Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 25

message: When I self-nominated, I linked the date of my voting deadline, so that the Wiki software would reformat it to the user's preferences, as is common elsewhere in the 'pedia. I am considering doing the same to everyone else's nominations, and changing the instructions. Does anyone have an objection to that? --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
* I don't see anything wrong with that. Just don't bite anyone's head of if they forget to. :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Link dates?

message: Previously this page did not use banners noting that voting time on a candidate was near the end. One has since been used; this is a change in practice, and from the above discussion, there seems some difference of opinion over it. So what do people think: Should we do this in the future? Never? Always? Sometimes, and if so, under what specific circumstances? -- Infrogmation 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Infrogmation, it has been used before, but only in cases like this, where there was insufficint community involvement for consensus. However, I will post a poll (thought we could avoid that, but hey, most people like to vote). Give me a few minutes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner 

message: I placed the banner below in order to encourage voters to consider the nomination of a candidate who had only six votes total, insufficient to determine consensus. Netoholic took exception and removed the banner twice. I removed the banner myself when I saw that there were more than a dozen votes, so it had served its purpose. I'm showing the banner here so we can see exactly what it said, and whether anyone considers that this is not neutral. A banner like it would have been posted anyway in the event the nomination would have to be extended. You may also want to read the discussions above. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * I believe the heart of the issue is determining whether consensus is absent as a nomination is coming to a close, not another rockbound rule. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's been my, ahem, experience that the 7 day limit is not absolute, anyhow... ugen64 04:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Banners noting expiring nominations

message: As the ones charged with determining consensus, bureaucrats should post banners like the above if they feel consensus is not being reached within approximately 24 hours of the end of the nomination.
#Taxman 21:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) Though not one voting in the relevant election.
#gadfium (talk) 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Short-time banners may be posted by bureaucrats

message: Same as above, but may be posted by anyone within 24 hours of the end of the nomination, and the wording must not advocate for or against the candidate.
#Andre (talk) 21:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
#Michael Ward 22:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Short-time banners may be posted by anyone

message: Don't have a banner until the nomination is finished, and the bureaucrats will determine what to do from that point (promote/reject/extend).
#support - if not enough people comment/vote on the matter at hand then it is *after* the usual time allotment that options may need to be considered, not during. --Vamp:Willow 21:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No short-time banners

message: *My own opinion is that it's better to nudge voters a little to complete the nomination in its alloted time, rather than have extensions. I can't be too much in sympathy with the idea that voter's lack of awareness should be protected rather than their interest promoted. If they are visiting RfA they are already interested in the process, but may not realize a particular nomination is about to expire. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * I believe the heart of the issue is determining whether consensus is absent as a nomination is coming to a close, not another rockbound rule. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's been my, ahem, experience that the 7 day limit is not absolute, anyhow... ugen64 04:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Just added a vote to PMC's request for adminship.  It shows in the subpage but isnt showing on the main page.  Can anyone shed light on this?  Thanks. FT2 21:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
#Purge the page with the link near the top. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit issue

message: I was looking for a way of saying this without having to create a topic here, but I can't think of many different ways of doing that. Anyway, I just want to thank all of you who supported me with my nomination. Really, I appreciate it.
That's all. May you have a Merry Christmas.  =]
--Kaonashi/Mackeriv 23:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: A couple of times now, the "Vote here" link in the nomination template has been removed.  I consider it a very helpful aid, and use it often.  Please don't remove it. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
:Why do you use it, when the edit section link works? The link has disadvantages in both form and function. It's ugly, and it is another place that Username has to be replaced. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Some people have section editing disabled in preferences, so the "Vote here" link is necessary, I'm afraid. --Michael Snow 17:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote here link 

message: I think it is high time to move the shortcut to something else.  RFA is too confusing of a redirect because of Requests for arbritration.  Personally, it's easier to type adminship over arbritration, so the redirect should have been given to arbritration. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: problem is that there are a lot of places that link through WP:RFAGeni 12:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RFA redirect 

message: I notice that occasionally there is someone who applies for adminship who is a good editor but has barely touched the Wikipedian namespace. I may be changing my criteria to reject candidates without that experience, but it would be good to give them some pointers to gain familiarity and come back a month later. Is there a page designed to give users a tour of the Wikipedia namespace? I started my own here: User:Rad Racer/Scavenger hunt Rad Racer 13:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some more - I trust that that is in order. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tour of the Wikipedia namespace

message: For the past two weeks or so, I've been including a count of main namespace edits on nominations.  (Ben Brockert used to do this, along with witty observations about the nominees' user pages that I couldn't hope to emulate, but he seems to be largely inactive these days.)  Is this useful or annoying?  Should I continue?  And is it worth expanding to a complete breakdown of contributions by namespace? (e.g., JoeExample has 3000 edits: 1500/200 to articles/talk, 800/100 to Wikipedia:/talk, 100/200 to User:/talk, etc.)  (Oh, and for those wondering, I find the counts with links like this.) —Korath (Talk) 04:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep, notable. And useful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit counts by namespace