Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 67

message: Could we please change the layout of RFA pages to support per-section editing? With lots of questions, edit counts and edit summary histories, and some RFAs attracting over 200 participants, it's becoming very hard to find the place where one needs to "vote". Support, oppose and neutral need to have section headers so that "voting" is as simple as clicking the correct section and scrolling to the bottom. --kingboyk 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict!)I'm in favor of this. I've had similar problems and if I'm not one of the few people who have either supported or opposed within the first 20 or so, I'm stuck locating the proper area, and hoping that there isnt an edit conflict, else I'd have to do it all over again. Although its a small concern, I dont see what harm can be done in changing it. SynergeticMaggot 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. -- Szvest 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Would the various scripts that parse out the pages into summaries cope with this as-is, or would then need updated? (but yes, a good idea) Thanks/wangi 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems was an extremely long table of contents. —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we found a clever way around that, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_65#After_reversion.2C_plans_for_custom_edit_links. Probably just need to update the template, as I think all the bots/monitoring programs could handle it okay. -- nae'blis 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the agreement with the general idea isn't clear already, let it be noted that I agree. Marskell 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to voice out my agreement with the general idea. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As would I. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we could put the edit count summaries on the talk page? It would obscure whether or not comments/controversy has been moved there, but might be worth that for a more readable RFA. The questions should absolutely stay on the main page though, including optional ones. -- nae'blis 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please (or a subpage). People should look at the contributions more than the edit count anyway. And I agree that the questions should stay, but could be below the votes for easier editing. Kusma (討論) 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions were moved above the support/oppose/neutral comments (not votes :) ) for at least two reasons, IIRC.. one is to encourage people to read them, and the other is to make it easier to comment, even if there are no individual sections to edit via... by having the support oppose after the questions you can scroll to the bottom quickly and then scroll up a bit. If we put the sections back in (with the noinclude trick so they don't show in the main TOC) that becomes less important, as long as you are willing to first click on the nom and go to its subpage.  I am sorry that some folk don't like the questions first but I really really think it's a good thing to look at them and apologise in advance if people think that putting them first is condescension rather than encouragement. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems I have with the current format is the length of some of the comments and answers to questions - they can become ESSAYS! It gets very irritating after a while having to scroll through long prose. Chacor 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess different people look for different things. I don't want snap answers to easy questions, I want to see some evidence that the candidate is thinking long and hard about the question answered. A considered, thoughtful answer goes a long way to convincing me to support an otherwise borderline candidate. I'll gladly admit that's maybe just me, and I have a rep for windiness (many of my answers on my RfA were a whole screen ful or more). So the question then becomes, is one view better than the other (see Kim's comments above, he clearly wants people to read and think, and is OK if it takes them a bit longer)? If neither is... is there a way to accomodate both types of folk? ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get it wrong, if the candidate has a lot to say to questions 1 and 2 that's good. But I really don't need to read a whole chunk about every little small altercation a candidate has gotten into for Question 3, heh. Perhaps posting optional questions to the talk page of the nomination rather than below the compulsory ones, along with moving the comments (suggested somewhere above)? Chacor 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the optional questions often more relevant than the standard 3, because they often are asked to get at specific issues that the candidate might have, and becuase they're not canned, the candidate didn't have 3 weeks to think about how to answer them, you get to see them think on their feet. So I guess the net here is I like the questions before the comments, I like all the questions, not just some, being there, I don't have a problem with length (even for question 3), and I think section heads would help ameliorate problems others might have. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I saw the addition of section breaks added to Eagle_101's RfA.  Apparently those with expertise in markup have figured out a way to include sections without bloating the table of contents on the main RfA page.  Is this to be the new format?  If so, I like it! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like it to be, and (after last time, haha) if there was consensus I'd change the template to put it into effect. Is there consensus? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, what happened? I thought we had the bots on board...? -- nae'blis 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: I'm not sure how to put my vote up, but can somebody help? I am very succesfull with English and Croatian Wikipedia and I learn quickly, I am friendly, I am a reverter and I love to help. Although I am only one month into being a user, that doesn't mean I haven't been using Wikipedia for years! I have. I know how to debate, be proper and nice and how to watch and be on guard. When you need me, I'll assist. How do I put up my name for administration (oh, yeah, I'm kind. I can relate to kids because I am a responsible, intellegent 11 year old. I will communicate with the kindly but firmly when adults have no contact. Things have changed oveer the years. Kids attitudes and minds are ruder, and they just seek comfort. Now I'm a kid of today and I will do what I can to help Wikipedia!) Who's with me? Put my name up and vote! If the vote passes, I will succeed to all duties and show pruod worthiness. If anyone has anyhting to say about this, please say so on my talk page. Thank you for reading this debate speech in order to become an admin. Thank you. *Appluase*. (I'm funny too, so kids will get along and be nice in response to a block or warning!) Lindsay1980 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might wish to review WP:GRFA and also the standards page. SynergeticMaggot 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. ForestH2 t/c 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adminstation. 

message: Please vote, as I'm curious what you think.
User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey
--Masssiveego 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage people not to feed this... he just seems hungry for more attention to be paid to his troll-esque behavior. --W.marsh 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About what. :) Dlohcierekim 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on Masssiveego

message: Dear human resources department,
We have a huge backlog at WP:CP that could benefit from some determined copyright specialists. Thanks. --Ligulem 11:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I go cross-eyed every time I look at it. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for human resources at WP:CP 

message: Can I go on record saying that I don't like the latest RfA format that's just popped up for the last 2 or 3 RfAs; especially the location of the tally - almost every user has missed it, and in fact (aeropagitica) just moved it back to its original location in TruthbringerToronto's RfA however the template remains the same. Was there a reason for the change I cant see? - GIen 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the archive re the new format. I think the location of the questions is great - encourages those contributing to read them with greater ease, but yes I can't see the rationale for the tally location. I guess once everyone gets used to it changes will be made - but in the last RfA I contributed to I was maybe the 5th or 6th person to do so and the first to update the tally. Just a thought anyway... - GIen 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea is to de-emphasize the count. The raw count isn't the most important thing. It's ok if people miss updating the tally, the only time the tally needs to be correct is when it is closed. - Taxman Talk 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I never actually thought of that. Makes sense, and, its just a matter of users becoming used to the new location. Thanks for letting me know :) - GIen 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have in fact had to tally almost half of the current RfA's earlier today, and for Eagle_101, a few more times. Supports, Neutrals, and Opposers will be clicking the edit button for that location, in which they'd have to go back and edit from the top anyway, to tally. I like the new format change, but this requires two edits. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, while people might be missing the tally now because it's new, they'll get used to it and know to correct the tally just on top of the vote soon. --Rory096 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Tax, the tally shouldn't actually matter. You can obviously browse and get a feel for where the review is at, but 76% versus 74% should not (in theory) influence comments, nor should seeing how far along the bandwagon has gone on an obvious one. Marskell 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very useful to have the tally easily accessible at the top, as it's nice to check up on how progress is going, and sometimes I will look at numbers to see if I want to participate, e.g. close numbers might make it worth investigating, 0-24 is a waste of time. It would be very useful to have the table which is on BN on RfA. Tyrenius 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only concerned with having to make two edits. I'm not bothered either way, where the counter lies. SynergeticMaggot 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of removing it.  I personally never update it, not because I "forget" but because it's not really very worthwhile as far as I'm concerned; usually someone else does it soon enough anyway.  Of course, edits made solely to keep the tally updated are, in my opinion, among the silliest on all of Wikipedia. Besides, Dragon Flight's tool will still parse the count anyway, and its page is a better reference if you really just want numbers. -- SCZenz 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that idea - especially as Dragons flight's tool works fine to show the tally. However I think that if it is removed a link to the counter should be put at the top of each RFA -> See the tally at Dragon Flights tool --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support removing the tally.  Its not in the spirit of RfA and is a distraction from the main game which is for people to offer comments on candidates.  If its important, readers can also scroll down to the bottom to see the number against the last vote. -- I@n 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes more sense. My original concern was that the new location meant no one updated it - if the purpose of moving it was in fact to induce this effect, then it makes more sense to dispose of it all together. - GIen 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. DF's tool is more accurate in many cases for whose who want the numbers, and not having the tally makes it more of a discussion, less of a polling station. -- nae'blis 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we got really crazy and used bullets "*" instead of numbers "#" beside each !vote? I'd support this as long as the automated tools still counted correctly. Aren't I Obscure? 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RfA format 

message: There is a discussion on splitting the standards page (size > 90) into 4 sections here.  Seeing as there is, so far, no opposition to this idea, I'll be doing it later today. I'm mentioning it here for the broader audience I'm sure reads this talk page than Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Standards. Comments on the idea are welcome. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the titles Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/E-K, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/L-R, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/S-Z sound good? If there is no opposition, I'll go ahead soon. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. One thing I like is that you placed "S" at the beginning of the last section (typically a large group of names in any list). As this list is likely to expand, do you think that those breaks in the alphabetical listing will continue to hold up as rough equidistant breaks? - Jc37 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section breakups per letter would also be useful for section editing. --Thunderhead 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to be wary of: alpha sorting.  There are editors who pipe their username so that it shows as something else.  Personally, I think they should be listed by actual user name.  What do you think? - Jc37 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea whether it will hold up; I originally suggested A-G, H-P, and Q-Z, the traditional breaks in the alphabet song.  Then Grutness suggested what he called "London Phonebook" style (I've never been to London, nor have I seen their phonebooks, nor have I seen this style before) because the three that I suggested will be over 32 quite soon, if not immediately. But will an anti-vandal bot revert me when I blank 99% of the wp:rfa/standards page? Picaroon9288|ta co 20:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, TawkerBot2 will only revert once under normal circumstances, so if it does get reverted, revert it back again. However, you're in the wikipedia namespace, so the bots might ignore you anyway. --Tango 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good. Anyways, before I do the other 3, what do you guys think of A-D? Picaroon9288|ta co 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, but I might suggest having links at the top (in a template box perhaps?) for the other 3 pages, for ease of navigation. - Jc37 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll definitely have links to the other three at the top and at the bottom of all four pages, once they all exist. I can't guarantee a nice looking box, however - boxes have always been my nemesis on wikimedia sites.  I'll try, though. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh noes, L-R is too long by itself.  I'll do Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/L-O, and figure how the final two (altogether P-Z) should be split with the halfhour, and probably sooner. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I didn't notice the suggestion in time, and I'm not an admin (yet ;)), so I can't do anything now.  But I think it worked out all right.  Picaroon9288|ta co 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on splitting the standards page 

message: Was some discussion refactored or inadvertently deleted from this page today?  I just referred a user to the discussion of "young admin candidates" that was going on on this page as recently as this morning, but it's not here any more, and I don't see a talk archive. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was archived (check the page history) to the normal place (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives) as archive 66. There is an archive header at the top of this page!!  --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the quick reply and I now see the heading (based on the first line there I thought the archives referred to the RfA's themselves rather than this talk, but I now see the second line is different). I guess I just wasn't expecting to see a thread archived to which I had contributed as recently as today! But no harm done, it was petering out anyway. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems I modified the page to use  so it is more prominent. I will add a link to archived RFA applications as well so otehrs dont get confused :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok done, what do you all reckon - look ok? it does overlap the top edit link.... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe keep a link to the latest archive directly on this page, save people clicking around.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived Material

message: Many users have opposed this editor's Request for Adminship based on "lack of experience" and "low WP space edits", apparently ignoring or not aware of this user's 5K edits on English Wikipedia, 37,000 edits on Polish Wikipedia (including 2,600 to WP space), and Admin status on Polish Wikipedia. While I feel these facts should have been mentioned in the nomination, it's disturbing that the majority of people have opposed or voted neutral based on "lack of experience" or "lack of dedication to the project", without digging a little (like checking Kpjas' user page, where his number of edits on both Wikipedias is listed at the top of the page).
As I have provided links on the RFA to relevent facts which support Kpjas' dedication and experience, a few opinions have changed, but I'm not even sure how many people will bother to check back on this RfA. I've asked a few user to reconsider their opinions, but I don't know how many will consider it. If this RfA fails, it will be because of a, IMO, somewhat poor nomination and many editors' willingness to overlook easily obtainable evidence. --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not have supported him in his RFA, as his reply to the first question is very weak. He has indeed a low amount of English WP namespace edits. The fact that he is a terribly experienced user at the Polish Wikipedia doesn't mean he should be given administrators rights in the English. As I said, he does not really need administrators tools to do what he wants to do. -- ReyBrujo 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'd say he was a good user and well deserves admin status on the polish wiki, however, as has been said, despite many edits (and obvious knowledge of policy) the poor answers to the question lead arise to another - will this person actually use the tools. He says so but if he cant put the effort into his RFA statements then it just doesn't feel like he wants or needs the tools. Thats not a good reason to oppose I admit but it's just a feeling people end up getting -> hence loads of opposes and neutrals. If he fills out his answers properly then the will sail through :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please check the various time stamps.  I originally opposed (and was the first voter period) because of all the things he said he wanted to do, the only thing that required the sysop bit was CSD, and his edits here show absolutely no familiarity with the deletion process.  Please look at the state of the nomination when it was posted and tell me if that looks like a person who is interested in being an admin and has some experience in admin-like areas.  I was actually thinking of recommending espernza's admin boot camp and a revote in 1-2 months.  It's hardly my fault (or any of the oppose voters) that the nomination did not mention that he was an admin on pl.wiki with 30K+ edits. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to Kpjas why he didn't say that in his RFA. ForestH2 t/c 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's no excuse. The onus is on you to check. Kim Bruning 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't read Polish; so I have know clue if he's an admin. ForestH2 t/c 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Kim, how would the onus be on Forest to check? Should he have gone through every Wikiproject and check their logs? JoshuaZ 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the most important attributes of an admin is the ability to communicate effectively. If a candidate neglects to include pertinent information in their RfA, it's not up to other editors to do the work for them. Aren't I Obscure? 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm trying to tell Kim. ForestH2 t/c 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Editors should be encouraged to go beyond the info included on an RfA and look at a candidate in greater detail, but expecting them to hunt for information on other Wikiprojects isn't very reasonable. Aren't I Obscure? 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Change Wikiproject to another languge, by the way. ForestH2 t/c 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone expected anyone else to go hunting for information on other language editions. The info on user:Kpjas' number of contributions is found right on the top of his userpage. Who doesn't check user/talk pages when voicing an opinion?--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes I did. Whatever makes you think you'd get away with being so insular and lazy on wikipedia? :-P Kim Bruning 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (de-indenting) Well, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by mentioning this here. I did not not and do not mean to imply that the oppose voters weren't doing their homework, but I do hope those editors who opposed based on "lack of experience" and/or "lack of dedication to the project" will switch to support, or, as Thatcher has done (completely to his credit), switch to neutral. I don't believe after this that anyone can genuinely oppose due to a belief of a lack of dedication to Wikipedia, and I think people who will come back and read the RfA after voting may switch to support... the problem is, many people won't check back.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (double edit conflict)I believe he did not comment on that because he does not deem that necessary for adminiship in this version. Otherwise, as stated, he would have informed that lack of WP edits would not be a problem since he is already knowledgeable in the general policies of Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kpjas|Kpjas' RFA]]

message: I won't name names, but you'll know if I'm talking to you. If you placed an opinion on Kpjas' RFA, and actually reviewed the candidate beforehand, that's fine, this rant is not aimed at you. :-)
As per above on Kpjas' RFA... if someone says they're on the polish wiki, it doesn't hurt to check there. All the buttons and labels are in roughly the same places as on english, so it's not that hard to guess what's going on. (if you don't know the location of the controls by heart by now, perhaps you should get some more experience first?)
But ok, if that's one bridge too far for you, I can almost live with that. 
The thing is, I found this information at the top of his user page. So could you. That's the first place you look when considering a candidate, and people simply did not look there. I don't mean to merely imply that the oppose voters weren't doing their homework. I'm willing to go out a limb here and suggest that maybe those specific oppose voters were acting outright lazy and stupid.
Please. We're all intelligent people here. If you make a mistake, that's fine. But don't go and compound your error by pointing the finger at someone else, or hiding behind this one mistake the other guy made too. That's irresponsible childish behaviour. If you're driving your car and the other guy makes a small mistake, you compensate for it, rather than cause a crash. Why do you think you're absolved of such responsibility on the wiki?
Even many of our teenaged contributors know better than that, so why don't you? Be a (wo)man, square your shoulders under the blame, and dangit, LEARN from your mistakes, and do better next time. You're a wikipedian, you're smart, you can do it!
I'm not saying you are stupid and lazy. You're likely very intelligent and probably score in the top 5-10% of any kind of test your countries' school system can throw at you.  I'm just saying your current behaviour is stupid and lazy...
... But behaviours can be changed. Would you consider changing yours? :-)
Kim Bruning 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong and heady words Kim, if you ever ran for adminship I would have to vote oppose just for this ;-) Seriously though although the words are strong the point s good, and sort of applies ot the general RFA voting climate IMO...  --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that "Lacks dedication to Wikipedia" is another reason why people have opposed Kpjas' adminship. 43,000 edits, and 5 years of experience just isn't enough for some people, apparently. :/ --Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: actualy the most trivial and most robust way to find out if someone is an admin on another wikipedia is to remeber that special:Listusers works on any mediawiki project.Geni 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *sigh*. I'm too tired to go flame those supporters now too though ^^;; Thanks dude :-) Kim Bruning 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since the questions are supposed to be optional, isn't !voting based on them also optional? In which case, the supporters haven't failed to examine the candidate as usual... --Firsfron of Ronchester 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, after the quote Titoxd dug up (basically pinning part of the blame for the transition from nupedia to wikipedia on Kpjas ;-) ), I don't think any question you could come up with could top that. <grin> Kim Bruning 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Mike, thanks for taking more time. I just cannot believe we've just gotten another "not experienced enough yet" vote on this RFA. Kim's comments seem more and more apt.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodness, shape up! 

message: :Argh! This section is hereby speedily closed for being entierly non-encyclopaedic and wasting resources. The responsible malefactor(s) are hereby sentenced to cut down on WP:CP. --Ligulem 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Thursdays? I suggest a strawpoll. Marskell 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thursdays are slow for me. They just prevent it from becoming Friday for one more day. I am good with a strawpoll on the precise choice of day, but have no flexibility over the start time. -Splash - tk 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but by the time I discovered today's (and I do believe you have doubled up on this week's quota) it was too late. Thus if we timetable it, we can be sure it's coming along on cue. Also, we could then archive the hoo-has after they have passed quietly by and compare over time if anything new ever comes up. PrePS: The first draft of your comment was nicer. There is no accounting for human nature. Post-PrePS: The second draft was less nice than the third. -Splash - tk 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -P I'll take monday morning. Is that ok? Kim Bruning 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I suspect that you may be trying to cheat. -Splash - tk 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timetable 

message: Why do we have to wade through heaps of bilge these days just to get to the Support/Oppose/Neutral?  I have my own way of evaluating a candidate.  What is all this random trash doing in the front of the nomination?  Couldn't it go on the talk page or something? --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions make sense to have there on the main page, they are rather part of the nomination, but the edit counts should go in the Talk page. Even better, maybe we should put the vote in the Talk page, and all the substance in the main page? Anybody? —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that would just be pretending it wasn't really happening when the simple fact is it is. The same reason that, whilst it is not a vote, there is only clumsiness available from blanketly replacing "vote" with "discussion" or "brawl". -Splash - tk 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Encouraging people to actually discuss on the talk page instead of on the main page might be interesting - but at the moment people rarely look there. If all discussion was put there, then it would force people to look there to determine whether the candidate should be an administrator or not. I'm indifferent on the matter though; I have no preference, as I take in the users contribs and answers to questions into account mostly anyway. Cowman109Talk 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an RfA was on your watchlist you would see it pop up everytime someone edited the page.  It would be quite easy to track conversations there, the same as the articles. David D. (Talk) 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Tony, although the material is useful to have at a glance. Also it does save server load from all the people having to run the edit counter individually. Much better to just stick all the raw stats on the talk page. JoshuaZ 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything the edit counts should be either removed or moved to the talk page - they encourage editcountitis anyway. Cowman109Talk 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed elsewhere the new layout is designed to take the focus off the edit and vote counting. I support that aim and anything that will encourage evaluating candidates on what matters and not counts. As mentioned below I'd prefer the edit counts removed completely, but moving it to the talk page would help some too. - Taxman Talk 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If really needed, I suggest displaying only Article/talk, User/talk and Wikipedia/talk numbers. Voice of All's statistics are too exhaustive for my taste. Moving to the talk page is a good option. Or hide the tables with a NavBar (even if only the default skin is supported). -- ReyBrujo 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree w/ Tony. -- Szvest 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much useless clutter

message: I'll be honest with you, I want to see a discussion on this issue. I see a lot of recent pushes by numerous users to grant tools to only those who are already pretty much admins without the tools. Why oppose someone just because they don't act like admins yet? Administrators noticeboard isn't "editors noticeboard", so many editors assume that they shouldn't get involved in those affairs. We have to remember the core of adminship: granting the tools. We don't have a limit as to how many admins we have, so why decline people who are not already acting like admins? They're asking to become administrators, so of course they're growing interested in admin tools. The true question is this: can they be trusted with the tools? It's not "do they need the tools". I'd rather see that all trusted users get admin tools so that they can use them if necessary. Why use a strainer to only provide them to the people who need them the most? Let's push aside statistics and use common sense: most people can get a gun with a background check, etc; they don't decline you because you're not a cop or a hunter. Heck, what if, say, the USA was invaded, and nobody (except for the few elite) had guns in self defense? Why not grant them to everyone who is trusted and proven, so that the defense of that country has a greater chance of succeeding? I'm going to develop this comparison even further by stating that a major factor to the start of the nuclear age was that the Japanese gave every non-criminal defensive weaponry. I assume you can tell where this comparison is going. — Deckiller 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be wrong but I do not ask myself, "can they be trusted with the tools?" or  "do they need the tools".  i ask myself can they communicate? Do they show common sense? David D. (Talk) 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The question is not simply whether they have ill will, but if they also have a good idea of what they are doing. Since any regular user can do so many administrative tasks, why should they be made administrator before they have learned how to do the ones they are already capable of doing? The proper analogy would be only selling guns to someone who has gone to the firing range to practice shooting before. —Centrx→talk • 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely; a user should display common sense and a basic understanding, as well. However, I feel that too many voters are sending a message that they only want people who will use the tools a LOT, despite basic understanding and trustworthiness; a person should have shooting experience, of course, but they don't need to be a hunter or a cop to own that weapon. — Deckiller 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with De on the specific issue of WP:AN. A candidate should obviously know what it is, but expecting them to have posted to it regularly doesn't really make sense. I have posted twice or thrice, but why would I follow it regularly if I cannot block people, delete/undelete articles etc? Similarly, I watch WP:DRV but it's pointless most of the time because I can't view the deleted article. Marskell 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA candidates are asking to be administrators, so they are not already admins 

message: Is it wrong to have an alternate account as an admin, I have an alternate account  --TheM62Manchester 09:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a sockpuppet, so as long as it's not used abusively, nope. Good security idea if you use public terminals regularly. --james(talk) 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, it only gets used infrequently, but could it run for RFA? --TheM62Manchester 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it would get shot down due to obvious security concerns that will arise, although it's not explicitly forbidden I don't think - unless you're already one, I suppose. – Chacor 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See sockpuppet policy.   By my reading, admin sockpuppets not permitted per this policy. Also see discussion on talk about tightening restrictions on multiple accounts in any manner. FloNight talk 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My interpretation of the policy is that whilst one individual may have >1 account either overtly or covertly only one of thos accounts should have admin powers at any one time.ALR 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree thats what it says :D as to TheM62Manchester's sock, it depends what you use it for? I guess from the name you use it when logging on and editing in public. right? If so I would say that is pretty good practice that way if someone is shouldersurfing or nicks your password (which could easily happen) then they dont get access to admin powers. If thats the reason you use that sock then I think you wont find many people to oppose it's use!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: no rule per se but thwe account would be unlikely to pass see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2.Geni 10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback. --TheM62Manchester 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe anyone should ever have two admin accounts.  However, a second account for limited purposes may be acceptable, or even a good idea.  I know of a particular user who has gone through RFA twice and failed; if he goes through again I will oppose because he edits from his high school library and has twice lost control of his account after forgetting to log out.  (It doesn't help that his library's IP is a persistent source of schoolboy vandalism, too.)  However, if he created a second account for editing from school that was not a sysop, and pledged to only use the sysop account from home, that would take care of that problem. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate accounts

message: I think the generic RfA template needs to be edited a bit to reflect that the stats are no longer on the main page.  I'm not sure if editing it would skew all of the other RfA's going right now, so I'm hoping someone who knows what they're doing will fix it up ;) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's already been done :) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit statistics have been moved on Winhunter's RfA

message: I have an inquiry to make on users declining adminship, if they were being nominated by another user for a second or more times. Allow me to provide a typical case study. As some of the more expereinced editors on RfAs know, Computerjoe, who in my personal opinion is a great editor, recently declined his fourth RfA. However, I strongly believe that he would run for adminship in about a couple of months time. The point I would like to make is this; what if the user in question delays in accepting this nomination? For example, if he states that he would not officially accept this now but maybe in a few months time. This would result in keeping the RfA nomination at #4 instead of #5. Is this a correct procedure to follow if a user feels that he/she is not yet ready for adminship? Or instead of creating a #5 RfA in a couple of months, why not use the #4 RfA by asking the user in question to delete his earlier non-acceptance instead of creating a new #5 RfA page? Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated. NOTE: I personally delayed in accepting my own recent RfA by about two weeks as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally the RFA page shouldn't be created until the candidate agrees to be nominated.  That's just a lack of communication on the part of the nominator.  In this specific case I would have no problem deleting #4, since there are no answers to the questions and no votes/discussion, so his next full nom would be #4.  There may be other specific cases suitable for deletion under the same principle as far as I am concerned.  In general I would say that the nominator should get the candidate's permission before creating the page in the first place, which would eliminate your concern in the first place. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A nom that isn't accepted never goes on the list, never gets seen by anyone not involved (unless they hunt for it), and no discussion or decision making goes on there. There's no need to archive it, so it might as well be deleted and replaced with a new RFA when he's ready. --Tango 11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to disagree on that.  It seems significant when someone does decline a nomination in that it can give some insight into the individual's character.  That may be significant in the event of a future nomination. --StuffOfInterest 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A nomination that's not accepted can have two possible sorts of influence on the candidates 'image': on one side "Hey, this guy is honest/humble/patient/etc., great!", on the other "Hey, this is RFA 5, what's wrong with this guy?". When a candidate tells the nominator "No, I'm not quite ready, could you ask me again in two months?", this can be done on a user's talk page, in a conversation on IRC or via email or something like Skype, MSN or any other medium of choice. All of those will, most likely, remain unseen to the rest of the Wikipedia community. However, if the nominator is impatient and goes ahead and creates the nomination page, the nomination suddenly 'counts' - with the possible negative effect described above. The only difference was the behaviour of the nominator, not something that should reflect on the candidate. I think therefore that in cases like these, where the candidate doesn't accept, the candidate should be allowed to ask the nomination page to be deleted. --JoanneB 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I declined a nomination, and my current one is officially version 1. Of course, there have been many "you should be an administrator" comments of varying strengths, which could have led to a nomination if I had responded positively. It is this grey area which complicates things if you want to undertake serious research. Stephen B Streater 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one of the people who told you "you should be an administrator" had instead created the page and said, "guess what, I nominated you", I don't think you should be stuck with that on your "record" so to speak.  I do think that if someone agrees to be nominated the results, postive or negative, should be kept. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that accepted nominations are what is important, as the RfA process itself involves a huge amount of work and straightens out a lot of issues, in a way not reflected in any way by a "want to stand?" - "Nah" doesn't. Stephen B Streater 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think a declined nomination should go in the "count"; as mentioned above, there's no valuable information conveyed by the page, and it can either be overwritten by the next (accepted) nomination, or deleted outright and recreated anew. Obvious CSCWEM 2 was sort of a special case... -- nae'blis 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Declined' and 'withdrawn' are seperate entities. ~ PseudoSudo 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined nominations submitted by other editors should not count towards the subsequent numbering of the candidate's future efforts. If the candidate declined, whether aware of preliminary voting or not, this should not be rolled forward to any future "numbering regimes". This is entirely different to a failing RfA withdrawal. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My wicked side is prompting me to say Nobody asks you if you want a RFC, you just wake up one day with it. ;-) Whether to inform an editor if he wants to be a candidate is, from my point of view, simple. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia relying on the good faith of its editors. Until now, I haven't seen someone nominating someone else in bad faith. Thus, if someone nominates an editor, it is because he, personally, thinks the editor would be a good administrator. I believe any of us should be free to nominate whoever we believe has the necessary conditions for adminship, based on my assumption of good faith. The same way we edit a paragraph in an article without having to post an explanation of the edit in the talk page. It is up to others to interpret that as "a nice surprise" or "lack of communication". -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "a nice surprise" could turn into a bad expereince for the user who was nominated. His RfA could turn out to be a disaster. And, if my memory is correct, there had been very few cases where someone had nominated a user in bad faith (please correct me if I am wrong about this). This could, of course be very subjective, but I can't seem to find solid evidence to back up my statement. Perhaps, some of the more veteran users could bring out a few evidence of these bad faith nominations. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An inquiry on a case study 

message: Recently, Taxman noted that the edit count pasted on the page encourages editcountitis.  I replied, saying that unfortunately there was no toolserver to generate a count like there used to be, when Mathbot simply added the link to Interiot's tool for that user.  ReyBrujo suggested Essjay's tool (something I didn't previously know about), so I suggested that to Oleg Alexandrov.  He replied saying it was slow and everyone using it might strain the server, so I'm now here.  Oleg is right that it's slow, though much faster than tool2- it just took about 40 seconds to get my bot's count, which is only about 12,000.  Still, 40 extra seconds for the removal of edit counts from RfAs is a trade I'm willing to make.  Is the rest of RfA? --Rory096 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I can easily have Mathbot link to Essjay's tool (which would reduce the amount of pasted edit count text) if people think that's the best decision. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I already use that method as soon as a candidate shows up. This can be implemented simply by changing the style in which the candidate displays their name  -->. Or even better:  - can be used in order for those who want to check more than just the count. SynergeticMaggot 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can create our own specialized RfA user template to show something like: NoSeptember (talk • contribs • count • block log). NoSeptember 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Add logs to it also from  and an e-mail check from . Unless of course, I'm the only one who might see it as important :-) SynergeticMaggot 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editcountitis IS a terrible affliction, but it has its uses for some assessment purposes. After Kate's tool, Interiot's development of that was THE BEST by far. I always found the monthly breakdown by namespace particularly invaluable, allowing better candidate assessment by easing the strain of wading through Special:Contributions manually. Now that it's broken, Essjay's implementation provides a pretty much up to date, working version, but with reduced functionality -  pure numbers. It's faster than Interiot's javascript version, and all all credit to Essjay for that. Some questions though - why is Interiot's tool still broken, and can it be fixed; Why does Essjay's tool work, and can it be developed to include the original Interiot functionality?  --Cactus.man ✍ 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, Interiot's tool worked with the replication database, that is, the queries the tools make do not affect Wikipedia. Essjay's tools is basically quering all the contributions of the user from the live server, which may impact if (in example) we have ten >30k contrib users and several are trying to vote. I am guessing it is possible to add Interiot's functionality to Essjay's tool, but it would not be cached (that is, it would have to be calculated everytime someone clicks the count link), straining the server even more. -- ReyBrujo 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I suggested the tool based on a previous suggestion that was apparently overlooked :-) -- ReyBrujo 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be aware that screen scraping is generally frowned upon by the sysadmins.  If you start getting hundreds of people scraping edit counts off people's contribution pages, it's possible that that would result in an IP block of the scraper (assuming it was a single server) and/or removal of the scraping tools from WMF-hosted sites.  That's routinely done to those who scrape content for mirroring; you're supposed to use data dumps.  Note that I certainly can't speak for the devs or sysadmins, but it might be wise to ask Brion or Tim before doing this (I'm not sure they're even aware of current edit-count scrapers).  Either that, or take Tango's suggestion below. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we also have to keep in mind that if we use the suggested method above, that the viewing will no longer be "fixed", as it would if we just moved it to the talk. Having a link to the count would provide up to date information, where as a fixed system does not account for a candidate taking the suggestions of an opposer/supporter. Examples would be if I said I oppose for no portal edits and the candidate goes and creates or edits a portal. I could then check up on his count and see that he has taken my advice, reached my criteria, and I then change to support. Also note that I know that portal edits are trivial, but then again, so are some editors criteria. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if your critera are such that they can be reached during the RfA, then they should be discounted. If someone is X edits below your minimum and they go and make X edits to the appropriate namespace, then chances are they are trivial edits just done to jump through the hoop. RfA should not be about creating hoops. --Tango 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tango to a point. When the candidate presents himself, he brings his "CV" with him of what he had done until then to become an administrator. Whether he decides to spend the seven day doing what he usually does, relaxing at beach drinking beer and answering the optional questions or accumulating edits because he discovered he could live sleeping just 2 hours instead of 4, I do not really for purposes of editcountitis. If you had 0 Wikipedia edits and suddenly edit in the current 700 AFDs, sorry, that is not what I personally am searching for. -- ReyBrujo 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm merely bringing it to the attention of the participants in the conversation, as the topic hasnt been brought up yet. The proposal moves the edit count from a fixed point to a dynamic in which the first viewer will see something totally different from the 10th (depending on the candidate of course). Its something to think about. SynergeticMaggot 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that would've been the case back when Interiot's toolserver counter worked. I don't really see fixed vs. dynamic as an issue, as long as RfA participants who care about editcounts look carefully enough at a candidate's contributions to see any last-minute resumé padding. Having said that, until the toolserver issues are ironed out I think the talk page would be a great place to drop the count as Tango said, since it avoids the server load issue, reduces the importance of the editcount somewhat, and encourages people to actually look at the talk page as a side benefit. BryanG(talk) 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This looks like a good compromise. People can still paste in their favorite data, but on talk. And the server performance is not affected. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Put it on talk at the start of the RfA with a link to de-clutter the main page, and any edits since then can easily be reviewed using Special:Contributions. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjay's tool as the new count 

message: Could someone delete this? — The Future 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) — The Future 16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guiding Light

message: How is the new RfA format (with the show/hide) done?  I can't see any wikicode that would do that...and it only works on Firefox (not IE) —Mets501 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a personal script in included that includes the script (via SRC). Actually, I noticed that that and another script were should not be in the package and just removed them. The script, made for bureaucrats (hence why it doesn't belong in the /admin package) at User:Voice of All/Bureaucrat/monobook.js, will now abort if the browser is IE, rather than through an error. I am amazed that <CODE>getElementById()</CODE> is not well supported by JScript (not  JavaScript), and am now convinced that no broswer shittier than IE exists.Voice-of-All 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  My mistake.  I should have thought of that :-).  Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Under Winhunter's RfA, 25th support, the numbers totaling how many supports there are has sort of restarted. It's back to 5 when it should be at 30. Maybe if everyone voting support for Winhunter just put the number of votes so far instead of #. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL!   07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing major. Just a minor formatting issue with indents and/or line breaks I'm assuming. – Chacor 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: t'is fixed. -- I@n 08:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Problem