Wikipedia talk:Administrators without tools

Interesting idea, well done.

Very nice page. Seems like a constructive way to help the RfA situation.
Actually, when I read the reference to RfA reform, I thought the mop template had something to do with it. Then I thought that'd be kind of cool: if new admins were selected by people placing mops on the talk pages of people they admire. Maybe you limit people to, say, one mop every 12 months, and still have a panel to screen those selected.
But it'd rely far less on a small panel and more on a process where everyone says to themselves, "Ok, now who's the best editor I've seen all year?"
--Qwerty0 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind sentiments. I hope to see its usefulness. --My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Section title suggestion

I just saw this show up on a few user talk pages I have watchlisted. It isn't a bad idea, I'll be curious to see how it develops. But three pieces of feedback:

1. I'd definitely ditch the "There's a mop reserved in your name" used for the nom target. That's way too optimistic, and I suspect could lead to disappointment. Particularly when the candidate is kind of advised in the essay to file an RFA ASAP. If you aren't careful, you're going to encourage someone to dive into the deep end when they aren't ready.
2. The essay is geared toward explaining what the process is, but isn't really geared towards the potential candidate. If you're going to add this link in the notice, I think you want to add something along the lines of "what to do if you get this template" section.
3. I'd suggest adding something along the lines of "feel free to talk to me about this if you think you might be interested".

--Floquenbeam (talk) Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would consider also offering them a link to RFAADVICE for them to think it over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung @Floquenbeam My suspicion is that this "mop is reserved" and "as soon as possible" language contributed to the current RfA. The language can easily be received as signaling a sure thing or emphasizing immediacy, and clearly that's at odds with everything else written about RfA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The horse is out of the barn on this one, but for the next one, I’ve taken a stab (and CaptainEek has improved the wording). See the current {{Administrator without tools}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDLY updated the "ASAP" language on the page. Happy to let others wordsmith as desired. I do think the "mop reserved in your name" section header should be revised as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - FlightTime (open channel) 00:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) (closed by non-admin page mover)

---

• Template:GetMop → Template:Administrator without tools

– Current title is unclear and doesn't make much sense. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 22:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support for increased clarity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support to match the essay. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Wikipedia:ASAP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:ASAP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 11 § Wikipedia:ASAP until a consensus is reached. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The template is a disaster

@Jc37: The current {{Administrator without tools}} template sets the wrong tone. It doesn't encourage preparation and risks setting people up for failure. No, it has set up people for failure. Please explain specifically what you mean by undo - I think "position" sets the wrong tone. What about the word "position" is problematic? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The text has seen several changes over the last couple of days. I think you're essentially changing CaptainEek's edit here.

Anyway, as for "position", that makes it sound like someone should be trying work the system of RfA (gamesmanship), instead of honest engagement.

I'm not against updating the text, but I think it should stay light-hearted/friendly in tone, while not setting un-realistic expectations.

I think the current text is attempting to do that, though, again, I'm happy to discuss alternatives. - jc37 08:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Positioning yourself well is not gamesmanship, that's a wild reach. It's being prepared and doing your homework. In some cases it means waiting until you are ready. None of those things are gamesmanship. Right now, we are throwing people to the wolves and the current template is languid about making its recommendations. The previous version from Floquenbeam did a better job of cautioning people than the CaptainEek version, but I preferred the use of the nominator link so I kept that. Other than that, I mostly just tried to make the blurb flow better. I'd be fine replacing "To position yourself well" with "To be prepared" or something like that. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: to be honest, I don't have much of a concern about any of the versions of the template after I added the cautions. I think CaptainEek's version was better than mine, but really to me the only vital issues are (a) some kind of caveat, even if it is relatively gentle or relatively harsh, and (b) nuking the "there's a mop reserved in your name" wording, which I don't think there's much dispute about.

What I still don't like very much is the page WP:Administrators without tools. I think it is in need of a substantial rewrite, for reasons I mention a couple of sections above. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)