RuneScape talk:Requests for adminship

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Requests for adminship page.
Archive 1 (14 October 2006 - 2 June 2007)

Forums[edit source]

Now can we have forum sysops? If so, we should add a "Forum" section on the RFA page for that specific voting. I'd nominate myself for that, and probably not get as many opposes. 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently, no known editor has admin powers on the new forum. Once we find out how to make forum mods (probably with the help of Wikia staff), we'll create a new section for forum mods/admins after we start the new nomination process. Dtm142 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Whiplash does.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a wikia forums. It's phpbb and I don't think wikia has anything to do with it. Whiplash (?) installed it on the website.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: The phpBB Forums are the offsite forums, and Whiplash created them. The Beta Wikia Forums are the brand new forum software that we have been allowed to use that is based on phpBB, and is totally separate from Whiplash's forum. Oddlyoko talk 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that moderator powers now exist (I'm a forum moderator at least). I propose that all sysops are automatically given moderator powers, all bureaucrats are given admin powers, and there is a separate section on this page for forum moderator nominations. The process will be the same as the "new" nomination process. Dtm142 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No need, that exact system is already implemented directly into the forum software. B'crat = admin, sysop = mod. Oddlyoko talk 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to mod someone without sysopping them on the main site? Dtm142 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not with the current system. If we had that, though, I'd rather it be so that all sysops are fmods, but not all fmods are sysops. (All sysops can do fmod stuff, but regular-old fmods are limited to the forums) Oddlyoko talk 07:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's how I would have wanted it too. Thanks for the clarification, that's all I needed to know. Dtm142 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies and Info[edit source]

A month or so ago, I wrote some policies and information about the rfa process on the Dark Runescape Wiki's rfa page. I think that the information is helpful and comprehensive, and the policies are fairly well set up - adhering to the 'All editors are equal' policy and making the process fair and clean. Since the RuneScape Wiki appears to be ready to introduce some policies, I've copied them over to this page for us to look at. Post below them to discuss how we could adapt them to fit the RuneScape Wiki. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Requests for adminship?[edit source]

This is a page where users can be nominated for administrative duties. For more information on the voting, nomination, and decision processes, see below.

Administrative Privileges[edit source]

There are two types of administrators - sysops (system operators) and bureaucrats. Sysop privileges include the ability to block vandals and the ability to easily revert vandalism. Bureaucrat privileges include the ability to create sysops and bureaucrats as well as all sysop privileges. For more information on administrators and their privileges, see the administrators page.

Process Information and Policies[edit source]

Nomination[edit source]

Any user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another user (again - no I.P. addresses) for administrative privileges as long as the Recruitment Status shown in the Recruitment Status section below is 'Yes'. Self-nominating is allowed, but may be frowned upon depending on the case. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to become an administrator if they wish to avoid self-nominating. Note that candidates for bureaucracy are usually already sysops.

The are no requirements for nomination, but here are a few general guidelines:

  • Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki.
  • Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for a minimum of several weeks to a few months.
  • Candidates should have a good number of contributions (generally a few hundred).
  • Candidates should have shown their ability to help other users.
  • Self-nominating is sometimes frowned upon because occasionally, a user may create an account, make a few contributions, then self-nominate. These users are potentially dangerous because they may have negative intentions and have not actually earned administrative privileges, although they are luckily always unsuccessful and strongly opposed. If you think that you truly deserve administrative duties and have shown so, but have not been noticed, either ask another user to nominate you, and you'll be nominated if the user thinks you deserve it, or self-nominate. If other users think you deserve administrative privileges, then the self-nomination doesn't matter, and they'll support you anyway.

Voting[edit source]

To vote or comment on a candidate's nomination, please use one of the voting markup choices listed below. Votes should not be based on only edits or time active, but also maturity and character. Before voting, think carefully about what you've seen of the candidate's actions and reactions, and assess their leadership skills and diplomacy - necessary traits for an administrator. Try to always make the best decision for the benefit of the wiki.

Remember that this is not a secret ballot. Votes are often responded to, and discussion commonly takes place within the candidate's nomination section. Try to avoid heated arguments and remain calm.

Votes should also not be based on friendships or rivalries. If a candidate has voted negatively against you or a friend of yours in the past, do not simply oppose the candidate's nomination for that reason. Ask the candidate to explain the reasons behind their vote, but do not base your vote on theirs. If the candidate explains their vote, and you truly feel that the reasons were insufficient, irrelevant, or incorrect, then the candidate's own voting policies may come into questions, but please explain this fully.

The following list is a list of voting markup choices which should be placed at the beginning of all posts within a nomination section. If you think of a new markup choice which you believe will be useful, add it to the list.

  • Support - a positive vote.
  • Oppose - a negative vote.
  • Neutral - a neutral vote. Should be well-explained.
  • Comment/Observation/Note - a statement presenting facts or clarifying a disputed fact.
  • Not yet/Wait a little - a negative vote suggesting future support.
  • Notice of intent - a bureaucrat's notification of an intent to close voting and make a decision on a specified date.
  • {Decision} - a decision made by a bureaucrat presented in the form of {Example Candidate} has been made a sysop/bureaucrat or The voting period of {Example Candidate}'s nomination is now over, {Example Candidate} remains a normal user/sysop. See the Decisions section below for more details.

Decisions[edit source]

A candidacy will be decided after a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of two months of voting. A bureaucrat may post a notice of intent indicating a planned decision and will post a decision to close voting ('notice of intent' and 'decision' are voting markup - see Voting section above for details). Once a candidacy has been decided, it may be archived.

Bureaucrats will present decisions in the form of {Example Candidate} is now a sysop/bureaucrat or The voting period of {Example Candidate}'s nomination is now over, {Example Candidate} remains a normal user/sysop.

Reference[edit source]

Below is a list of pages which may be used for reference to aid users in making decisions about nominating and voting:

  • Special:Editcount - displays a user's edits in a table showing total edits and number of edits in each edit type (article, forums, etc.). To use it, simply type the user's username into the box.
  • Special:Contributions - displays each of a user's contributions by date and time made (latest first) to any page on the wiki (option of 20, 50, 100, 200, or 500 edits per page), including description if description was entered into 'Summary' box in edit screen.

Discussion of Policies and Info[edit source]

I apologize for the redlinks; they were unavoidable unless I corrected each one individually. The 'Recruitment Status' link actually links further down on the Dark Runescape Wiki rfa page, where the Recruitment Status is posted. The same goes for the rest of the links which link to other sections of the page. I actually think that Recruitment Status is one technique which we could definitely adapt - we happen to be using it right now, though it's unnamed. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the recruitment status thing. I think that we've done enough discussion. Unless I get any new feedback, I'm going to create the new templates and reopen the page. Dtm142 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I do think that we need to reopen the page, although I don't think that we need any new admins atm. If no one supports the recruitment status, then who implemented it? I think it was added about 2 weeks ago to the rfa page and sitenotice, idk who added it though. We still need to discuss whether we're going to add policies or not. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Recruitment status is currently closed 'cause of this discussion and new procedure :) Dtm142 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Created policy page at RuneScape:Rfa_policy. Make edits to that policy until we're happy with it. Oddlyoko talk 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Inactive votes[edit source]

This poll is to determine if you think users who have been inactive for time of more than 2 months should not be allowed to vote on Requests for adminship/bureaucratship, without first accumulating at least 50 edits.

Support: 10

Neutral/Pending: 3

Oppose: 2

Support[edit source]

  1. Whiplash 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Administrators are meant to be members of the community decided by members of the community. If someone has abandoned the community, they are no longer members of the community thus shouldn't be able to decide. Most of the users that were active when I first joined are no longer active today. Similarly, most of today's editors weren't around when I first joined. The RuneScape Wiki's community is constantly changing. I say that in order to vote, you need to have been actively editting for two weeks before then. This solves another problem (sheep voting) since this will prevent users from joining just for the purpose of voting. Two weeks is the perfect amount of time since that's the amount of time an RFA has to run for. However, anyone should be able to give a support vote. Opposes should just be reserved for active users. I've also moved this to a more appropriate subpage. Dtm142 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. No. Simply put, an edit a day for 50 days, leave for two years, come back because you suddenly hate someone, and vote against them? Cool Spy0 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Explained alot better to meScythe.png Atlandy 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. No Ice 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. No Piety.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|30px 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. If you have been inactive, you can't possibly know how nominated people have been editing. User page "Katshuma" Talk page 16:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. People need to stop being retards and sign correctly so it doesn't completely mess up the counts. I support. Quest.png Obese Potato 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with DTM's idea. Cashman286 talk 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. If a user leaves for a period greater than two months, then returns, they should be considered semi-active, until they can make at least 50 edits in any namespace besides user. Then, they should be allowed to vote. Otherwise, they shouldn't because of their inactivity. If Merovingian returned, he'd have to make 50 edits to be able to vote and to be considered an active part of the community.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Umm... I thought the category I voted in was "no firm amount of time"... that's still what it means, right? Skill 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that. Moved vote. Sysop crown.svgTesFanSysop crown.svg 03:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support - per Dtm142. Dragon chainbody.pngEmosworldSysop crown.svg 02:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support --Mrs Skilly 03:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Agreed, Buzz (Talk#P ) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support --ToaBionicle Guthix's Book of Balance.png Assassin

Neutral/Undecided[edit source]

  1. Don't know why I should oppose or support quite yet. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes to users who left and came back, but they must have had up to 2 months of being active in total at least. I'm neutral for new users, though... Cashman286 talk 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What about people like Dreadnought? He came back just to be a complete jerk. He opposed Tarikochi's RFA among other things. 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral - Don't really care. Editors should know what votes are valid and what aren't. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral- I was gonna support it, but then I read abou them spamming to get the 50 edits up. Hmm. I might decide later.Chef's hat.png Altarius95 The Master Cook! Talk to me Cooking cape (t).png
  3. Neutral- I think that the idea behind is good, nevretheless the 2 month period is a bit short, perhaps 4 or 6 ? Garouppa 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral-I think we need to let new users vote, other wise I support

Oppose[edit source]

Oppose. I don't understand why this rule is necessary. You need to have a really good reason if you want to take away someone's right to vote. --Wowbagger421 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to vote. If they haven't been active recently, it should be fairly obvious, and whether or not they are taken seriously will be decided. usually, if they have been inactive, they won't be taken seriously, so it doesn't really matter if they can vote, thus, you shouldn't take away their ability. 1diehard1 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose --Themurasame Hiscores 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-support (Oppose) Second-abyssal-whip.png Spitfire Dragon sq shield.png talk 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (conditionally) I understand that this discussion is rather old, but I didn't take note of any official policy, and thought I'd leave my US$0.020006. I suppose it's rather fitting that I would oppose a vote after 2 months of semi-inactivity, but too bad :). My reason for opposing is this: votes such as RFAs are a vital process in the community. Speaking from my personal experience, even though a user may have been inactive for a couple of months, they are usually still very much interested in the community's improvement. I understand that some users may leave on bad terms, but myself, I just started getting a lot busier at university, and so don't have time to edit much anymore. It would be a mistake to equate inactivity with "abandonment." I always make a point every week or two to check the RFAs, because I know that if I'm not going to spend much time here, that I want to make sure that the administration of the wiki is left in good hands. It's a small thing that I can do to help the community, so I do it.

I think the bigger issue being discussed here is sock-puppet voting (sheep voting as DTM calls it). While I disagree that supports should be allowed and opposes denied from said "sheep" (because usually users abuse this more to favour a nominee rather than oppose one) I agree that a user should have a proven record of pursuing the good of the community. I just don't think that that should be guaged by their most recent period of activity.

So, in short, I think that if a user has ever proven their best intentions toward the wiki, they should never be disallowed to vote. Now, typically, a user would probably have to make +50 edits to prove their intentions, but I'm more responding to Dtm's blurb. Just because the community is changing, doesn't mean that you should shut out those left behind. Endasil (Talk) @ 10:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Other[edit source]

  1. Encourages spam editing, really. If they want to vote, they're going to vote. Doesn't mean I agree with them not being active and returning to vote, but this is not the solution. Chissey 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. One of the pleasures of intelligence is the power of discretion. Some users may come along and become active within 2 months. On the other hand, others might edit for a few days, then come back periodically (within 2 months) to oppose everyone and everything. All active users know whose votes count and whose votes don't count. We don't need to put a time limit on things. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per above. Skill 22:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I would probably say for the vote in the actual tally to not count under these conditions on both "Supports" and "Opposes" but the comment/opinion to not be strike-throughed, as it could still be relevant. The goal is for a consensus rather than a percentage of tallied votes, so a discussion would still be relevant and counterable if deemed out-of-date. Bowman hat.pngTarikochi 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Define "inactive". Does this mean no edits? Or few edits. If few edits... How many does it constitute? Syugecinspam 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. It's ironic how all of these new users are voting on this. Cashman286 talk 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New nomination/decision process[edit source]

As these processes seem to be under review and revision, I have closed nominations temporarily. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"...that anyone can edit'[edit source]

Moved to yew grove. Skill 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed from yew grove Buzz (Talk#P ) 07:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Self Nominations[edit source]

I think self-nominations should be made not allowed. The majority of self nominations are usually widely opposed to because it seems the user wants the extra tools (Not always though, don't get me wrong). And the majority of self nominations are by users with a few edits. If the user believes he or she is capable of being an administrator they can ask a person who already is one and the admin can nominate them if he/she believes they are ready. Also another reason is some self nominations end in tragedy because users think the community hates them with all the opposing comments (we have lost users due to this). What does everyone else think. Chicken7 >talk 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this idea, personally. Sysop isn't a big deal (and you can find quotes saying that all over the place). If someone who's blatantly new or something makes an RfA, it can just be immediately closed with reasons. (And I'm too tired to manage to put my thoughts into words any further.. I'll see if I can get my brain to talk later...) Oddlyoko talk 06:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK lol. It's just that if we immediately close nominations, users will get annoyed with us and go on about this. But it only happens sometimes. Chicken7 >talk 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with self-nominations not being allowed. If the community thinks someone's not ready, they can always oppose. Butterman62 (talk) Ice Barrage icon.png 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Self nominations should be allowed. When the user signs the RFA, they consent to the nomination's possible failure. It also does not mean that they are worthless as an editor. It just means that they are not (currently) ready to be given the tools. Self nominations do sometimes succeed. Depriving the RuneScape Wiki of someone who could use the tools properly is punishing the community unfairly. Dtm142 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pending vote[edit source]

I just don't see the practical use of a "pending" vote. If the person really hasn't decided, then why post in the first place? If you really do need to have a moment, then just think it over, review the facts, and post when you've made a decision. Pending votes really don't serve much of a purpose when trying to come to a consensus. Can we remove this option? --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 21:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I always thought pending was for fencesitters, really ought to ditch it.--Degenret01 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting[edit source]

The voting system here is messed up. One is forced to count up all votes to find the total; why don't you use the # sign as well? Also, why not just have all nominations on one page? Below is an example of what I'm thinking. Cheers, -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not messed up, because we are not a democracy (RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY). We used to tally votes when they actually meant something, but as the number of supports or opposes don't necessarily mean much when we're dealing with a process of consensus, we got rid of that. Endasil (Talk) @ 
It also got really cluttered under only one page with the number of RFAs, so it was decided that each would get its own subpage. Dtm142 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Current standings[edit source]

Hurston (6)

(You would put the number of support votes for the other nominees here.)

Voting[edit source]

Hurston[edit source]

Hurston is one of those behind-the-scenes workhorses that simply gets things done. I've been impressed with his edits for a while now; in his 7 months with us Hurston has accumulated over 1600 mainspace edits, much of which is administrative or undoing vandalism. I really think the Wiki will benefit from Hurston being able to rollback, delete, and block users.

I haven't discussed this nomination with him, so we'll have to wait and see if he accepts it. I really hope he does, though! It will be nice to have another administrator with a passion solely for editing. Endasil (Talk) @  03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I, Hurston, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realize that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed, Hurston 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Support[edit source]

  1. as nominator Endasil (Talk) @  03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Wow, another one that I just assumed was already a sysop. Definitely works for the wiki in positive ways. we already have so many vandal blockers that I don't think I've reverted more than a couple in the last 4 days. And thats a good thing. Hurston is an excellent choice.--Degenret01 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. It's all correct Buzz (Talk#P ) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. per Endasil. He has made a lot of edits and reported vandalism, and should be an administrator. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Just looked quite briefly at your list of recent contributions, and I see a lot of "undid revision" and "revert vandalism". Good enough to extend your powers so you can continue your good work.  :-) Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Apparently you're pretty hardcore, and, looking at your contribs, you'd definitely use sysop powers well. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Thanks Endasil, I wasn't expecting that! I could do with being able to block the vandals that I find. Cheers. Hurston 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm off on holiday for a bit more than a week to visit some ruins that are not goblin infested (Hadrian's Wall), so I'll see the outcome when I get back. Cheers all, and thanks for the positive votes so far Hurston 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(You'd put the other nominations after this one.) If you guys agree with a change in the voting format, I can assist in work. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit source]

There seems to be some edit warring going on. Can we try to talk it out here? Constant reversion is counterproductive, and discussion is much more productive. Butterman62 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in that section that should be added without heavy discussion, and its mostly wrong. Saying how things "work out" most of the time is NOT a good thing to have disguised as policy, as it sets a precedent for people to use in the future. It's like writing the words "an African-American man has never succeeded being President" in the US Constitution. It's not a statement of law, but it's a useless and harmful thing to write nonetheless, and could affect the future outcomes of RFAs (or Presidential elections). I don't know why Earthere is edit warring over this without discussion, we've warned him about changing sensitive policy/documentation on a whim in the past. Endasil (Talk) @  12:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
But that's the thing, no one follows policy at RSW anymore. I updated this policy with the intent to document how RfAs ARE being used.
And don't you dare accuse me of POV pushing. May be coloured blue in the near
But the thing is that your diatribe hardly contained a grain of truth, if that. My RFB had two administrators opposing and it still passed. I have since sysopped people with more than that opposing. Administrator status does not affect the weight of someone's votes on an RFA. The arguments that they put forward and the overall number of people supporting and opposing an RFA determines whether or not consensus is present. As far as personal disputes go, whether you handle yourself in a mature way is what is most likely to determine the outcome of an RFA. RFA is not a popularity contest as you make it seem. You are using your own biases (AKA case of the "sour grapes" as Atlandy put it) to compromise the integrity of official policies. Anyway, this page is for policy information as well as instructions on how to nominate and a list of nominations. If you wish to discuss current practice and guidelines, do so here. If you add further content of this type to this page, you will be given a longer block. Dtm142 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how blocking me would help the situation... May be coloured blue in the near 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The user block policy indicates that blocks are used to prevent disruption to the wiki. Dtm142 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Being Noticed[edit source]

Someone put me up as a candidate to become an Administrator, but I'm not sure how you notice when people are sysopped. Is there something I need to do like put my name on a list or something, or do you notice? Because I see on the current requests for adminship section a list of people who have been sysopped lately, but my name isn't on there, do I have to put my name on there or do you do that? Zaros FTW! I R Zaros 19:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There will be a two-week voting period and if your RfA receives community consensus you will be sysopped. A bureaucrat will notify you on your talk page if you have been sysopped. Andrew talk 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I understand all this now then. Time to just sit back, wait and answer questions. Zaros FTW! I R Zaros 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

do you[edit source]

have to have special privelages to nominate someone for bureacratship? Joe Click Here for Awesomeness

'crats are only nominated if the wiki is in need of a new one, Ie. the majority of our current 'crats are inactive. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't really need anything, other than a reason to nominate them and an understanding of the policy regarding so. What the community needs and decides is another story. As stated above, the community generally only gets new 'crats as we need them. You can view our list of administrators though, and see that most of ours are inactive. I count 3 that are usually active. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't there a rule that stated that only b 'crats can nominate b 'crats? I know this probably isn't in effect since a few have been nominated without being nominated by a b 'crat. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but we're a bit short on crats at the moment. =\ Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested but never implemented Spence.-- 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ok then someone nominate someone for a crat. Hey karlis why not you Joe Click Here for Awesomeness

Slight policy change[edit source]

This came to mind when I noticed Hapi withdrew his RFA. The policy states that 'crats only can close RFAs, but I would like the policy changed so that if an RFA is withdrawn by the nominee, any administrator can close it. I don't see why a 'crat is needed to close an RFA when they don't need to decide if consensus has been reached, so it's just another way to clean up RFAs faster if normal admins can do it. Again, there is no decision, just official reiteration of what the user has already decided. Yes, no? It's not a major change. Christine 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it makes sense that admins can close it, especially with on 3 'crats around. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure. 'Crats are only really needed to sysop users following a successful nomination. No reason to make them close the unsuccessful (read:withdrawn) ones as well. Let us normal grunt admins handle it! --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't want anyone to argue that a nomination was successful even if it wasn't, so I only want to change this to officially withdrawn nominations. People will argue about consensus and such. Christine 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hence my edit. =P --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That's weird, I didn't get an edit conflict, though I know I had it open at the time. The wiki is so messed for me nowadays. -_- Christine 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I get edit conflicts at 3 in the morning when articles are edited every 40 minutes. =\ Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Section for 'crats insructions[edit source]

I think this should be removed. 'Crats know what to do. HaloTalk 19:13, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I would leave that up to the Crats. It's for them, though all users might be able to get some useful information out of reading it. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:16, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Its more of a checklist to remind them to do. Not a walkthrough to teach them what to do. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:17, September 14, 2010 (UTC)