Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 26

message: when this Wikipedia project page moved to its new format, in which new nominees were added using the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/furrykef syntax, the page fell off of my radar screen (i.e. my watchlist). 
is there a way that a developer could fix it so that any changes to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship sub-pages would show up as a change to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship main-page? this would help me out considerably. Kingturtle 02:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way of doing this would be to make a feature request for the "watch" option in namespaces with sub-pages enabled to be split into "watch this page" and "watch this page and sub-pages", or to have an option to watch sub-pages or not on the added to watchlist screen. Ideally this could be turned on or off by defualt in the preferences. Please feel free to copy this comment to the apropriate place for such a feature request, as here almost certainly isn't it. Thryduulf 15:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  idea for improving this article 

message: Knowledge Seeker recently reversed my grammar fix:
:(Restore to "Requests for adminship...is a page to..." from "A request for adminship...is a page...")
Can somebody explain to me why, in this case, it's wrong for number to match?  —RadRafe 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it because the title of the page is "Requests for adminship", not "Request for adminship". The lead sentence is not describing what a request for adminship is, but rather is describing what the page "Requests for adminship" is. While the title of the page is plural, it itself is singular. Requests for adminship is a page where people are nominated for adminship; a request for adminship is one of those such requests. Maybe an analogy would be if I opened a video store called "Cheap Videos". If you were writing about it, you would write "Cheap Videos is a store that sells cheap videos", not "A cheap video is a store that sells cheap videos", even though the subject has been made singular. Does this make sense? If I have misunderstood, anyone please change it back. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: When did the interview questions become mandatory rather than optional? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
:since people started to feel the need to vote on every candidate rather than those they had prior knowlage of.Geni 15:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview questions 

message: I see that the idea that self-noms should exceed the usual requirements for adminship has returned to the page, probably for reasons of brevity and reduction of instruction creep. Brevity is good, but still, I really disagree with the very absolute form it has now attained: 
You may nominate yourself, but should exceed usual expectations before doing so. 
(Diving into the History, there seems to have been a slippery slope via a suggestion that it's "advisable" for self-noms to exceed the usual expectations). I've edited the sentence to read:
You may nominate yourself. Some voters feel you should exceed usual expectations before doing so, but most voters can be presumed to consider all nominees on their own merits. 
Please discuss here or edit ad libitum.--Bishonen | talk 14:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the point of that section anyway. It simply incourages poeple to descriminate against self noms.Geni 15:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Genius, Geni! I totally agree with your version. Much better. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *What he said. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. For promotion purposes, self-noms are treated the same way. What I think the wording was originally` trying to convey was a message to self-noms that a number of voters had a bias against self-noms (I think it's less than it was a year ago) and they should be prepared for this. I think we should either spell this out in the wording (i.e., make clear that this is a voting issue, not a policy issue) or remove it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another reason to discourage self-noms, if only slightly.  Most experienced Wikipedians won't nominate someone unless they are a good candidate.  Many self-nominators, however, don't have a clear idea of what makes a successful nomination, and may be discouraged by the results of their self-nomination. Isomorphic 21:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Selfnoms

message: I have removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chanting Fox and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ImpalerBugz's self-noms. The first has been around for a week, the other about a month, both have few edits and have rapidly piled up negatives. I am not judging the sincerity of these users in seeking adminship or wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, but my judgment is that they are devaluing both the process and themselves with these obviously inappropriate candadacies. I am also not listing these as failed nominations (unless they persist in renominating themselves), as they are doubtfully "real" nominations.
If any other bureaucrat wants to restore these, or wants to list them in the failed nomination list, I will stand aside. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:ImpalerBugz|ImpalerBugz]] and [[User:Chanting Fox|Chanting Fox]] 

message: I'm anticipating that, having removed the two earlier self-noms, and this nomination is currently 3-3, that editors will be asking why I shouldn't remove this one, too. The answer is that the user has been here long enough and has a reasonable number of edits to indicate a commitment to Wikipedia. I am not trying to start a general slice-and-dice of self-noms, just remove the (so far) rare inappropriate ones that just become oppose soapboxes. However this nomination goes, it falls into the area where it is up to the candidate to continue or withdraw. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Poiuytman|Poiuytman]] 

message: Today, we had a sockpuppet come in and not only vote oppose on a legit nomination, but also nominated someone. The nomination is currently in a skeletal structure and I would like to remove it. What is the policy concerning users who have been banned from Wikipedia and what is the status of their votes/nominations? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
:They cannot edit, they cannot vote, they cannot nominate.  I would suggest that their edits are only made valid if another user "adopts" the edit, taking responsibility.  I reckon it's safe to remove them. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of banning someone is that they do more harm than good here.  Hence, there's no particular reason we should pay attention to them on a page like this. Isomorphic 21:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who they voted against I'm interested in this. I don't recall having any interaction with this user in any of the guises that has been noted in my RFA. Should I (or ideally someone else) strike out their vote and adjust the tally count accordingly? I can accept the oppose from Everyking (I was half expecting it tbph), but from someone I've not had any dealings with seems a little disingenuous and for want of a better term, trollish. (discalimer, written while less than 100% sober) Thryduulf 22:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll strike it, but don't worry, you'll get adminship anyway :P gkhan 22:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Who is he a sockpuppet of anyway? If it's a user who has actually been banned we ought to revert all edits by them, so not only do we disregard the vote against Thryduulf, we actually take it out. I'd like to know which user this is circumventing their ban first though. I assumed they were just a common troll of some kind. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: As the one who was nominated, I just want to make clear I have no problem with the nomination being deleted. AlistairMcMillan 00:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy concerning banned users and voting 

message: After an RFA has been closed, should we also have the bureaucrat who closes said nomination protect the RFA? I think it would make lives a bit easier, and it would force people to use Joe Wikipedian (2) instead of erasing a previous failed nomination. Just a thought; please comment. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
:At first glance, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.  However, It certainly wouldn't hurt anything.  Ingoolemo talk 22:40, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
:Agree with the above, I can't see the problem this solution would solve. I'm suspicious in general of protecting pages without a cause; imagine for instance someone wants to add a category to all of them, or a link to some related page. --cesarb 22:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea about protecting closed RFAs