User talk:Gaelen S./Archives/2009/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roman Empire

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Roman Empire article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have regranted your rollback right. Thanks for helping out. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Impressed

With how quickly you fixed my Charleston SC comment. Sorry, won't do that again. Very impressive, son.

Cloverfield

Hello.

This was for what? --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the YouTube link. If you check the article history, I'm the one who removed it. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

SUP?

If you're going to play hero and delete my text on other people's talk pages, could you at least introduce yourself first? Much obliged. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken warning

Hi. You just gave me an NPOV warning for an edit involving Cowboys Stadium, I must ask you to take another look at the differential and remove the warning as I had actually reverted - not added - the NPOV statement. Thanks. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way: I am asking you to fix this because I think if I removed the warning myself, it would look like I was being sneaky and trying to hide things. Thanks. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium

I am really sorry about that. I meant to give the warning to the previous person who added the edit in the first place but I believe you reverted it at the same time, automatically transferring the warning to you. I will go ahead and remove it from your page. Again, sorry for the mixup.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Holocaust denial. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)"

I am not a "holocaust denier", I am writing a history paper, and I couldn't even get through three paragraphs of this article. It is aggressively written in a one sided fashion, and it is not this kind of article I have come to expect from wikipedia. It is a blog if anything, not an encyclopedia entry.

Sorry if i did anything wrong, (which i didn't) i just updated the stats on my favorite quarterback Matt Ryan. Please no hard feelings.

Matt Ryan (American football)

You really didn't do anything wrong per-say, it was just that a certain area of your addition was a little more biased than is commonly expected in an encyclopedia. Keep editing, but remember to keep everything you add as unbiased as possible. Oh, and remember to sign your name with four tildes whenever you make an addition to a talk page, including your own. Good Luck!

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you warn me for removing the vandalism to Terrorism? Please explain or I will be forced to bring an administrator into the picture. Razorflame 03:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

I am really sorry about this. I was warning the previous vandal when you reverted the page, causing the warning to be conveyed to you. I will remove it from your talk page and provide a reason. Again, I'm sorry

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 03:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). I don't like being a hard-ass, but this situation caused me to be one. Sorry if I offended you. I have already removed the warning. Thanks for letting me know about this potential problem. Cheers, Razorflame 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:AcolyteJon

I would suggest you look out for edits by AcolyteJon. He vandalized maybe 20 pages in quick succession a few minutes ago. I reported him but it might still be a little while before an administrator sees it. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 04:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

hey

why did wikipedia change?lambs12--Lambs12 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Joel Williams

I was not "attacking" him. I am one of his students and that is what he does. Anyway, he was never a football/lacrosse player. that's another person. We need to get that changed.

I didn't make an edit to the article (i hope), I thought I added something in the discussion forum to be read by the admins. Pardon me.

Sorry, my friend told me I could write anything and I didnt believe him! Cheery O' Mate

sorry but my friend told me that and i believed him because he is pretty smart. Sorry again i apologize

re:[1]

Please tell me that was a mistake? -sesuPRIME 02:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of Rollback privilege

As a rollbacker, you should be aware that the rollback feature is "a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." Regarding this edit, which is by any reading not a "blatantly unproductive edit such as vandalism and nonsense", please explain why you made this revert. Please reply here, not on my talk page.

Rollback is a privilege, and can be withdrawn in the event of misuse, something you would do well to heed given that, according to your userpage, you want to be an admin some day. 194.158.79.70 (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper warning before WP:AIV reports

Please do not report a vandal to AIV when you have not even bothered to warn them at all (the anon talk page in question had not been edited since September 9th).

I noticed one other AIV report from you with the same problem. We warn users before blocking them for at least a couple of reasons: 1) It's courteous, and the person in question may just be goofing around and feel bad after the warning, whereas if we block outright they might get angry and come back to vandalize again as soon as the block expires; 2) If the warning works and puts an end to the vandalism (as it often does) we save you the effort of an AIV report and administrators the effort of reading said report and then blocking the user or IP address.

Unless we are dealing with a really egregious vandal, please do not file a report to AIV unless the vandal has been fully warned, as most admins will not block (those that do shouldn't) and you are therefore basically wasting their time. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your reply (and you can just reply again here, I'll check back), the last level four warning was on September 8th, meaning it was very much "stale". Since this is an anon IP, it's quite possible that the person who did the vandalism tonight was completely different from the person who did it two weeks ago, in which case the current vandal was never warned. You see the issue?
What is need for an AIV report, usually, is several recent warnings including a final warning and continued editing after that final warning. Otherwise please don't report it. The basic rules are laid out right there at the top of WP:AIV. Huggle is a powerful tool (I don't use it myself but I understand the basics), but it's also important to make sure you are reporting and warning properly, in addition to doing the more important task of reverting vandalism. I hope this helps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your kind comments

Thank you for your kind comments at my talk page -- what you said is a high compliment indeed. I toyed with the idea of putting myself forward for adminship a little while ago, as I think I could make good use of the tools, and would be a suitable candidate, who wouldn't abuse the extra bells and whistles, and so on. However, my knowledge of all the Wikipedia policies is probably not up to scratch (I'm not sure I want to spend the necessary time to answer questions which would come up in an RfA), and my edit count would almost certainly preclude a successful RfA, and again, I don't want to make thousands of vandalism reverts to push it up. In short, I don't think I can be bothered to make the effort to go though RfA, simply to gain a couple of extra buttons which I might then only use occasionally! A.C. Norman (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA?

As the above section suggests, you really are not ready for adminship right now, as you are not fully familiar with the AIV procedure, for starters. I suggest you withdraw your self-nomination as I can pretty much guarantee you it will not pass. I'm not trying to discourage you at all, I'm just being honest. Your commitment is admirable but you need more experience and a better grasp of the policies here. I'm going to leave a brief note on the RFA page as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually you did not yet transclude the RFA yet so no one can see it (and no one is supposed to comment). I again recommend (highly recommend) that you simply withdraw. I don't frequent RFA so I don't know if we can simply delete un-transcluded request for adminship (ones that never go "live") or what, but if you decide to withdraw now ask about it over at WT:RFA and someone will help you very quickly. If you decide you really want to put yourself forward as a candidate (as you of course can), make sure you are properly following these instructions. I'm signing off for the night in a bit but seek out another admin if you have any questions about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, since the RfA never went live, there is no administrative(?) need to retain the page. I have deleted it under criterion G7, per your request at Bigtimepeace's talk. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gaelen, sorry for the delayed reply here as I had gone offline just prior to you asking your question on my talk page (thanks to Decltype for taking care of the deletion).
In terms of whether or not you are ready for RfA and what you need to do, I would largely echo Decltype's comments to you here and here. I would particularly emphasize the suggestion to "not worry too much about adminship." Your first RfA was put up after you only had a dozen or so edits, so it seems you have been aiming for adminship since you arrived here. Personally I don't think that's the right approach. You should put in a lot of work in a number of different areas (personally I think for at least a year—but others disagree) until you are extremely comfortable with Wikipedia in general and feel you have earned some good will and respect from other members of the community. At that point one might consider running for admin, but only if you feel you have actual need for the administrator tools. Too many people see adminship as an award or prize and I think that's the wrong way to think about it.
The other thing I would recommend is that you try improving (or starting) articles much more than you have so far. This can take some time to learn, and not everyone does it well which is okay, but obviously it's the core goal of our project. Your stats show that you have done little or no sustained work on articles which for many RfA !voters is a real problem in a prospective admin. Also out of over 1,900 edits, only 15 are to article talk pages. That demonstrates a lack of experience with collaborative content editing (since that generally requires discussion) and I think that kind of experience is pretty much necessary for an admin.
So my biggest advice would be: 1) Wait (quite awhile—at least 6 months if not a year); 2) Broaden your contributions, particularly into working on article content with other editors; 3) Don't even think about adminship until you actually run again since it should not be seen as a prize to win or a personal goal to be achieved. I hope this helps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACC

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. Unfortunately I was unable to process your request. The ACC tool is a powerful program, and at the present time your account is either too new for us to determine whether you would know how to properly use the tool or that you have not attained the necessary level of trust to be granted access. Please don't take this personally and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Prodego talk 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just stick around a while. :) Its nothing person, you just have only been here a 2 months, and there is a lot to assimilate. I'm sure in another 2 months or so, as you get more familiar with wikipedia in general, we would be happy to have you. Prodego talk 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There isn't really an easy way, but do you have a link too the IP or username you used to edit under? Prodego talk 02:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

what

what did i say i forget really easy--Lambs12 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gaelen S.. You have new messages at Damërung's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: RfA

Happy to expand on my remarks at your request.

Most of my 1000 + edits to date are content. In tackling controversial topics like Karl Rove where the final paragraph of the intro is mine (and had to be fought over, on the talk pages), Brian Wilson where the first 6 or so sections are largely mine when I determined his article was woefully incomplete (and still needs work), and George Armstrong Custer where I have not written/edited very much but hope to help complete a push to get a GA status (still needs a fair amount of work), you can see where conflict bubbles, especially in the Rove article. You learn sourcing, the very heart of Wikipedia. You learn how to deal with conflict, often savage, and how to look for reasonable compromise when it is called for. You learn about tagging. And you learn about yourself and the areas you meet wiki-stress.

An admin, in my view, is a very powerful person in Wikipedia, with powerful tools. The admin MUST know a wide variety of rules, issues and facts. Being able to write articles is a must in my opinion. Starting articles is also a must, in that you learn about notability issues.

As I say, I honor the work you have done. I'm not an admin, and could not see myself trying to be one at present. There are too many things I don't know, and can't know 'till I get more time in. Most importantly for your quest to become an admin... I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Many of those who vote on your RfA will have views largely similar to my own. To become an admin, you must satisfy the voters, needless to say.

I do not want to discourage you from your work, and/or from trying a RfA again. But gather yourself, with patience, willingness to learn, and a goodly pinch of self humor. I suspect that, down the road, you will agree with me on most of what I've said. Best of luck to you, always! Jusdafax 22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do see what you are talking about. I will go ahead and attempt to find subjects on which I can really add to and see where that takes me. I am very impressed by your devotion and belief that adminship is a great responsibility that you are not ready to shoulder. Thanks most of all for being polite to me in all of your encounters, and I would like you to know that I will try to live up to your example in the future

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 22:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Many thanks, that was my very first! 8D... Jusdafax 23:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again for your message on my talk page, making clear your withdrawal message was not directed at me. Again, I think you'll make it next time if you take some of the varied and well-meaning advice that was given. One last thought... if you have in fact markedly improved the areas discussed then if you have the urge, try again in mid December, when goodwill is rampant and spirits are bright! Best always, Jusdafax 19:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gaelen S.. You have new messages at ArcAngel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Gaelen S.. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
Message added 19:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior4321 19:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Your proposal for an "admin probation period" is interesting (personally I don't think it's necessary, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing further), but I think a lot of people were only able to see it as "cutting a deal" because you made it in the context of your own RfA. Generally the best place to make such a proposal is somewhere like WP:Village pump/Proposals or Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, where people can discuss it in a more abstract way and it won't be connected to your RfA in particular. Especially, I think you'll get a better reaction if you suggest a trial of this proposal on other people's RfAs (for example, if you say something like "we could have a trial of this for all the RfAs during the month of November, and I myself won't do an RfA during that time")—that way, since it stands to benefit other applicants and not to benefit you personally, people will be more likely to see it as a good-faith suggestion, rather than a self-centered "deal". Just a thought. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent RfA

Hi there; I am one of the admins who felt that your receipt of the tools at this time was inappropriate. If you want to just stop reading and delete this whole comment, this is your right and privilege on you own talk page; but I hope you will hear me out.

I am quite certain that you have the right attitude and motivation to be an excellent admin. And more are always welcome, though to be fair I do not feel that we are suffering from an acute admin shortage. You may well be right in believing that RfA should be loosened up to allow more admins to be creared; under licence may be ok in theory, but would depend on another admin undertaking 24/7 supervision, which may well be difficult to achieve. ASnd having a sort of under-admin and over-admin status would be difficult to regulate.

May I say that in my personal view your error was in trying to do things at once? you went for admin status at a time when your published and visible edits did not accord with the minimum requirements of most !voters, and you simultaneously attempted to persuade these same !voters to change their minimum requirements. Now I strongly suspect that you are in reality a dedicated editor with a strong interest in maintaining and improving the encyclopedia. But just saying so won't do it; your edits must say it for you. Please make one to two thousand (not thousands upon thousands, as you say) of edits, including activity in WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:AfD and so forth, and all being well I would be delighted thereafter to support you. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk for some years about RfA, and in some ways at least you are perfectly correct. But changing it requires a great deal of effort and a lot of support, which cannot happen during your own RfA. Any advice you need, now or in the future, please feel totally free to ask me. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I agree wholeheartedly with Anthony's suggestion... in reality, while "admin probation" or "admin trial period" is a nice idea, it's better just to consider your whole time on Wikipedia as your "admin trial period", using your edits as a non-admin to show others that you have what it takes to be an admin. For example, if you want to be an admin who does speedy deletions, the best way to show you know the stuff is to do appropriate speedy deletion tagging: watch Special:newpages or Special:Log/newusers and demonstrate good judgment in tagging the articles that should be deleted (using the correct speedy deletion tags) but not the ones that are ok. If you show that you understand speedy deletion that way, people will be more likely to trust you to perform deletions yourself. Or if you want to be an admin who does vandal-blocking, the best way to demonstrate your skill is to properly warn vandals and properly report them at WP:AIV; if you show that way that you know when it's appropriate to block someone, people will be more likely to let you perform blocks on your own. Etc., etc. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just picked up your supplemental post to me regarding allegations of "power hunger". I would agree that this sort of comment in an RfA is wholly unwarranted; possibly it dates back, though it should not, to a period a year or so ago when one editor (now blocked) accused every - yes, every - self-nom as de facto evidence of power hunger. Clearly not so, but anyone can edit here and we have to be a bit thick-skinned. More so, do not forget, as an admin. May I wish you the very best of luck, and hope to see you in RfA in the future. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to make clear that many editors would like to see more experience from a candidate, hence the opposes. I am sure that you are not power hungry :) I hope you do stay on Wikipedia: RfA is often the most critical of areas and there is a lot of good work to be done without the mop; for example content writing and patrolling recentchanges (which is fast enough with rollback and popups, as I use). I am not currently an admin and find there is plenty to get on with :) If there are any questions, feel free to ask me, and I hope to see you around Wikipedia (and at RfA) in the future :)

A good idea is that before you try another RfA try an editor review to try to work out your chance of succeeding :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to think about as you prepare continued editing and a future RfA: you may want to rethink this message and any others like it that you have sent. I looked through the RfA and I didn't see any accusations of "lying"; as for "power-monger", a few people were saying that you seemed too eager for the mop, but they weren't the majority, and they probably didn't mean it in a malicious way. Unfortunately, RfA is a place where you're opening yourself up to intense scrutiny and criticism—indeed, you're inviting it—so you need to be pretty thick-skinned about people's comments, and not take them personally: people are not really commenting about whether or not they like you as a person, but just what they think will be best for the encyclopedia, and whether or not they think you would damage it. Particularly, saying (in this message of yours) that you can "flip a switch" and get "irate" would be a major turn-off for a lot of people, since admins are generally expected to be calmer than an average editor—after all, they spend all day dealing with vandals, trolls, and people leaving "HOW COME U DELETED MY PAGE" messages, so they have to be able to take it in stride. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Content writing in RfA

I used not to think content writing was very important, but after being on the wiki for a few years content writing is useful when becoming an admin, because if you have experience writing your own article you have experience dealing with others changing the articles, and maybe a deletion request; admins need to be able to know policies to do with content and this is one of the easy ways to show this. Hope that helps! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gaelen S.. You have new messages at Nutiketaiel's talk page.
Message added 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gaelen S.. You have new messages at Damërung's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Gaelen S.. You have new messages at Nutiketaiel's talk page.
Message added 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA reform

Hi Galen, thanks for the encouraging message. You said to leave you a message so I hope you dont mind me not replying on my talk, i want to clear that soon anyway. Im not expecting to have that much time for further participation in RfA in the near future, but I do have a few thoughts for you.

  • "The good is the enemy of the best" and in this case the current recruitment drive to find candidates who might pass with the existing criteria has took away most of the impetus we'd need for successful reform efforts. The best time to re-launch efforts would likely be after the recruitment campaign has run out of steam and someone once again raises the issue of persistent queues and falling admin numbers.
  • Its possible that the recruitment campaign will even be moderately successful, in which case it will be much harder to re build the required momentum. There's good reason to reform apart from the shortage, but its only the admin shortage that will command wide enough accent to help punch through the resistance you naturally get to any reform efforts. As with most communities where members dont self select for virtue, appeals to a sense of goodness and fairness alone are rarely enough to support a successful reform , one also needs to appeal to self interest. The recruitment drive is in some respects a good compromise as it addresses the shortage while avoiding the main objections from the vocal few who favour the status quo, which is why it has to be allowed to play out.
  • The draft proposal could be beefed up if someone made a table enumerating the admin queues found at CAT:AB and elsewhere on the RFA talk page, if the backlogs are rising so much the better, but even if they're persistently large that's still a good reason for reform provided the number of active admins continues to decline.
  • When the right time comes to kick things off, try and get as many editors as you can to help, I think there were about 20 who broadly supported reform. [2]
  • A package of reforms would probably work much better than just coaching alone. E.g. your probationary period idea, reducing the pass threshold from 80% , more clearly defined criteria etc . WeirSpellChequers is a good advocate for this and also is good at knocking back the opposing arguments without escalating to drama. Hed be my choice for the one to lead when and if the times arrives to go to the Village Pump.
  • On the VP, using the phrase "updating RfA" rather than reform might work better as for some reform seems to be an emotive word.

Sorry if this wasnt what you wanted to hear, hope something here helps! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I wished that you would still have the time to participate but thank you anyway.I am sure that your points will prove helpful. Good Luck! - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Gaelen, sorry to see your RfA did not succeed but please don't feel it's the end of the line. I noticed your closing statement when I read your post on Lankiveil's page (he's one of my coaches too) and I thought I'd offer an explanation to some of the points you've raised on your RfA regarding the reform of the process.

  • "I am willing to commit to any kind oversight or probation for any length of time if my rfa goes through."
See Wikipedia:PEREN#Hierarchical structures and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship#Proposed processes, which documentprevious attempts at this solution. The proposal has failed several times in varying forms, and until consensus changes, this cannot be applied in even one case such as yours. It has to be laid out in community consensus before we can apply the idea, and it doesn't look like this will ever happen.
  • "I have a very good understanding of what admins do and I see the use for the tools that come with the job and the ways in which they could be abused"
This may very well be the case, but the community often does not like to take words as proof. What we need is reliable proof, such as evidence of your activity in admin areas such as WP:AIV, WP:CSD etc. etc. as these are the places where you start to demonstrate how you'll use the tools efficiently. Lankiveil will be able to guide you through how to act in these areas and test you thoroughly on them, so that when several months have passed, you'll be able to prove your ability with the tools.
  • " If you look at the ratio of admins to actual users you can see that there are way to few admins to be a truly effective force in the encyclopedia."
Really? The vast majority of work against vandals is done by users such as yourself and myself, we are the dominant anti-vandal force. The administrators are only there to deal with the somewhat minority (even though there are still plenty) of cases where users persistently vandalise and disrupt the encyclopaedia. I am yet to see a backlog at WP:AIV. Where your argument may come into play is at areas like WP:CSD where the is a consistent backlog on occasion, but even so, all cases are seen to pretty quickly. Although it's never hurtful to have too many administrators, having the current level of promoted admins is still absolutely fine in terms of backlogs.
  • "What better way to determine a user's level of trustworthiness and capability than to actually see what they would do with the tools that would be given to them if they actually were made admins. I am not just speaking for myself, I am speaking for all editors who would like a chance to be admins but do not have huge amounts of experience. After all, if you are ever in doubt about policy, you can always go to the pages that explain it."
The problem here is not that we don't think genuine admin potentials can do the work, I'm sure anyone can do admin work if they just look up the specific pages since it really isn't brain surgery/rocket science/whatever. The problem arises where the community likes safety, we don't like having people we don't trust in a position of power for the reason that serious damage can be done if you don't know what your doing, and it becomes very easy for vandals with tools to do even worse damage. There is little physical damage that can't be fixed, but the scaring off of new constructive users is one which cannot be undone, and is very easy to do accidentally if you, say, deleted their new page at CSD. Adminship is not a goal, it is not a prize, and there should be no issue with users such as yourself having to go and get more experience before being given the tools. You should be active anyway in these areas, and after you have the level required for a successful RfA, go ahead and try one. Adminship is an add-on that you may be granted when you have enough community trust and knowledge, just like rollback.
  • "Look, I need to say this before the discussion escalates further. I am not obsessed with power or adminship. I saw the compromise listed above as a way for editors to truly judge my capabilities. I did not only suggest it for that reason, however. It seems to me that a new system of choosing admins more efficiently and quickly is necessary and I believe that this truly is a good idea and should be utilized in the picking of other good editors as well. Now, I am quickly growing disillusioned with the job of administrator as I have no desire to join a crowd that from what I have seen so far, have been closeminded and unwilling to even take my suggestion of using this as a possible option in the future."
Statements like this will reduce your chances at further RfAs. Administrators are required to keep a very cool head and you'll be confronted by plenty of hot-headed individuals when you start deleting pages and blocking users. If you demonstrate a lack of civility at RfA and lose your cool (even though you did so politely), it will be viewed by many as a sign you are not ready for the role.
  • It seems you are ranting about administrators, when really it is not their fault that you have not passed your RfA. Who are you referring to when you say "Administrators, your job does not make you better than everyone else and your numbers in many ways make you ineffective as a real driving force and I do not need years of experience to see that."? What have they done to make you think that? Most administrators are more than aware of their role and that they do not rank higher than normal users. You do not need to state such things, it's entirely evident to everybody already. Again, statements like this suggest that you are not quite ready for the role yet as you don't have a thorough understanding of community views.
  • "Now, I am withdrawing my Rfa and I am seriously thinking of quiting wikipedia all together. I can be persuaded to stay but I need to see more action from the rfa division for me to considering doing so."
This statement comes across as childish and immature in my honest opinion, and I don't mean that as an attack, but more as a valid viewpoint that I have. This sort of thing is what people on their last legs here say to try and win around some sympathy, and I'm afraid we're far too used to it. No one wants you to quit Wikipedia, and it's petty to do so because your RfA failed. What you should really do is work on what the opposers have said, work on what I have said here, and come back in about 6 months time.

It's very plausible that your next RfA will pass in the timeframe I stated above, should you continue to participate in areas such as WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WT:RfA etc. and build up your experience and knowledge of what the community thinks about certain issues. Should you do so, your impression on the community will be much more highly respected and you'll most likely be entrusted with the tools should you not do anything to fuck that up (excuse the vulgarity). I hope I haven't come across as too harsh here, that was not my intention. Instead I needed to help you see the light on why your proposal wasn't taken too seriously, and what you can do to increase your chances next time. I hope to see you around participating at the aforementioned areas, and if you have any questions or comments in regards to what I've said above, please feel free to reply on my talk page (as I don't watch others unless I have a really specific need to). Best of luck. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do understand why you said what you did, but I think you misinterpreted Roux (talk · contribs) comments. He himself didn't believe you were power hungry, he merely stated that it could come across that way when you run for adminship so soon after a previous failed attempt. It makes it look like you're 'jumping through hoops' to get there. Whether you did or not, no one knows, it's just how it comes across and perhaps it's wrong to speculate, but one cannot help their initial impressions on a candidate.
Most importantly, your proposal was not being shot down simply because you were the one proposing it as the candidate. The reason it was shot down on the spot is because, as I mentioned above, it has been proposed many times before and rejected for the reasons stated in those discussions. It had nothing to do you with, merely that it had been tried and shot down already. I hope this clears things up. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Gaelen, sorry to see your RfA did not succeed but please don't feel it's the end of the line. I noticed your closing statement when I read your post on Lankiveil's page (he's one of my coaches too) and I thought I'd offer an explanation to some of the points you've raised on your RfA regarding the reform of the process.

  • "I am willing to commit to any kind oversight or probation for any length of time if my rfa goes through."
See Wikipedia:PEREN#Hierarchical structures and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship#Proposed processes, which documentprevious attempts at this solution. The proposal has failed several times in varying forms, and until consensus changes, this cannot be applied in even one case such as yours. It has to be laid out in community consensus before we can apply the idea, and it doesn't look like this will ever happen.
  • "I have a very good understanding of what admins do and I see the use for the tools that come with the job and the ways in which they could be abused"
This may very well be the case, but the community often does not like to take words as proof. What we need is reliable proof, such as evidence of your activity in admin areas such as WP:AIV, WP:CSD etc. etc. as these are the places where you start to demonstrate how you'll use the tools efficiently. Lankiveil will be able to guide you through how to act in these areas and test you thoroughly on them, so that when several months have passed, you'll be able to prove your ability with the tools.
  • " If you look at the ratio of admins to actual users you can see that there are way to few admins to be a truly effective force in the encyclopedia."
Really? The vast majority of work against vandals is done by users such as yourself and myself, we are the dominant anti-vandal force. The administrators are only there to deal with the somewhat minority (even though there are still plenty) of cases where users persistently vandalise and disrupt the encyclopaedia. I am yet to see a backlog at WP:AIV. Where your argument may come into play is at areas like WP:CSD where the is a consistent backlog on occasion, but even so, all cases are seen to pretty quickly. Although it's never hurtful to have too many administrators, having the current level of promoted admins is still absolutely fine in terms of backlogs.
  • "What better way to determine a user's level of trustworthiness and capability than to actually see what they would do with the tools that would be given to them if they actually were made admins. I am not just speaking for myself, I am speaking for all editors who would like a chance to be admins but do not have huge amounts of experience. After all, if you are ever in doubt about policy, you can always go to the pages that explain it."
The problem here is not that we don't think genuine admin potentials can do the work, I'm sure anyone can do admin work if they just look up the specific pages since it really isn't brain surgery/rocket science/whatever. The problem arises where the community likes safety, we don't like having people we don't trust in a position of power for the reason that serious damage can be done if you don't know what your doing, and it becomes very easy for vandals with tools to do even worse damage. There is little physical damage that can't be fixed, but the scaring off of new constructive users is one which cannot be undone, and is very easy to do accidentally if you, say, deleted their new page at CSD. Adminship is not a goal, it is not a prize, and there should be no issue with users such as yourself having to go and get more experience before being given the tools. You should be active anyway in these areas, and after you have the level required for a successful RfA, go ahead and try one. Adminship is an add-on that you may be granted when you have enough community trust and knowledge, just like rollback.
  • "Look, I need to say this before the discussion escalates further. I am not obsessed with power or adminship. I saw the compromise listed above as a way for editors to truly judge my capabilities. I did not only suggest it for that reason, however. It seems to me that a new system of choosing admins more efficiently and quickly is necessary and I believe that this truly is a good idea and should be utilized in the picking of other good editors as well. Now, I am quickly growing disillusioned with the job of administrator as I have no desire to join a crowd that from what I have seen so far, have been closeminded and unwilling to even take my suggestion of using this as a possible option in the future."
Statements like this will reduce your chances at further RfAs. Administrators are required to keep a very cool head and you'll be confronted by plenty of hot-headed individuals when you start deleting pages and blocking users. If you demonstrate a lack of civility at RfA and lose your cool (even though you did so politely), it will be viewed by many as a sign you are not ready for the role.
  • It seems you are ranting about administrators, when really it is not their fault that you have not passed your RfA. Who are you referring to when you say "Administrators, your job does not make you better than everyone else and your numbers in many ways make you ineffective as a real driving force and I do not need years of experience to see that."? What have they done to make you think that? Most administrators are more than aware of their role and that they do not rank higher than normal users. You do not need to state such things, it's entirely evident to everybody already. Again, statements like this suggest that you are not quite ready for the role yet as you don't have a thorough understanding of community views.
  • "Now, I am withdrawing my Rfa and I am seriously thinking of quiting wikipedia all together. I can be persuaded to stay but I need to see more action from the rfa division for me to considering doing so."
This statement comes across as childish and immature in my honest opinion, and I don't mean that as an attack, but more as a valid viewpoint that I have. This sort of thing is what people on their last legs here say to try and win around some sympathy, and I'm afraid we're far too used to it. No one wants you to quit Wikipedia, and it's petty to do so because your RfA failed. What you should really do is work on what the opposers have said, work on what I have said here, and come back in about 6 months time.

It's very plausible that your next RfA will pass in the timeframe I stated above, should you continue to participate in areas such as WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WT:RfA etc. and build up your experience and knowledge of what the community thinks about certain issues. Should you do so, your impression on the community will be much more highly respected and you'll most likely be entrusted with the tools should you not do anything to fuck that up (excuse the vulgarity). I hope I haven't come across as too harsh here, that was not my intention. Instead I needed to help you see the light on why your proposal wasn't taken too seriously, and what you can do to increase your chances next time. I hope to see you around participating at the aforementioned areas, and if you have any questions or comments in regards to what I've said above, please feel free to reply on my talk page (as I don't watch others unless I have a really specific need to). Best of luck. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do understand why you said what you did, but I think you misinterpreted Roux (talk · contribs) comments. He himself didn't believe you were power hungry, he merely stated that it could come across that way when you run for adminship so soon after a previous failed attempt. It makes it look like you're 'jumping through hoops' to get there. Whether you did or not, no one knows, it's just how it comes across and perhaps it's wrong to speculate, but one cannot help their initial impressions on a candidate.
Most importantly, your proposal was not being shot down simply because you were the one proposing it as the candidate. The reason it was shot down on the spot is because, as I mentioned above, it has been proposed many times before and rejected for the reasons stated in those discussions. It had nothing to do you with, merely that it had been tried and shot down already. I hope this clears things up. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaelen_S./Archives/2009/September&oldid=1139061868"