more Rfbs at one time than RFAs! -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 10:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pfft, don't look at me. I'm still holding off on my second RfB for a couple more months. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

should throw his name in the pot - what about a her? *runs* ~ Riana ⁂ 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as no one throws "their" name in the pot.... I chose GC over PC. Dekimasu よ! 04:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad red links can be watchlisted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you don't clear your watchlist for about another 6 months, then ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist is about to hit 1900 items. Trust me, it rarely ever gets cleared out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many people HAVE watchlisted this page... Giggy ^Talk 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have (although I did it just now) :P Captain panda 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

←←My watchlist has never been cleaned, as far as I can remember. I'm up to about 2050 now. I still have the picture of went it hit 1337 --- lucid 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist only has 148 pages (including archived ones like my old rfa), per my philosophy. James086 ^{Talk | Email} —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

My watchlist is empty. How 1337 is that! =D - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka's watchlist: 4,311 items and counting. I've watchlisted almost everything I've ever tagged for speedy deletion or deleted myself. I cleaned it out once, just to remove a few things that were unlikely ever to be reposted... But otherwise, it's been growing since the beginning of my wikitime. And I intend to see it keep growing. (I do occasionally see an unencyclopedic article posted at the same title I've watchlisted six months later...) Grand master ka 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at this page, and found it excessively negative and several overstating the effective requirements for becoming an administrator. The net effect of this page appears to be to turn people away, which would be the exact opposite of its intent. Perhaps we should fix this? >Radiant< 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with radiant! here. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 08:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The page (especially the "What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see" section) is negative, but most of it (unfortunately) seems valid. Even if it's not how RfA should be, the page explains how RfA is relatively accurately. Which may or may not be something we want in a guide :) Gracenotes ^T § 09:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It introduces a breath of fresh air in some ways, I think, in regards to certain aspects of the way it retells the process... -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I dissent that reenforcing the negativity sometimes present on RFA is "valid". If anything it lends more credence to the kind of argument we prefer to avoid. A page whose net effect is to scare users away from running for adminship is not worth having. >Radiant< 10:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it just needs revising? A new outlook to better conform with the general view of RFA? -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. >Radiant< 11:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is rather negative, but it's also realistic. However, a also agree it could use some touch up. I see this as a balancing act; we want to encourage people to apply but also not lull them into an unrealistic expectation of what the process can be like. Rlevse 11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Valid as in accurate. I agree with Rlevse; there's no easy way to go about this. If you have a good idea, a more positive guide is certainly something we can use. Perhaps the solution might merely consist of adding more positive prose, not removing negative text. Gracenotes ^T § 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There are many ways to improve pages, and subtractive editing is only one of them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was the original creator of the guide. Since inception, it has suffered through a number of debates on its content. This is nothing new. The general conflict has been whether guide should be stating how RfA is or stating how RfA should be. The debate has never resolved, and this is just another permutation of it. That the guide has remained essentially stable for quite some time now might be a vote of confidence to keep it as is, in the imperfect form that it is. There may be no perfect form. -- Durin 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • At the moment it is neither - it gives excessive information about the negative side of RFA. If it were an article, it would be considered POV. The apparent stability is a red herring; obviously both myself and AD intend to edit it, and you appear to be suggesting that we shouldn't simply because it hasn't been edited for awhile. >Radiant< 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine. Edit it. I was attempting to educate on the highly contentious nature of the guide. If you want to edit it to make it more like how RfA should be, or how RfA is, whatever...but be prepared for an extensive debate about it. That's the history, and it keeps coming up. You're no more immune to this than any other person who has edited it. But, if you feel you can make the guide into something perfect, then by all means try. But, what you think is perfect is not what others things is perfect, and vice versa. The guide can not be all things to all people. -- Durin 13:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's apparently 50k worth of documentation related to RFA just on those 2 pages alone... who knows how many other RFA documentation pages are floating around... do we really need this much meta-documentation? Do non-admins even read this stuff? -- W.marsh 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Me, but I'm not really a representative sample. Seeing as I try to read through the entire Category:Wikipedia essays once a month. - Amarkov moo! 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it all a long time ago before I started reading RfA/participating in discussions. I assume Amarkov and I are just representatives of a large group of well-informed users, not rare freaks, but I could be wrong. :) Pinball22 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it before my first RfA, and then again more recently for no particular reason. I dunno, I think that a lot of people read it, they just don't digest it. Neranei (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably read it and some similar pages before my RFA. I don't think it made any difference in my decision to nominate myself though. Reading the current RFAs gave me a lot better sense of what my chances were. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform#snowball_RfA to prevent further disruption here. — AldeBaer 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

After having a few looks at Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform, I was wondering about this. Is there any way of implementing a new RfA process which prevents the process from being a vote, and doesn't make it a 'crat nightmare (as previous reformation attempts did)? -- DarkFalls ^talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but the short answer is "no". :) Majorly ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I was bracing myself for the worst :) -- DarkFalls ^talk 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The longer answer is "Noditty no-no no-sir no". I find it very unlikely that a consensus of the magnitude needed for these types of changes will form, nor do I think it is needed. In short, the current system is not broken. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it hasn't yet been thought of. The process we have at the moment, where it isn't purely a vote, is pretty good I think, but then there are a lot of people who don't agree with me for varying reasons. I don't count the people who vote/comment/<whatever the latest name for voicing your opinion on RfA's is> as part of the process, but some people do. That means that I don't think this one is broken, I just think that some people's standards are too high. Actually I think the perfect system would be a bot who can assess everything the editor has ever done on Wikipedia and decide whether they meet the predetermined community standards (which would take a while to suss-out). This however is not possible with our current technology (we would need AI or something close). James086 ^{Talk | Email} 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please can we archive this section now? Splash - tk 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The current system isn't perfect, but I would strongly oppose any moves away from voting. See m:wikidemocratism for an explanation of my views on this issue. 'Crat "discretion" is a very bad idea; it gives more power to the bureaucrats and takes it away from the community. Each established user in good standing has a right to make their own judgment about each RfA candidate, and support or oppose according to their own opinion; the bureaucrats should carry out the will of the community. Walton ^One 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This power you speak of is determining a consensus. Consensus does not always equal numbers. The discretion, which is ever so rarely used, is to determine which opinions show that the candidate will not make a good admin. Example "Oppose - I like cheese." I could write that on an RfA. I am an established user in good standing, but in your view that "oppose" would count? Majorly ( talk) 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that's a reductio ad absurdum. Because you are an established user in good standing, you would know better than to write "Oppose - I like cheese." If you did so, it would be reasonable to assume that you were either joking, or acting in bad faith; in which case the community would probably decide to strike your vote. But within the normal range of views, people disagree with each other on what constitutes a valid rationale. For instance, I don't think that article-writing has anything to do with adminship; other people argue that it's the most important criterion. But that doesn't mean that their vote should be discounted, or given less weight than mine. Generally, I would argue that any established user whose vote was clearly given in good faith, and with a rationale that is relevant to Wikipedia, should not have their vote discounted. For example, Kmweber's opposes should be given the same weight as everyone else's; his views are controversial, but backed up by a solid rationale which is relevant to Wikipedia. Walton ^One 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record reductio is not in itself a fallacy - it's another name for proof by contradiction. Whether it's properly formulated is another matter... David Mestel^{( Talk)} 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a move towards a purer —open and above board— vote, as well as a move towards more bureaucrat discretion. Maybe that's an indicator that the current process really is the best compromise. Or it means quite the opposite, namely that in the current compromise both aspects become muddled and corrupted. Not sure. — AldeBaer 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that RFA is muddled and corrupted, but then, it's not really the "purer vote" you describe. But compromises are compromises, and for something to have endured this long, it must have something right else it would have been reformed long ago. bibliomaniac 15 Tea anyone? 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Like the United States Electoral College system? — AldeBaer 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you mean the House of Lords — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This system that we have worked fine right when it was done forming. It does not necessarily work now, after three years of exponential growth. - Amarkov moo! 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to create a self nominated RFA page. The automated setup instructions are instructing me to overwrite my first nomination. I would like to use User:TonyTheTiger/RFA3Essay to self nominate without erasing my old RFA. Please advise.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replace USERNAME on the input bar with "TonyTheTiger 3" instead of "TonyTheTiger." This will create a page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 3. You can then fill in the answers. -- דניאל - Danth eman531 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I need some help with my {{ Rfa-notice}} which is pointing to RFA1 instead of RFA3 at User:TonyTheTiger/Header template.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you fixed it. -- דניאל - Danth eman531 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to KTC for the fix.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As a Chicago project member, can I post a link to my RFA discussion page on the project page here?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can. Just don't be surprised if your RFA spectacularly goes down in flames for canvassing.... Griggsa 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we lose the sarcasm, please? -- Tango 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no absolute rule against it, but it is frowned upon and might get you some oppose votes. -- Tango 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Some?? RFAs that would pass normally fail because the candidate told a few of his or her fellow editors, Majorly ( talk) 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Majorly is right. Even the slightest hint of canvassing can be just as bad as spilling oil over your RFA and chucking a match. Take my advice - don't do anything that could even be misinterpreted as canvassing. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend against it. Even though you're only "telling" a select few, it's still out there in the open and visible to all the world (though this is more an issue with user talk pages, where you're effectively announcing your open RfA to anyone that has the user's talk page watchlisted, which is well outside the "select few" concept). You can put {{ Rfa-notice}} on your userpage, however; that's a widely accepted way of announcing your open RfA, and it informs only those people who have your userpage watchlisted (who, in theory, would be interested anyway). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the comments above, mentioning your upcoming RfA anywhere than on your own talkpage (and some people would say even there) is an invitation to serious trouble. (Whether this should be the case is a different question. One experienced editor's suggestion some months ago that candidates should solicit the endorsement of a wikiproject to garner her support, did not achieve a consensus.) Newyorkbrad 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That idea failed to achieve a consensus because of the rather aggressive way she tried to promote it, not because it was a bad idea. Not that I advocate obligatory endorsement by a WikiProject, but I do think we need to dramatically relax WP:CANVAS in relation to RfAs. Those most qualified to comment on a candidate are those who have worked extensively with that candidate; it's simply not possible to fully appreciate the work of people you've never encountered before just by looking at their editcount and a couple of diffs. Certainly I don't endorse the mass spamming of "vote for me!" messages, but a few discreet notifications to other users should not be prohibited, IMO. Otherwise, someone with whom a candidate has worked before (on a WikiProject, say, or on collaborative article-writing) might simply miss the RfA. Walton ^One 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What should happen is different from what does happen. In this current climate, canvassing, or even the appearance of it, is held as one of the main things to avoid in RfA. — Kurykh 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have marked this discussion page as historical/inactive, once more. The complete and utter lack of discussion on AldeBear's proposal above once it was moved to that page pretty much shows that Durin's first instinct was correct. Subpages have been shown time and time again to be a poor way to establish focused discussions, when compared to subheadings. -- nae' blis 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Reform subpage had become so lengthy and unwieldy that no one was bothering to comment there any more. This page is archived often enough that we can have all relevant discussions here. Walton ^One 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Heelo, I was woundering how do i become a admin? I would like to be one, I beleve I would be responsible enough to be one. Thank You -- Muitint78 01:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first thing you should do is talk to some people about whether you're ready, or go up for an editor review. If you feel you're ready, you can place a self-nomination following the directions at WP:RFA. I should warn you, though, people are quite strict about their requirements. If you would like some help, please come talk to me, I'd be happy to help. Cheers, Neranei (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a regular at Wikipedia:Editor review, and I can review you there if you'd like. You probably need at least 3 months on wiki before you can pass an RFA. Since you started 10 August 2007, that's two months from now. Shalom ^Hello 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure Shalom is not misunderstood here: no editor with less than 3 months of editing stands any realistic chance on RfA. However, 3 months of work here certainly don't guarantee that you'll be viewed as having sufficient experience. The best way to gauge this is by looking at recent successful and unsuccessful requests for adminship. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest 4 months to be save, I went with March, April, May and part of June with around 1000 edits (and February was about 200), when I passed. Maxim _(talk) 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On the flip side, you'd be just fine if you didn't just jump right into it. I'd been editing for about 9 months and had a bit over 9k edits when my RfA passed (though I know there are people who'd been around for much longer than that when they became admins). There's no rush. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you go to your "preferences" at the top of the page, and flag the box which reminds you to add an edit summary to your edits? Most editors who vote in RfA requests look for a very high edit summary percentage. They also look, as has been said, for several months experience - 3 may be ok, 4 is better, and 6 is much better. Also, within the last two years at least, no editor has been made up to admin with less than 1,000 edits to their name, and most (not all) have had 2,000 or more. You have right now 220. You can certainly become an admin; just, not yet. Ask me, or any of the other editors who have commented here, for advice or help at any time. -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK... Muitint78, just by saying that you want to be an Admin and posting it to this board, you have blown your chance of ever being an Admin since you will be opposed on "thinking about becoming an Admin"..sorry :( ..-- Comet styles 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Less sarchasm, please? -- nae' blis 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also recommend not only a lot of constructive edits, but also participating in the discussions at WP:AFD, patrolling recent changes for vandalism, and checking new pages to make sure they don't meet criteria for speedy deletion. These are the non-admin tasks that help prepare you for adminship. If you are a really sharp editor, there are many articles that need cleanup. Hope that helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether we need a !vote counter at all at the top of every RfA application is a moot point; but if we do, could it not be programmed to update automatically, on the basis of the displayed numbers of support/oppose/neutral? -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Aww, where's the fun in that? :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider using Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. GRBerry 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Programming them to update is only giving them attention they don't need. I encourage everyone to ignore the counter, as we aren't counting anything, and only causes unneeded confusion. Majorly ( talk) 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I did sort of hint that we don't need them! -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It should either be accurate or not present at all. Right now we have the worst of both worlds. - Chunky Rice 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support removal of the counter. Shall this be the basis of consensus should anyone that needs information about the counter removal from {{ RfA}}? — O ( 说 • 喝) 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I like it...it doesn't need to be super accurate but it is a handy way to thumbnail RFA's. It's good to be able to distinguish RFAs that might need more input... RxS 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although it's not a vote, it does make it easier to determine which RFAs need more comments. The tallies are usually not up-to-date, though, so they don't help as much as they could in that aspect. I think an auto-updater would be a good idea so actual editors don't have to waste time updating them all the time. Useight 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience the accuracy level is quite satisfactory for any practical purpose one could have for the tallies. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The tallies don't have to be 100%-accurate all the time; the only purpose (and the original reason why they were added) is to give people a basic idea of what the discussion looks like, without having to tread through it. A while ago I suggested that a bot would update the counter on a regular basis, but this proposal was rejected due to many concerns along the lines of "RfA isn't a vote" and "not needed", etc. The tallies are starting to become updated manually more regularly anyway. If it is inaccurate, then it should be ignored, and when checking these sort of things, you should kind of double check the discussion to see if the counter is accurate or not. Sebi _[talk] 05:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that this is the last time I will ever participate in a discussion regarding these counters. They are so often inaccurate that it is better to ignore them, and look down at the discussion yourself. My view of these very inconsequential pieces of text is that they should either be updated by a bot, as Spebi has suggested, or removed altogether. The sheer number of times that this infinitesimal detail of the RFA page has been discussed is unbelievable, considering that it is of little more consequence that the "voice your opinion" link. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam levine ian bagg. What do we do with these, normally? Daniel 04:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is allowed. I have seen other RFAs made to be transcluded months later, so the fact that it has never been transcluded shouldn't be an issue. Obviously, its malformed, but, again, its not live... -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular request was last edited almost a month ago, and the user hasn't made any edits to it (or any other edits to other pages, for that matter) since. As long as it isn't transcluded on the main page, I guess it's fine just staying where it is. Sebi _[talk] 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this a copy? or why else would Lucid revert to a malformed version? [7] T Rex | talk 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucid reverted because the candidate obviously cut and pasted a large amount of discussion from another RfA. Compare the supports listed in this version with the RfA's edit history. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, not worth keeping. Majorly ( talk) 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)