Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 47

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.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

(another) Idea

So, I've been doing some math (one would think that I'm a mathematician) and I came up with these rough numbers (as I said, I'm no mathematician): It took us about five years to get to ~500 Admins. Now it will take us 8 to nine months to get to ~1000. That means a 50% increase in 1/12 the time. Considering that RfA is going through a mini-crisis right now, I thought that it could be interesting that we slowed down the pace of creation of new Admins. Someone mentioned that we are making about 10 new admins a week, that is, 40 a month (this is nobel material, eh?).
So I though: what if we introduced, as a temporary measure (not sure of how long it would last though), a sort of "quota" for new nominations? Let's say, for the sake of example, a maximum of 15 RfAs, with no more than 5 RfAs up at the same time. In the spirit of "first come, first served", we could institute a monthly waiting list, and open the RfA at the top of the list as soon as one closes in the RfA forum, to the limit of (per the example) fifteen.
Alternatively, the quota could be for new Admins, instead of RfAs — so that there could be a greater number of RfAs a month, but as soon as (from the example) 15 new Admins have been promoted in that same month, then we'd halt RfA until 12:00 am UTC of the first day of the following month.
How about it? I'm not sure if something like this has been suggested before. Redux 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No. What's the point of limiting good editors being promoted? Can we ever have too many good editors as Admins? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We should promote every good candidate, regardless of how many admins we may have. The number of users is growing at an rapid rate and instituting a quota would almost certainly be counter-productive. RfA may have its problems, but not to the extent that we need to shut it down for a period of time. Carbonite | Talk 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Humm, but the idea is not to bar anyone from being promoted, just slowing down the pace of promotion. Any deserving user would still be promoted, just not "all at once". Redux 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In effect that bars user's from being promoted because they can't even be nominated. We don't want to limit qualified editors from being promoted. We need more good admins not less. The English Wikipedia has one of the lowest ratios of admins to regular users of any of the larger projects. There's no RFA crisis, just the project is scaling so large you're seeing a lot of complaints. The RfA system works pretty well, very few problem editors get promoted. We need to make it easier to remove those 2 or 5 or whatever admins not slow down the 500 that should be promoted. In fact I'd argue our mission should be to go find 2000 qualified admins and promote them as fast as the system could handle. - Taxman ^Talk 21:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the rate we are producing admins, see my new chart here. We crossed the 30/month barrier in July, already we are at the 60/month level just 6 months later. OTOH, I have been here 9 months, and the number of articles on en.wiki has doubled in that time. I see no crisis in RfA. I see more good editors blocked from being promoted than I see unsuitable candidates promoted (you don't find out until after the fact anyway). If everyone applies their own standards in voting, as we are doing, the results seem to be fairly good, though not perfect. NoSeptember ^talk 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of RfAs/new Admins. I only suggested it given the general feel that something is not quite right with RfA (hence the need for a reform). Slowing down the pace is always a good idea if we believe that some adjusting is needed — until it's been adjusted. Thanks for the charts, NS. Regards, Redux 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA is not going through a minicrisis. People are discussing possible ways to change it, that's all. -Splash^talk 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as the admins aren't causing a problem, having too many shouldn't be an issue. The more there are, the quicker the vandalism gets reverted. --tomf688^{talk} 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Splash, without discussing anyone's personal [of course] opinion, there seems to be a lot of people around here (including the Bcrats) who do think that there's a problem with RfA, and that it is indeed going through a minicrisis. Redux 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see it as a lot of sound and fury, really. The only minicrisis I see is that people continually want RfA changed without presenting evidence that there is a problem. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to digress from the original topic, but wouldn't the problem be that a lot of people don't think that the system is good? And noting Taxman's post, we need to take into account that the ratio in the en.wp is considerably thrown by the fact that a much wider base of individuals can register here, even though many don't contribute regularly (or even scarcely): most of the serious contributors from other-language wikis have accounts in the en.wp, but they don't contribute that often here (sometimes, all they do is link the transwiki articles). But more importantly, a quota of X new Admins a month still means X new Admins every month (15 was just an example). Redux 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA is always going through mini-crises and ipso facto (I love ipso facto) is never going through crises. Where is the sudden breakdown in process here? More noms are getting rejected on this page than previously (in my anecdotal judgement) which is probably a good thing in that it means greater scrutiny. But in no way has the scaleability been thrown off. This Wiki will soon hit a million articles and there are just under a thousand admins to match that. Arguably a low ratio. The problem with a queue is that it will hold appropriate candidates equal to inappropriate candidates. Why should someone who's been contributing well and in good faith for months wait behind a troll for their nom to be considered? Marskell 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Restricting the number of new admins is an idea which will no help in any way make for better admins. Putting new rules for adminship will in no way make for better admins. Lots of bad ideas floating around this talk page periodically. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: What is the benefit to the wiki in this proposal? And please don't bring up The Great RfA Crisis again, because it's pretty obvious that it's not about to explode, even if some things could run a bit better. Why would we want to restrict it? Why does that help the wiki? Why does that help the candidates? Why does that help the admins? -Splash^talk 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The intention would have been to slow down the pace some. Less RfAs up at one time, less deviding of the attention of the voting community (how often do users cast votes and then never return to see if evidence that could turn their opinions around have surfaced?). Again, it was not meant to bar anyone, or restrict anything, except the rapid pace we are seeing right now, in light of the (fine, let's call it) perceived crisis in RfA.
But Marskell brought up an interesting point which I had not considered, which is that of people intentionally clogging the list and thus disturbing the process, which would end up delaying the process unduly for worthy candidates. Yeah, that won't work. Back to the drawing board it is. Redux 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What about creating a new user group? Today, we have now only the group "admin" (see Wikipedia:User access levels). How about splitting that? Today, there is only the choice to give someone that whole admin set or not. How about splitting off something? Maybe we could categorize rights a bit. For me for example blocking users/IPs is one of the toughest rights. Whereas protecting/unprotecting a page is not of the same weight (see also semi-protection). What about a new group "junior admin" which has the rights to protect/unprotect a page, rollback, unwatchedpages and deletedhistory? (See also Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges). We could rename the current admins as "senior admins". Or whatever names you prefer (heavy/light admin?). --Adrian Buehlmann 11:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Adrian - this was queried at WP:AAP, and most people said we don't need the complexity. We either fully trust people or we don't. Nor do I agree with Redux's idea of limiting the rate of promotion. The problems we have with admins do not lie in promoting too many people, or the wrong people; the problems we have lie in not demoting the (admittedly few) disruptive ones. If we want the RFA page less clogged, we should invoke the Snowball Clause on candidates that obviously don't stand a chance. R adiant _>|< 13:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat 3

I de-transcluded this: the user self-nommed and indicated no acceptance of his own nominaiton. The Land 22:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't that a little rules-lawyery? I never accepted my self nom. It's implicit in making one! Are you just looking for an excuse to take it down? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is explicitly not a request for adminship because the user says he doesn't really want to be an admin. I read 'really' as a statement of fact, not as a modifier to 'want', and I think the nomination is clearly an abuse of RfA, but I'm not going to remove it again. The Land 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat seems to either be making a point, or using the page for his own ends ("I just dont want anyone to tell me admin-worthy again"). This isn't what the page is for, and is disruptive. Cool Cat - you are obviously not happy - but this is not the solution -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of Cool Cat's appointed mentors, I have taken the unusual step of removing the RFA from the page. Reviewing his recent actions, it appears that he is making this self-nomination because he feels upset and has chosen this method as an outlet, rather than having a realistic expectation of becoming an administrator on this occasion.

This is a temporary removal, not prejudicial to the application, while I seek to communicate with Cool Cat and clarify his feelings and his intended course of action. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal but I have reverted Sannse's blanking and the attack note on the RFA page. Neither are necessary especially the attack note. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It was in no way intended as an attack note. I have always had a good relationship with Cool Cat, and my biggest emotion here is worry. Like Tony, I am attempting to talk to him (although not as a mentor of course) and I'm sure this will all be sorted. I'll cut the note down to a minimum - please let me know if I leave anything in it that could in any way be thought an attack. -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll leave as is for now - I think blanking is best, but protection alone will at least prevent further dispute on the page. -- sannse (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral to Cool Cat (I've had mainly neutral or positive interactions with him), but I wanted to let you know that Cool Cat's decided to resubmit his RFA. However, this version is much more neutral in tone than the previous one (if a lot more concise). If his mentors want to do something about it, go ahead. If Cool Cat is submitting this RFA to make a WP:POINT, maybe everyone should just refrain from voting either way. --D e ath phoenix 15:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As am I. I really don't know what to say, and I'm flabbergasted that MARMOT has made this much trouble for him... Ethier way, I think he's a great contributor to the project, but I couldn't support nor oppose him; as I think something is amiss concerning this rfar. -Zero^Talk 15:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bling-chav

This user's only contributions so far are on RfA, and have all been made today. I have left a note on his talk page saying that his votes may be disregarded, given the circumstances. If this is ignored I will begin to suspect the votes are trollng or vandalism. The Land 14:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't have a name which screams 'helpful'; see chav. My guess is that he is nominating everyone he sees; 4836.03 welcomed him, as did UkPaolo. Both then got nominated. And now he's RFA'd himself. Σμυρραυινκχεστερ^{(υσερ), (Ταλκ)} 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if he/she is a sockpuppet. When a new user know how to sign his/her name, then he/she's usually a sockpuppet. Genuine n00bs always have to have it carefully explained. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not if they come from other wikis. NSL E _(T+C) 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed two of his three noms (the other one was declined) from the page as bad-faith and thus vandalism. NSL E _(T+C) 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed two more noms today, not by Bling-chav, but by two editors nominating each other, as bad-faith. If you disagree, please revert but leave a note here and on my talk page. NSL E _(T+C) 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What is going on?

Why are so many people losing these RfAs so quickly and so often now...I definitely won't try to nominate myself or be posted here - the failure would be too humiliating. I guess Wikipedians have become tough cookies (or however that saying goes) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be two groups of candidates failing:
1. The vandal fighters who come here before they have 3 months of solid activity (someone should spread the word that a premature RfA is not a good idea).
2. The elephant memory victims. If you have ever done something questionable or uncivil it will be brought up, no matter how far back it goes. I don't know how to solve this one, we should have a statute of limitations on mistakes, but apparently some disagree.

NoSeptember ^talk 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Seems we need a policy to to advise users to take awhile to get some experience in wikipedia for adminship nomination. Take it slow, get some edits, smell the fresh air and take a walk in policy. -Zero^Talk 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to also be a group of editors sailing through with hugely lopsided positive votes... these editors all have much longer histories, well balanced overall and solid projectspace contribution records (tools, policy work, etc) and good interactions with others. The elephant memory issue may be valid but the fact that these candidates are all sailing through gives me a lot of confidence in the process. I don't know if a POLICY is needed but maybe some enhancement to some of the "so you want to be an admin" pages and WP:GRFA would be helpful? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I started WP:GRFA but gave up on it when two people hijacked it and revert warred anything they thought inappropriate, and blamed me for the edits when I hadn't edited in weeks prior to that. You are welcome to try to improve WP:GRFA, but don't be surprised if you run into a lot of resistance. Caveat; I haven't read it in more than a month (nor am I inclined to), so maybe it's improved. --Durin 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some data: The success rate of nominations from June 23, 2005 to November 23, 2005 was 70%. From November 24 to January 23 (last 2 months), it was 59.9%. From December 24 to January 23 (last month) it was 51.8%. The success rate of late has indeed dropped significantly. --Durin 14:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit know that I have had an imperfect record here, so I don't plan to add myself to become an admin. here anytime soon.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And who could blame the statistics. Admistrative status is becoming a easier-abuised and lower quality position as of late. I beleive there is perfect justification in the voter's strict nomination attitude. We need people of high quality, and some users (I shall not cite names) have depicted actions very unsuitible of the position. Adminship is not a position to be trifled with, and it reflects a user's dedication and williness to accept more responsilbility for the good of the project. This is to be taken very seriously. -Zero^Talk 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been and will be (I imagine) one side that views adminship as no big deal (backed up by a very old comment from Jimbo himself) and the other side that views it more like you do. --Durin 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny, Durin, you just noted (during an edit conflict) the same point I did. Everyone hits Jimbo's old comment, but as I said long ago, it's as big a deal as the voters think it is. And see my comments below. - Cecropia 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really an extension of the old Wikiargumennt: "Adminship, big deal or no big deal?" My impression is that we may have come to the end of a very liberal cycle in granting adminship as "no big deal" where we were adding a dozen or more admins a week. Two years ago the community was smaller and there were about 200 admins total. Most of the admins then were familiar names: the most active trusted users. Even though I was new at Wikipedia then, almost all the admins were familiar names and the smaller pool of voters knew what these people were about, so "consensus" really was more like a consensus in the way most people would understand it. Though it was talked about "rogue" admins were really rare, and "wheel warring" wasn't even anticipated. The rare admins who really messed up were jumped on by other admins and editors. Another issue is voting. With anywhere from no candidacies to six or seven at a time and typically between 10 and 30 votes per nomination most of the voters took the process seriously and, if they didn't know the candidate, took the trouble to follow criticisms and comments about the candidates to make informed choices (and also add their own observations). Now we have many candidates who are unknown to almost anyone but the nominator (if there is a nominator) and, with upwards of 130 votes on some nominations, the candidates get the most cursory examination. So my point, if it's not already obvious, is that the increasing proportion of objections may be at least partially a growing feeling that too many editors were made admin too uncritically, and the reaction is to reject marginal candidates who may have made it a month or so before. This is just my observation. Bureaucrats are bound to follow the rules set down over the two years that Bcratship has existed and interpret them when necessary. I believe Linuxbeak is attempting some kind of overall reform in RfA and editors have been arguing out a lot of issues. Will this have some comprehensive effect. I have no idea, but it seems that, in the meantime, RfA voters are reacting in the only way that's really noticed. -- Cecropia 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, it's for the community to decide what their standards are for their new admins - this is a community project after all. On the other hand though I do think there's a danger in being too harsh in the search for the perfect user to become a new admin and that at some point we're going to out-standardise ourselves in the quest for that perfect user. However we are still promoting people and so there doesn't appear to be too much of a problem at the moment - we just need to make sure we don't become too bureaucratic in a process that was originally supposed to be "no big deal", even if it is a big deal now. -- Francs 2000 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Francs, the community decides how big a deal it is to be or not. Judging by the number of admins made in the last year I don't think the problem now is people looking for "that perfect user." Sorry to put it this way, but the job of the bureaucrat is to be bureaucratish in attempting to interpret the desires of the community as consistently, fairly and impartially as possible. Each Bcrat cannot have a personal standard of promotion different from the others, otherwise there is no point in having humans do the job at all. Just program a bot and let it roar! -- Cecropia 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the process is antiquated, and me should strive to find suitable admins. some other way (watch disagreement and naysayers below :-) ). ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that people have simply raised their standards. Last week happened to have a flood of apparently unqualified candidates; the week before had a flood of good ones. There has been some talk of setting a minimum standard for nominating (e.g. 1000 edits and two months of account age) because anyone below that doesn't stand a chance anyway. But if people are enthousiastic, that's laudable. Just don't pile-up the nastiness. R adiant _>|< 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did my little chart for January and I get 44 approvals and 44 rejections for the month of January, down from 67 approvals and 32 rejections in December. NoSeptember ^talk 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to granting adminship, I personally am in the bigger-deal-than-Jimbo-makes-it-to-be school. Maybe calling adminship a "big deal" is a bit much, but the nomination process and the authority granted should be treated as more than just unlocking the rollback feature. Also, I don't really see any problems with those who have been rejected, with the exception of CSCWEM perhaps. --tomf688^{talk} 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what could make everything easier on RfA? Clearly established rules. Things need to be spelled out more clearly. Discretion is necessary, or even unavoidable, in some aspects, namely the voting of each person and the degree of discretion allowed to Bcrats in closing an RfA. However, this should be kept to a very minimal, and right now, it isn't. You go through the GRFA and you see a lot of discretion, there's a rule, but it is applied at someone's discretion. That worked for a smaller, more "coherent", for lack of a better word, community, which we used to have, as noted by Cecropia, but not anymore. Clear rules would make it simpler, and more previsible: if a candidate doesn't meet the objective criteria, (s)he will be removed (forcibly, not at someone's discretion); if the candidate does meet the criteria and people still vote to oppose on grounds of "insuficient this or that", that vote will be discarded (again, no discretion).
And on the front of making everything clearer: all votes should be justified, or else not count. And if someone says anything like oppose, the candidate is uncivil/rude/ill-tempered (or whatever), a diff should be mandatory, or the vote should not count.
This would make the process not only clearer, but also much more "resistent" to the interference of vandals, trolls and cliques. Just my two cents. Regards, Redux 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic?

I just wanted to make sure the situation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dynamic was clear to all, particularly the bureaucrats. Dynamic is a brand-new user (first edit 1/29), and his RFA started badly. He voted for himself while impersonating Freestylefrappe, and Freestylefrappe blocked him. While he was blocked, I pleaded with voters to stop urging him to withdraw, since he was incapable of doing so. NSLE then removed his RFA, saying "if this is wrong please revert" in his edit summary ([1]). No one objected (and I think NSLE was right to do so). However, the RFA is technically still open. Dynamic's block has expired, but he has not returned. Two questions: should the RFA be officially closed? And more generally, does anyone have any ideas to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future? This was an extreme case--I can't remember an RFA candidate blocked for actions at his own RFA before--but certainly similar things have happened and will happen with very new users. Any thoughts would be welcome. Chick Bowen 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I agree that NSLE's move was the correct one. If some formal process needs to take place to close Dynamic's nomination, it should probably be done too. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This conforms to process on Front Matter as it stands. A non-crat may de-list for "vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination." This would qualify as the first. Marskell 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The first? Many poorly-formed nominations have been removed by non-crats, even by non-admins. I removed a couple of clearly Farblondzhet ones myself quite some time ago. Jonathunder 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant "first" to refer to the first of the three reasons (vandalism), the way one would user "former" to refer to the first of two items. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I move this to be speedy deleted. --Durin 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why delete? What if he goes up for RfA again in 2 months? It'd be nice to have this record. -lethe ^talk 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I closed the RfA. -lethe ^talk 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Lethe. I've left a message on his talk page. No reason to delete the RFA--as Lethe says, we should keep it as a record. By the way, Jonathunder, I think what Marskell meant is not that this RFA was a first as that it was the first of his examples, i.e. vandalism. I actually don't think that's the case--I still believe, based on this user's other contributions, that it was a good-faith effort by a very confused editor. We'll see if he ever comes back. Chick Bowen 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Chick. Marskell 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggested delete because it's quite similar to efforts by a multiple sockpuppet vandal that was attempting to disrupt RfA a bit back. I don't see any need or reason to keep around BJAODN RfAs. --Durin 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I probably haven't been around VfA long enough to see that kind of bad stuff, but I think this was not vandalism, just a really bad self-nom. Which means I guess I disagree with Marskell's assessment above. Perhaps we didn't have the right to close and delist this RfA, at least not under current guidelines. Maybe a rule should be written. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It also states "improper formatting" as a reason for a non-crat to de-list. I don't think we need more rule-creep. Front Matter is pretty straightforward about who can do what, when. Marskell 11:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is straightforward, then why are you vacillating between two interpretations (vandalism and improper formatting)? And it's unclear to me whether by closing the VfA, I implicitly made a decision about consensus. If so, then as a non-bureaucrat I certainly violated that point. So I know non-bcrats can delist, but who can close, and when can they close? -lethe ^{talk +} 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not vacillating between anything. I do happen to think it was vandalism/disruption and I'm only pointing out that if you thought it was simply improper formatting that's justified as it stands as well; this is always going to be somewhat subjective no matter how precise we make RfA rules. My suggestion in general would be: if you're uncertain, don't delist. In this case, I think it was quite fair. Marskell 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I guess that's good enough for me. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The repeated vandalism with fake RfAs happened within the last two weeks. An individual created a number of accounts, edited the main user page of each to contain little in the way of content, created a number badly formatted RfAs, created sockpuppets to vote for himself, and managed to get most (if not all) of the accounts banned. Dynamic is just the latest incarnation of this. See User:Big Potato, User:Gary the Snail, and User:AngryBeaver for prior examples of this. We haven't kept those RfAs around, and I don't see any reason to keep this one around either. This person is very bent on disruption of RfA for some unknown reason. --Durin 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, well like I said, I haven't been around that long. Not even two weeks, just since I got nominated a week ago. So I missed all that stuff. If this is an instance of that sort of vandalism, then I support speedying it. We don't need the record of the RfA. We might need a record of all the accounts under which this vandalism was attempted though. Does such a list exist? -lethe ^{talk +} 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think Dynamic is the same user as those Durin mentions, since they are all from IPs in the 70.248 range and Dynamic edits from 202.141.148.18 (talk • contribs). However, I think it was properly closed as badly formatted and I don't think it matters much whether it's deleted. The only reason to keep is that Dynamic has not been indefinitely banned, unlike the accounts Durin mentions, and could conceivably run again some day. Chick Bowen 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what IP Dynamic is editing from? I also note that AngryBeaver is a fan of Naruto ([2]) and that one of the very few edits Dynamic has made is to Naruto ([3]). Seems a little too coincidental to me, but I grant that it's simply coincidental. The bad formatting of the RfAs is virtually identical too though, and that's another coincidence. Then add in that AngryBeaver and co.'s RfAs had sockpuppet votes, and so does Dynamics. Another coincidence. Hmm. --Durin 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

After he was blocked, he left a message from that IP on Bishonen's talk page asking her to vote for him (she declined). I don't know whether Dynamic is a sockpuppet or not, Durin--if you're convinced he is, then I accept that (though if so maybe you should block him again, since he's currently unblocked). I do think that there have been plenty of examples of RFAs that were premature by many months but were not malicious, and I think we should have an agreed-upon strategy for dealing with them in line with WP:BITE. Chick Bowen 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I'm not 100% convinced. It's just circumstancial evidence after all. It's just too many consequences for me to have much doubt. But, a little doubt I do have. I agree with your suggestion on an agreed strategy. Some numbers: 9% (43 of 487) of all completed RfAs since June 23, 2005 have been for editors with less than 750 edits. 7% (34) have had less than 500 edits. All failed. --Durin 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Time to add the optional questions to the template?

Hi all. We've had this little experiment running for a while now, and I'd like to think the optional questions have been of some use to those of you wanting to get a better sense of our RFA candidates. I'd appreciate any feedback you can provide at Template talk:RfA#Optional questions (sorry for the delay, I thought there were more people who read that talk page). Thanks, D e ath phoenix 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm for it. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The questions have proved their mettle, so I support moving them to the standard set. Well done. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but remove the old and stale questions. R adiant _>|< 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should do away will all the questions. Let the nominee set up their request however they wish. Or make the nominee give a couple of reasons why people should support their request, and a couple of reasons people might not support their request. Admins should be open to talk about their past mistakes, and if people want to oppose them, that's their prerogative. I'm just not sure anything should ever be mandatory to do within Wikipedia. My opinion. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The questions aren't mandatory in the first place, and certainly there are plenty of voters who wouldn't care if they weren't answered. By and large I agree with you, though; the standard questions are needless paperwork. Better to let the nominee say what he wants, and then people can ask whatever questions they want. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Right now they are optional, no big deal, but if they are added to the template, no matter if the questions are optional, in reality, they will become mandatory. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The questions are de facto mandatory, not because there is a policy against not answering them, but because sufficient people will oppose any candidate who doesn't answer, or gives answers that are too terse. >Radiant< 12:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, perhaps all questions should be optional. If an editor wishes to state his case in another way, ve should be free to do so. -- Ec5618 12:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think as Radiant points out, we can call them optional all we want, but if people are inclined to oppose someone who does not answer, the questions become mandatory in practice. I would like to see very few automatic questions, but then encourage users to ask candidate specific questions that focus right in on areas of concern you may have about a candidate. NoSeptember ^talk 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly worried about instruction creep here. Any questions that are asked in all RfAs are essentially mandatory. While it might not affect the success/failure rate, RfA is becoming an even more difficult process. The Land 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We have 800 admins now, I'm not sure I see the process becoming more difficult as necessarily a bad thing if it improves the quality of new admins. Especially absent the mooted reforms that would make it easier to remove admins that have not been discharging their duties satisfactorily. Optional or not, evasive answers or refusal to answer some or all of the questions will lose my vote absent some good countervailing argument. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. We need to make standards higher for admins so that we won't have to "de-admin" anyone later on. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The optional questions is actually the least instruction-creeping thing to add to the RfA process because there's nothing added to the RfA process. What would be instruction creep, IMO, is waiting a mandatory period before adding the optional questions. However, if you mean instruction creep in the sense that the candidate has to answer a few more questions, yes, it makes the RfA process a little harder for the candidate, but it doesn't add any additional steps to the process. --D e ath phoenix 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Publicising one's RFA

It may just be me, but I'd like to see a requirement for a nominee to display, at the top of their own user and talk pages, a big brightly colored box saying: I am currently up for RfA, click here. It's good enough for an AfD, why not an RfA? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is the user's prerogative. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought most of the frequent RfA voters frowned upon publicizing one's own RfA. --Tantalum T e lluride 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We do frown on it, frequent and infrequent voters both. A message on one's own pages is all right, though. The idea of making such a message a requirement is just weird. Ben doesn't give any real reason for his suggestion, it seems to me: "If it's good enough for an AfD" isn't a real reason, as the function and purpose of the two pages are lightyears apart. Nothing should be a requirement for no reason. Bishonen | talk 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

The reason I suggest it is that most people do not regularly check RFA. I'm an occasional visitor here, and I regularly miss RfAs of people I know. If we want to hear the opinions of people who have had contact with nominees, we should let those people know that the nominee is up for RFA. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Another effect of making such a thing a requirement is that it guarantees no opprobrium would attach to using it. You could never say person X wants adminship more than Y because X used the tag and Y didn't. Demi ^T/_C 08:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You might try watching this page. :-) Dragons flight 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is a good one. A standardized template, much like AfD's, could serve as a neutral signpost for those who might have something to say either way. Heck -- even if it only draws trolls, it's educational to see a candidate's response to trollery. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting. Personally I don't like the idea of campaigning for RfA... I didn't modify my userpage or anything when I was on RfA. But a standard tag would be a good idea, perhaps. It would be a mixed blessing, it might let people who have a strong opposition to a given candidate know about the RfA as easilly as it gets them extra support votes. It's true, not everyone watches RfA regularly... this might help a bit. --W.marsh 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is somewhat premised on the assumption that enemies are as likely to watch and visit a user's page as their friends are. An assumption that strikes me as unlikely. Dragons flight 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a good idea for a nominee to post his nomination on his user page. It is a bad idea to make this into a rule. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do people tend to watch the userpages of their "enemies" or something? Hehe I don't really know... I don't have anyone I consider an enemy on WP. --W.marsh 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I checked my watchlist. Among User pages I watch, not including admins, pure vandal accounts, or sockpuppets, it runs about two-to-one in favor of people I would probably never support for admin. (Not all, I hope, enemies. I hope nobody here thinks RfA voting is about supporting friends and voting against enemies.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't? Well, there go my standards. Marskell 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea. It might attract a wider cross section of the community to comment on RfA's, because as pointed out above not everyone closely watches this page. A lot of users that I would both support (majority) and not support (some) in a RfA are on my watchlist; and even though I now watch this page, I would have appreciated seeing a notice on their page otherwise. Having a standard template means that its not self promotion. --Petros471 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. People who've had discussions with a candidate, good or bad, are likely to still have the candidate's talk page on their watchlist and they're more likely to have some insight into whether the candidate would be a suitable admin than most people. I would have done this on my RfA but I was worried that it would be seen as campaigning. If there was a rule about it then this would not have been a problem. CTOAGN (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're going at it in the wrong way. Perhaps a simple list somewhere of the 15-ish people currently up for RfA/RfB... maybe it could even be listed on your watchlist. It would seem that way you could just scan over it every day or two and see if there were any names you recognized. --W.marsh 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean, like my list? Dragons flight 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that existed... I'll remember it. Your AfD lists are great, by the way. --W.marsh 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dragon flight's list is excellent (it's been on my watchlist since it was first announced), but it targets a different audience than this proposal. People might have something interesting to say about a specific candidate; people who don't want to track RfA in general. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Box of links

I've just added a box of links to the front matter page. As a bureaucrat it's handy having links to the three respective bureaucrat pages as well as the three respective admin pages, together from the main page. Feel free to change back or reformat if disapproved of though. -- Francs 2000 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The box is nice, but the bcrat links are overkill. These are down at the bcrat nom is anyone really wants to know. There are ~800 admins and two dozen bcrats--it's not top-o-the-page info. -- Cecropia 03:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Flurry of newbie votes

Hello, bureaucrats? I'm a bit concerned about the contributions pattern of Mjal (talk · contribs), who has been posting a lot of RFA votes today. I've dropped a gentle (well, I tried) query on his page. Bishonen | talk 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

So, why exactly isn't the page semi-protected permanently? Seems like a good enough example of what happens when sockpuppets or misguided new members find this page. --tomf688^{talk} 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because semi-protection policy states that semi-protection is not be used proactively. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Try telling that to George W. Bush. Sorry, I have to keep bringing it up. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous. It can't be mere conisidence that such an extravagent number of new users flock to this page out of the blue. Assuming good faith, that's nigh immposible; as wikipedia is extremely expansive site. It's very difficult to learn the abbreviations for policy and project page right of the bat without a lick of experience. And it is my opinion that some of these users are attemptting to game the system, henceforth being experienced users in a new name, or sockpuppets.

There is a problem here.

And if they are new users who "by accident" happen to arrive here and vote, we can always refrator it and ask them to stop being silly sausages. rfa has become progressively a more and more serious affair. It is not a game, and we need experienced users to vote for experienced people to gain the highest quality admins possible. -Zero^Talk 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-active semiprotection of articles is held to be undesirable, but RfA is not an article. I really don't see any good reason a brand-new account or anon IP needs to post on RfA. Jonathunder 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But anons have always been allowed to comment, and at one time they were allowed to vote too, before vote counting became so important. == Cecropia 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection may be a option worth looking into however. Experienced wikipedians are more likely to make expereinced-based votes. There have been two cases of "joke rfa's" as of late as well. This may be very feasible. -Zero^Talk 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We can always amend semi-prot policy. Note that we are already in the habit of preemptively protecting high-risk templates, so I don't see the harm in semiprotting some pages in Wikispace, as they're not articles. >Radiant< 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about semi-protecting the main page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but not its subpages? Is this possible? That would forbid new users to make a self-nomination (or to nominate someone else and place a non-accepted nomination on the main page), while they can still comment on other ones. - Liberatore(T) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be easy. >Radiant< 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But they can still vote, which is the "problem" raised in this topic. --tomf688^{talk} 01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a Poll

I think the bottom line here is that this is a democracy and as in society we do not get to pick and choose who gets to vote!!! Mjal 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT.

Well I'm going to assume that because were voting this page is a democracy!! Mjal 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't assume that here. It'll just upset you and lead to more exclamaton points. See WP:NOT again.Gator (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Without intending to take a stand on who should and shouldn't vote, all democracies have the concept of enfranchisement. Taking the U.S. example, there are age requirements, citizenship requirements, residency requirements including minimum time for state and local elections, felons in many states cannot vote. -- Cecropia 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking Cecropia - I would have never thought of that! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine we will call this a poll because all members are allowed to vote as it states under the who may vote section "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote" Mjal 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

True, with the exception that Bcrats now consider "very new users" for the likelihood that they might be socks or vandals. There have been numerous attempts to formalize a minimum time/edits, but they've all talked themselves out without setting a rule. I don't think minimum edits is a good idea, since it is so easy to rack up trivial edits, but a month in time might be useful. Just my personal observation, nothing more. -- Cecropia 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the merits of it, but as Gator implied above, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. --D e ath phoenix 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there appears to be reasonable support on WP:AAP for requiring a suffrage of (1) 100 edits, and (2) account age of one month. >Radiant< 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If in fact that is a requirment then I have ment that requirments standards but I don't think it is. Remember I not discussing whether or not the rules should be changed but I'm stating that my vote is legitimate. Mjal 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to Radiant) 36-19 on first blow through. That's 65%. That's at the very bottom edge of consensus, if you can call it that. I grant that there's support; I don't know that there's support sufficient to cause change. --Durin 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how widespread the support for that is. Can you explain exactly why a poll on admin accountability included a poll on minimum time periods/vote count on RfA? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion in Archive 45, and I'm sure previously. The people who discuss things on this page are of course only those with an interest. NoSeptember ^talk 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, aye, this discussion has been going on as long as I've been here. But those who discussed it there are of course only those interested in creating an "administrator accountability policy", which many aren't. I'm questioning its relevance, more out of curiosity than anything else. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the nomination trolling (Bling-chav's nominations and previous instances like BabyBaluga) is the bigger problem. Bureaucrats are good at discounting socks and suspicious newbies, maybe we just need a policy to prevent nominations from those with under 100 edits (including self-noms). At least require them to get a bureaucrat's approval first. With such a policy, we could revert bad nominations on sight. NoSeptember ^talk 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't the activists here just tag a suspicious voter's vote by displaying their edit count and WP age. That would reduce the burden on the b-cats and would be simple to verify. No special rules needed, just displaying the voter's profile (and by that perhaps intentions). hydnjo talk 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want to know what I really think well, for openers no self-noms and for a followup, nominations must be by an admin. With 668 current active admins there should be no problem getting one of them to agree to nominate. Sort of a voucher or good faith credential. hydnjo talk 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To Durin - true. I didn't mean to make that suffrage policy now. I was just pointing out that several people found it reasonable. It's obvious that there is some support for suffrage. I have not as yet seen much opposition to it but that of course doesn't mean there isn't any. Suffrage is not something we should reject on principle (nor, of course, instate without thinking).
To Sam Korn - the issue of how accountable admins are has obvious reflections to the promotion process. Besides, it needed a concise name. I think if you'd look over that poll you'd find a broad number of people who expressed their opinion on it. It is obviously relevant; we can argue about whether it's representative, but to me it seems to be so.
>Radiant< 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It just feels like we can't really do anything because we are NOT this and that. I'm starting to wonder what the diddly are we, then? We work for consensus, but on some forums, including this one, we can't get one. Perhaps we are deluded, in the sense that we still believe that an utopia is possible? Redux 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. People are promoted to admins if there is consensus to do so, as judged by the bureaucrats. We are discussing changes to that system on this talk page, and if there is consensus for a change, it will be implemented. It's not perfect but it works most of the time. >Radiant< 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- We are an encyclopedia on the "front" of the articles. But the places where we interact as a community are the talk pages (of all namespaces). In those places, we work on the encyclopedia, but not just that. This very forum, for instance, is not directly related to the encyclopedia, which is the articles, but rather to the community. And on this aspect of the project is where we seem to be lost. We are so concerned with not being so many things that we run the risk of ending up being nothing — ok, a little melodramatic :P, but you get the point (I hope). Redux 01:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I totally off-the-wall by suggesting that a nomination be done with the imprimatur of one of the 668 active admins? hydnjo talk 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, of course not. It is a valid suggestion. Our problem is that we can't articulate any kind of general agreement. We talk, talk and talk, and after all this talk, someone asks if there was a problem to begin with. And we just keep talking, and getting nowhere with it. Of course nothing changes because no consensus to change has been reached. We are working in a way that makes reaching a clear consensus all but impossible. I've lost count of the suggestions to improve RfA that have been made, both here and elsewhere. Some were good, others not so much. Bad ones are peremptorily rejected, but the good ones usually end in the same way: "no consensus reached". I actually made a suggestion not directly on improvements to RfA, but rather on a way that could make it possible for us to review RfA effectively (change or not, and if so, how? — you can see an outline here), but most people didn't pay much attention to it. So we just keep talking, and talking, and... Redux 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had interaction with several newcomers who seem to think that they haven't really arrived unless they carry the admin badge, and for no other discernible reason. It becomes a goal or a status symbol rather than a tool or a privilege. I hate that but I do see it happening. Within their first month of existence here, seeking advice and posturing for the admin badge as though it bestows importance as in a usenet environment. hydnjo talk 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hydnjo has a point. I joined in November, and the first month or so I was here I thought the same thing about admins (I wised up when I decided to go see what an admin really was). Right now, it someone were to nominate me, I would not accept their nomination because I'm not ready for that kind of responsibility...yet.:)-The Scurvy Eye 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I could be an army of "one" with my oppose vote (just like you know who from our past) and post an oppose vote for any self-nomination or any nomination from a non-admin. My preference however is for the community to agree that these fairly liberal requirements for nomination become our guidelines. Please respond with your argument against my position so that I can re-examine my position. Please note that this isn't a suffrage issue but a candidacy imprimatur requirement, no big deal if the candidate is of admin caliber. A fairly minimal threshold. hydnjo talk 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To require that someone be nominated by an admin is to make being an admin a bigger deal than it is now. Admins would be priviledged in personnel issues too, instead of just janitors. That is not a good trend. Nor do I have a problem with self-noms, it would be strange to require a nomination to request adminship while at the same time requiring self-nomination to be a bureaucrat (which seems to be the preference there). A good candidate is good independent of who nominates them, or whether they self-nominate. The suffrage issue is just about avoiding complete newbies who likely don't understand wiki (or socks) from distorting the process. To treat users (who have enough experience to understand the system) differently is a major change in creating a hierarchy of rights, and is something we should want to avoid here. NoSeptember ^talk 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to banning self-nominations. Yes, most editors worthy of Adminship would have little trouble finding someone to nominate them, but we shouldn't make personal relations a requirement. I can understand the desire to bar sub-par nominations, but surely there is something to be said for relying on edit history instead of charm and relationships.

hydnjo, did you not say in my RfA "I commend your courage in self-nominating, always it seems a risky approach towards adminship." -- Ec5618 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did say that. A reflection of my observation that some of the "regulars" here will discount a self-nom and therefore it takes more courage than to have been nominated by a highly regarded editor. hydnjo talk 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the feedback:

On the most recent remarks. Yes, Adminship is being perceived by newer members of the community as some sort of "status symbol", which is insane. More and more I see people who have been around for three months or less applying for Adminship — and because an RfA can be a popularity contest, some end up getting it. No one who has been around for three months can be completely schooled on how the project works in all its complexity. In my book, a three-month old account is barely out of the "newbie category". I only applied for Adminship when I had been around for over a year. By then, I knew exactly how the project works, what an Admin does and, very importantly, I was "prepared" to manage well Admin-restricted tools. That's where clearer criteria could help RfA: no one with less than X experience can become an Admin, period. Some believe that we don't need that because inexperienced candidates don't stand a chance. Meanwhile, I've seen people who had been around for as little as two months be promoted, because they had managed to amass enough "friends", and/or "admirers" to carry an RfA to success.
About the nominations, I don't believe that it would be essential to restrict valid nominations to Admins. The first step to a serious, worthy RfA is having a nominator that knows the potential candidate, has been in contact with the user extensively and knows that that person would make a good Admin. With 800 Admins and a general community of 800 thousand (closer to 900,000), this kind of mining just could not be done by Admins exclusively, and if other users had to go ask Admins to nominate candidates, this could generate a kind of politics that I don't believe would be productive to the project. And plus there's the work load: some Admins could be overwhelmed with "requests to nominate", and unless the Admin happens to know the potential candidate as well (which would not be usual), (s)he would have to do some "background check", which can take some time. And consider this: is it fair that an Admin unilaterally turns down a candidate? And what then? The nominator (or the candidate) just moves on to the next Admin?
I also see no point in banning self-noms. No reason why a good user/candidate cannot self-nominate. If anything, we need to try and eliminate a trace of "prejudice" against self-noms (there's usually more opposition, and for no good reasons; and an overall smaller participation of the community, also for no discernable reason, except for it being a self-nom).
Does that addresses your questions? Regards, Redux 03:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to hydnjo's suggestion of allowing only admins to make nominations. There are many editors who have more experience than some of the admins and who, for their own reasons, choose to remain non-admins. Admins have no unique insight as to what makes a good admin. The tools should be conferred by the community. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- One problem with putting specific dates as baselines is that they are not flexible - I don't have a year in the project, and yet I believe that I have a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policy, as I've spent a large amount of hours going over it, reading precedents in archives, and in some cases, helping to draft it. I was nominated at about 5 months in, because I saw that I couldn't help as much without the extra buttons, and I'm sure many other users feel the same. I've also been impressed by some "newbies's" knowledge of Wikipolicy. My point? Some users like to dive in at a "steeper angle" into Wikipedia than others. I don't think we should be looking for time here, but rather for balance in a user's work - that usually indicates that the editor is more familiar with several aspects of policy than one (which is one of the reasons many noms have failed recently: many vandal-whackers want adminship just to get rollback).
- I agree wholeheartedly with not having "Admin-only" noms. That would lead to unnecessary campaigning, which deviates from our goal. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  - - Time as an editor and edit counts are being used as shortcuts to evaluate candidates. The answer is to do a good job of vetting candidates. Ask tough questions to see if the candidate really understands policy and key issues (and different questions for each candidate so they can't just look at past RfAs for answers). We don't need to formalize all sorts of requirements, we just need a group of people who will make sure that each candidate is properly vetted, and those that are found wanting are opposed. That is what you need if you want stricter standards. But many here feel that adminship should not be so strictly dealt with, a bit of on-the-job training is ok as long as the new admin is not likely to abuse the new powers. So decide where you stand and act based on your standards, but we are nowhere near having much consensus to formally change any of the rules, so enforcement must come from your votes and letting people know what you expect. NoSeptember ^talk 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whew - I'm glad we got that one out of the way! hydnjo talk 04:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No consensus to change anything any time soon... Wasn't that what I was talking about a while ago? All we do here is intelectual speculation. Meanwhile, nothing changes. And at the same time, nor do we come to the conclusion that nothing needs changing. This is like a treadmill: we keep running, but we never actually move. Just saying, is all. Redux 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A treadmill is good exercise. ;) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But if you overdo it, it could give you a heart attack. And in the meantime, it makes you sore. <8O Redux 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whew - I'm glad we got that one out of the way! I don't remember having that many edit conflicts - ever. OK, so anyone can be a candidate for admin. Our collective wisdom therefore will prevail as to who's who. I've no problem with that except for its lack of efficiency expensed in favor of democracy, and that's not bad. I brought it up in case any of us felt a need for an initial screening. That having been soundly trounced I'll concede defeat for that idea. OK then, anyone can present themselves for community approval to be an admin. What about then the introduction of first timers to have a say in the promotion? I'm OK with the b-cats figuring that all out but does anyone have an objection to some of us providing ID profiles to suspect votes? And, can someone start a new section please? hydnjo talk 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Other suggestion

Interesting paradox... there are many nominations failing for lack of experience; the easiest way to fix that is to impose minimum requirements on a candidate (e.g. 1000 edits or two months or whatever), but in doing so we would make adminship more of a badge of merit. What we should be doing is convincing newbies that adminship really isn't a badge of merit, as well as convince people in general to employ meaningful voting standards. There are quite a lot of people that support just about anybody on grounds of the "no big deal" koan, and doing so will result in us having inexperienced or untested admins. Case in point, we now have someone deadminned (by arbcom) barely three months after being mopified. Closer scrutiny to the candidacy may have prevented that. >Radiant< 10:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is as I said: clearer rules would make it easier. We can try and defuse the whole "badge of merit misconception" by trying to explain better, or perhaps more effectively, what Adminship is really about. But with rules that are more specific about who can apply, we would not have newbies, or "seminewbies", if we can call it that, applying for the job (and sometimes getting it, which only entices other inexperienced users to apply as well). Clearly, the "widom of the community" is not always enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially when a RfA turns into a popularity contest, which happens sometimes. Regards, Redux 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always felt the title administrator is a bit of a misnomer that leads to RfA being the Wikipedia equivalent of levelling up in an RPG (with all that XP from your edit count!). Perhaps officially calling it 'janitor' would reflect more accurately what we can and can't (or at leasn't aren't supposed to) do with our "powers". --W.marsh 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I've noticed is that a fair number of newbies also support these newbie (or seminewbie) candidates, hoping to get a support vote in return for their own RFAs. Such actions make it appear as if a seminewbie candidate is more qualified than reality. --D e ath phoenix 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I see that going around too. It goes right back to what I said about certain RfAs turning into popularity contests. And concernng marsh's post, seems that part of the problem is exactly that people are considering "Administrator" to be some sort of "title", as if it were some sort of nobility title, denoting a social status. That's all wrong. "Administrator" should be viewed as a job description. Redux 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't need more rules. I don't think it matters how many newbies we reject. 10 a month or 50 a month. Maybe we can just put up a bolder warning at the top of WP:RFA making it clear how unlikely newbies will be approved, and that it is better to wait. If they insist on applying, so be it. NoSeptember ^talk 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see a bolder warning than more rules. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning! You should be familiar with guide to requests for adminship, what adminship is not, the administrators' reading list, and how-to guide before submitting your request. A premature request for adminship is likely to fail, and will also likely have a negative impact on any future RfAs. You are encouraged to ask an experienced user for advice on this process.

How about something like this to replace the 3rd paragraph of WP:RFA? NoSeptember ^talk 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

very nice. Something that stands out is goodness... ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it too, but if I might, I would like to suggest this slight rewording (no need to reproduce the board design for this):
Before submitting a Request for Adminship (RfA), you should be familiar with the guide to requests for adminship, the clarifications about the meaning of Adminship at what adminship is not, the administrators' reading list, and the how-to guide. A premature RfA is likely to fail, as well as having a negative impact on future RfAs. Should you be unsure of whether or not to nominate yourself or someone else, you may find it useful to ask for advice at the RfA talk page, or to consult experienced users on the appropriateness of the RfA.
I believe this would make it clearer, as well as a little more...incisive — the "RfA talk page" sentence is not a bold, it's supposed to be a link to this page. It will appear as such when posted on the project page, of course. Thoughts? Redux 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please count again

Obeying the note at the top of the archived page, I won't modify the bureaucrat tally of the recently withdrawn Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), but I ask User:Francs2000 to please count again. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

It was withdrawn. Why does the tally matter? Just curious. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter hugely, but somewhat, because a) two people took the trouble to vote before the candidate withdrew and now it is as if they hadn't; I wouldn't like that if it was me. And because b) people may look up the archive out of interest, and the tally is probably one of the things that does interest them; in fact I imagine it's on that assumption that the tally is always posted prominently at the top even in cases where the candidates did withdraw. The clincher for me is that if the candidate applies again later, people surely will be interested in what exactly happened at this RFA. May I ask what the colour of your curiosity is? Do you think it's unkind of me to ask to have the two missing voters included? Ghoulish? Bishonen | talk 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Ghoulish... mwhahaha. ;-) No, I just didn't know the reasoning for your request. I just found it a little odd. But now that you have explained, I see your reasoning and drop my question. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any problem wih updating the final tally. I adjusted my final tally after the close (a duplicate vote) and to date, I still haven't been dragged before ArbCom for it :-). NoSeptember ^talk 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember Kim Bruning blocking somebody (FeloniousMonk perhaps?) over doing exactly that thing. Well, over correcting somebody else's tally, not their own. You do it. ;-P Bishonen | talk 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

I think it comes down to whether people see this action as acting in good faith or trying to put a spin on the results. I'm happy leaving that RfA as it is, are you? NoSeptember ^talk 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be pretending I'm happy. But I accept the results and wish to move on. Is it too much to ask of you, Bishonen and Giano to do likewise...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, updating the count (where no suffrage judgement calls are involved (which is only OK for a bureaucrat to do)) seems Ok to me. My comments above were not based on your RfA (which I did not review first to see what impact a count adjustment might have). NoSeptember ^talk 13:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arriving at this after all the discussion has happened already I would just like to add that I didn't count it to start with - the nomination was withdrawn by the candidate before the closing date, all I did was make sure it was de-listed and archived properly. There's nothing to recount because it wasn't counted in the first place. -- Francs 2000 11:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although having re-read your question I can see where you're coming from. Feel free to re-do the final count at the top if I haven't done so already (am at work at the moment and only came on to check messages...) -- Francs 2000

12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But it is considered bad form in general, yes? I was reverted doing it the other day. Marskell 12:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing a closed discussion is considered bad form in general, yes. I've just recounted and amended the final count in this case. -- Francs 2000

12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspension

We (Linuxbeak and I) have temporarily suspended RFA as we are planning to implement a new system for RFA for a trial period after all current noms are cleared out. If you would like to see what this system will look like and/or discuss it please see /Draft. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh Ooh, have you been talking with Brenneman too? Kim Bruning 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#brenneman, advocating similar ideas! Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, could we skip the whole popularity contest part entirely? Just examine qualifications and see if that's sufficient :-) Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually how about just do the experiment in-line, so new noms with the new method, and old ones just run off? Should be no big deal, as long as you have notices or so... Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh. -Splash^talk 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for this? Worldtraveller 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I don't mean to question our bureaucrats here, but I don't think this is the way we should be doing this. We shouldn't suspend the current process, which isn't in immediate need of attention, to test a draft that has little community input yet; discussion should take place first, a consensus reached to test it, and then test it, provided the community agrees. While I highly respect both of you, I don't think that being a bureaucrat should give you all the ability to switch processes or test these processes; we've entrusted you all to interpret results of RfA, not change the process without community input first. I urge you to unsuspend RfA and let us discuss your proposal before testing it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; I can't see widespread support for this proposal that has suddenly sprung from an indeterminate location. Also, as Flcelloguy says, RfA should be unsuspended (since the 'crats don't have authority to do it on their own say-so) until this is actually worked through a bit more. -Splash^talk 21:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine...be bold and unsuspend if you guys are going to be that way about it. We've had like two weeks of discussion all of which has been implemented into that. You want to be tied up in more bureaucratic discussion? Fine! Just because I'm called a bureaucrat doesn't mean I am one. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How does stopping the current process assist with creating a new one, exactly? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey, stop bothering two hard working wikipedians. (by which I mean Ilyanep and Linuxbeak)

Even so, it might be wisest to just run experimental style noms alongside the old style ones, rather than suspending the lot, that way less people will complain. Always go for the smallest footprint where you ignore the least number of rules :-) Kim Bruning 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of suspending, maybe we can provide it as option - if someone wants to nominate anyone under this scheme, they may do it ... ? Tintin (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion, but experience shows that if you put things to votes and polls, few changes gather 70%. Whilst if you make well thought out changes, and are willing to revert if they fail, things actually happen. (See Deletion reform and WP:PROD). The question is not, have we have enough pages of discussion or the requisit big poll, it is, is there substantive objection to this change? And do people think a trial run will do substantial harm? Sometimes a little less talk, and a little more boldness (open boldness) might take us forward quicker. Wikipedia is becoming inately conservative in regard to change.--Doc ^ask? 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It seems to me that we're becoming policy slaves, and that's not just with this. That's with everything in general. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes yes!!!! — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of policy at all. It's just that, all of a sudden, someone comes along with a new scheme that at least several decent editors have problems with, decides to suspend everything, replace everything, and sound upset when anyone disagrees. Discussion is not some king of evil to be avoided: if people have difficulties with the proposal, then, well, tough. There's no reason to get upset about it. -Splash^talk 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspending the current system while working out a new one was entirely unecessary and overreaching. Also why before now wasn't the draft page more blatantly advertised? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just start using the new nomination for and proceedure immediately. No need to suspend nominations - just have an instant change over. --Doc ^ask? 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Run the old and new process simultaneously during the trial period, allowing new candidates to choose which way to do it. Total time of the new process should be reduced to 7 days so they run the same length. Testing the new process is much better than debating it ad nauseum. NoSeptember ^talk 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured it would be way to confusing to do that. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could ask new nominees to consider the new nomination process and ask them to decide if they want to do it the old way or the new way, as a transition. You can add a red bar to mark new noms from old noms. I think the change is a good change, just that there's no need to paralyze RFA while it is being done. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what we need is a volunteer, clearly. I've been thinking of nominating myself for RFA for some time. I would be prepared to submit myself under this new system as a test case. I would want to make sure that the system is for real, though--if I did so, would people show up there and participate, and would there be some direction from RFA to the new page? If I get some positive feedback to this offer, I'll do this. Chick Bowen 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would be willing to throw myself up under the new system, not out of expectation of winning (1,200-odd edits over three-odd years = LOSE) but just to see what happens. Lord Bob 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Me three. I don't actually WANT to be an admin, mind you, and I would expect to lose under either the old or new system (3 months of activity, 1700 edits) so maybe I'm not a very good test case but if it would help. With the caveat that if I am confirmed, I reserve the right to decline it! I support running both processes at once, by the way... ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to argue about suspension, the new system is reasonable. Let's just start using it. It's got to be at least as good as the old way. Friday (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I remain unconvinced that the preposed changes will actually provide an improvement, but I have no problem with testing it out for a week or two to see what is working and what isn't. I'd prefer that tests run concurrently with the current system so as not to force any of the candidates to have to try something brand new. Dragons flight 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, I've tried to find who can actually change policy for RFA, however I can't find it. Really the beauros should have the authority, since the RFA process is basically to give the communities opinion about a prospective admin to them, therefore they should be allowed to change the process to however they see fit. Require them to throw softballs into a peach basket for all I care, in the end its nots the communities decision, rather the beauros. Mike _{(T C)} 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WE can change the guidelines. Gonna help out? :-) Kim Bruning 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Might need some last minute tweaks before testing. And perhaps we could even figure out a test where we could try to exclude the poll part entirely. (This might be tricky, but interesting and fun :-) Kim Bruning 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CENTRALIZE DISCUSSION >>>

Can we centralise discussion to Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Centralize: everyone move that way >>> Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship Kim Bruning 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Walk this way >>>> .....Sorry..... I couldn't help it! hydnjo talk 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Desysoping

This is not related to requests for adminship, but is something which is probably going to be of interest to most people visiting this page. As written at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Love and Sunshine on a rainy day, Jimbo desysoped an administrator for a night, presumably for indefinitely blocking three administrators. Background is in the section before that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been following it incredulously (but silently) during the Superbowl. Not sure if this is because admins are tired/moody/grouchy from the whole Userbox Wars (I know I sure am, but my actions WRT this have been rather limited) or simply because Jimbo and ArbCom are more likely to desysop people now, but if the latter is true, it might actually mean that RfA reform isn't as much of a problem as before: I'd still like to ask the optional questions (though only one or two), but while we're discussing its merits, I have decided to hold off on asking for now. If ArbCom is more likely to desysop people (such as Freestylefrappe, if his RfAr holds out), they're showing that adminship is "no big deal" on the other side of the equation, and IMO, we don't need to implement the more drastic measures in reforming RFA (clarify: although it wouldn't hurt... much). --D e ath phoenix 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello D e ath phoenix : ) This is a very good point. Additionally, instead of making the Rfa process more difficult for everyone, we should do more to help editor become good administrators. I'm going to go through Rfa after I finish a checklist I developed for myself. Good self-evaluation should be the first step. Also, mentoring instead of sponsorship, especially for editors with problems in their past. --FloNight 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. The proposed "RfA reform" seems to focus primarily on introducing complicated new rules, as if they could predict in advance who will be a bad apple and who won't. As wisely noticed in the comments above, the focus should be on working with new admins, and desysoping people who just don't get the adminship. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I guessed that the Superbowl massacre would be discussed here. Perhaps this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship. As for RfA, I'm happy with the current RfA process, but I am also sure the new proposals will work fine too. NoSeptember ^talk 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems we have 5 desysopings for a night, [4].That may be a more effective way of dealing with admins pushing things too far than any reforms discussed in this page and related. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Adminship

Has any thought been given to a proposal such as this:

Each Admin is appointed for a period of one year, after which he may reapply or give up his position. Some clear guidelines are set up for desysopping, so that Admins can be quickly stripped of their powers, temporarily, or permanently (though they could reapply), in response to conflict and uncivility. When an editor is blocked for uncivil behaviour, an Admin can be stripped of his rights instead, or additionally. -- Ec5618 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The first has been proposed previously (I think an annual review is a fine idea) but it's always been vetoed as creating an extra process when we don't need one. Marskell 17:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps consensus will shift, in response to the events and comments of the last few days. I've seen several suggestions to indicate that, perhaps, as Wikipedia grows, and extra process may be needed, to keep track of the number of editors and Admins. -- Ec5618 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A yearly review would not have stopped the revert war that broke out over the pedophilia userbox. All five admins that were temporarily de-adminned had been an admin less than a year. The oldest was 9 months. These proposals and many, many more have been proposed before. --Durin 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that with 800 admins, that's about 16 a week that would have to be reconfirmed. Ral315 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary adminship to borderline consensus cases

Just an idle thought and I'm not even sure this is a good idea, but what the hey. Right now, the consensus to promote is around 75-85%. What if a candidate gets the orderline, say, 70-80% (or even lower)? How about we give those borderline cases the equivalent to the AfD "No consensus"? These candidates might be idea for a temporary adminship for a very short period of time (say, four to six months), after which they can apply again or give up their positions. The one major problem with this is that it adds a lot of the extra red tape and instruction creep that I've generally opposed. OTOH, it might give a second chance to desysoped former admins who might not be able to scrounge up the required 75-85% votes, and it might give us a chance to better evaluate good users who might have made a few enemies over the years (or, more likely, months) of Wikipedia-editing. ArbCom might even be more likely to give the "desysop now, you can go to RFA later" knowing that a former admin would have a better chance of being promoted in the future. Thoughts? --D e ath phoenix 13:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, it would depend on why they did not get a consensus - if 25% of the voters fear that the candidate will make a terrible admin and abuse admin powers, that's different than if 25% of the voters think the candidate will make a great admin, but is just too new, or doesn't use edit summaries enough. bd2412 T 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(echoing BD2412)...which is precisely why we have bureaucrats; to make the tough calls. They do a pretty good job of it. I don't see there being a need for a special case. If a person doesn't pass, they should take the lessons from the failed RfA and reapply in a few months. That's worked very well in the past. --Durin 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... the idea has merit though my concern is that as an admin there are some things that you can do that can't be undone, namely deleting images and merging pages - if it was temporary adminship without these two abilities then I would consider it. -- Francs 2000 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And what if the temporary admin goes on a blocking spree or wheel warring, thus demotivating experienced users/ admins? --Gurubrahma 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I do not favor adding another layer of complexity. Then we'll be fighting about where the level is between a rejection and a temporary and a temporary and a permanent. In the last few months we have spent a lot of time "playing with the process." -- Cecropia 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you on that point, even during my initial proposal. It was an idle thought. shrug --D e ath phoenix 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just do what we usually do in borderline cases—tell the candidate to go do useful things, and ask again in a month or two? Are we sufficiently short of admins that we urgently need more people with blocking and deletion powers? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we string people along, follow one temporary term with another indefinitely? Then we can grandfather permanent admins and turn them into a "big deal" ^_^ .... No wait, that's a BAD idea. NoSeptember ^talk 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The best solution is to help the candidates prepare. This means being able to sell themselves as a good candidate, as well as racking up experience as a good editor. Candidates need good feedback from a variety of people well before the start of Rfa. --FloNight 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It might also help if we simply prohibited nominations before three months. -- Cecropia 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Helping potential Admins prepare. I like it, but did you have anything specific in mind? -- Ec5618 08:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It bugs me that a couple of users who achieved very high numbers of Yes votes (CSCWEM comes immediately to mind) have not attained adminship. However, I do feel that twenty-five percent of admins thought it was a bad idea to promote them (for whatever reason). There is less harm in letting them reapply in a month, or a week, or whatever, than there is in creating a new layer of functions for the bcrats to wade through. While I like the idea presented, I don't like the overhead it adds. aa v ^ 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A minor correction: 25% of voters thought it was a bad idea, not necessarily admins. --Gurubrahma 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While some sort of mentorship program might be a good idea, temporary/borderline adminships just create needless complexity. Maybe separate the powers from the tools (I smell an essay coming in there, somewhere...). -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)