Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 39

message: #. Split adminship into constituant parts.
## VfD Admins with the power to close VfD's in the main namespace
## Rollback Admins with the power to rollback
## Full admins with the power to block users/protect pages.
#. Require that candidates undergo a preadminship review similar to the FAC process, 1 month before making an application. Inaddistion candidates ought to repond to all issues brought in the preadminship process.
#. Require at least 1000 edits of people going into preadminship review
Klonimus 04:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some proposals. 

message: I've been mulling the whole RfA situation over, and I've got a proposal that I think will improve RfA while not drastically changing anything. Currently, over at Featured Picture Candidates, there is a two-day discussion period before voting can begin. RfA could emulate such a process. Currently, a RfA runs 7-days. On the vast majority of RfAs, there is little or no activity (i.e. votes or discussion) in the last one to two days. In addition, consensus is often reached way before then. Thus, we could introduce a two-day discussion only period, then a five-day voting period. For close cases, bureaucrats could always extend the voting. Having a two-day discussion period offers multiple advantages. First, it encourages users to carefully study the admin candidate, instead of promoting quick and rapid voting based on editcounts. In addition, it offers a candidate a chance to respond to questions and concerns before voting begins; that way, all voters could see the discussion before voting. Right now, there are many times where discussion regarding an important matter is occuring simultaneously with voting; many of the voters, thus, do not get a chance to see the discussion. Finally, the two-day discussion period would also let candidates evaluate their options — if several users indicate that they think the candidate isn't ready yet, the candidate could then withdraw, saving him/herself from a deluge or pile-up of oppose votes. There are virtually no drawbacks to having a discussion period; nothing can be lost, considering that votes can always be extended in the few cases where more time is needed. (An alternative would also to have a two-day discussion period followed by a seven day voting period.) Having this two-day discussion period will not only encourage discussion but hopefully improve the RfA process. This change is certainly not drastic and doesn't change any of the main ideas behind the current process, and can hopefully make RfA more efficient and make it on the whole a better process. Thoughts? Thanks a lot. --Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this proposal bears serious thought. But I worry that it would be too easy for voting to surreptitiously sneak in- perhaps we can say that only sourced concerns be allowed? Ie. no "I don't like this dude", but rather, "His civility worries me, see this diff:"  --Maru  (talk) Contribs 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Two-Day Discussion Period 

message: Thanks for the input. Marskell brings up a good point, and perhaps Bureaucrat vote counts can be documented in some way or standarized methodology that would half the votes of non-documented votes since Wikipedia is Not a Democracy, your vote is definately not as important as the reasoning behind it. 
As for the second idea, to be honest, it was as much for the issue of admin burnout as it would be for the issue of admin misconduct. As the recent "anti-rfa" of Silsor can attest, de-sysopping can often be an unpleasant process, whether it's here or on Meta. For any admins who felt they were unable to do their job for a certain period, this would give them an excuse to leave their post and then come back once they're refreshed. Putting a Wiki-Vacation on yourself can often be like quitting smoking, this place is addictive. 
I don't particularly understand the overload issue though, we already need more Bureaucrats as it is, whether something changes or not. This would just make that need much more obvious. 
I definately agree that there are areas of Wikipedia in need of fixing far sooner than Rfa, but instances such as Tony1 and Bushytails have shown me that the system is still flawed and needs to be refined. Karmafist 16:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not technical. The problem is social. I don't know anything about the Tony1 case, but in the Bushytails case, the issue was people opposing because they disagreed with his views on what's appropriate for the main page. That's not a technical problem, and it doesn't have a technical solution. It's people being dicks. ~~ N (t/c) 19:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My Views On The Responses

message: There is an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team about introducing an article Custodianship for Featured Articles. The Custodian would have admin powers to revert and protect only the article to which they were appointed custodian. The idea is a form of "Admin-lite" to  maintain featured articles to a high standard. You may wish to voice your opinion on this discussion here. Seabhcán 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Admin-lite" proposal on [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] 

message: Why are sections being archived when the latest comment on them was barely a day old? Archiving is important, yes, but I think we should establish that an archive should only be made after a decent amount of time has passed since the last comment to the section. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The alturnative may be that the page becomes uneditable due to size [mode=cynic] we also know from a lot of past exprence that all this talk of reform wont go anywhere.[/mode]Geni 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There were a total of 4 edits made less than three days ago in the material that I archived. In the case of the first two, they were in regards to a section of this page that had already been archived. Continued discussion on that section appeared to have concluded based on the comments that were left. The other two were two days ago and in another section were additional commentary continued on in sections that were not archived; thus in my opinion I was not interrupting an ongoing discussion by archiving those sections. Lastly, the talk page was more than 130kb in size. It was time to archive. If you disagree with my archive/removal, feel free to pull the section(s) you dispute being archived back to this page. The material isn't gone; just archived. --Durin 15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree with removal (after a while), I just think that by removing topics which have only just finished being discussed (or are precursors to a followup discussion) we are preventing people from replying to points (unless they start a new section, which is disjointed) which may be perfectly valid. I don't think we lose anything by leaving a few sections for a few days longer, so why not say a week after the last comment in a section, archive it? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's scalability issues involved. If we left discussions until the last comment in the section was a week old, we'd already have a talk page well in excess of 200kb. This will get worse over time. --Durin 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has to be a better solution of hiding it away in an archive somewhere; perhaps a Village Pump-style system for discussions based on various topics related to RFA? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there's a number of scalability issues plaguing Wikipedia. Archiving of large talk pages is just one of them. On my own talk page, I gave up archiving in segments; it makes it harder for people to find things they might be looking for. It'll end up being a huge page, but I think it's more scalable than dozens of archive pages. Here on this talk page, the standard is multiple archives and I'm not going to upset that cart :) --Durin 17:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Durin. If we dont archive regularly, it is mighty difficult to follow what's going on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind an archive by topic, myself, to supplement (rather than replace) the archives by date. Some time when I feel like massive wikiprocrastination I may do this, unless someone beats me to it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving