Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 28

message: I've just re-nominated Darwinek for admin, and noticed there's no guideline as to how to name a re-nomination. We have subpages called ABCD.09, Alkivar2, B-101 (2), Chanting Fox (2nd), Denelson/First, EdwinHJ (renomination)... it's probably only a trivial matter, but should there be a set naming convention for this? It does make a difference occasionally, especially when a username ends in a digit (I favour "(2)", BTW) Grutness...wha? 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming protocol?

message: If you get nominated and get refused, can you be nominated again?
Khulhy 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; as above.  Usually people wait a couple of months before trying again.  This is the meaning of the "2" in the names of some of the nominations.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Following from the discussion above about bureaucrat appointment and removal I think there are a few things that should potentially be looked at
#The election of bureaucrats could be more like election to the ArbCom- so a wider range of the community is involved, and so the position is not permanent.
#It would be beneficial if there were fewer of them since presumably the workload isn't huge and it would potentially avoid conflicting decisions.
#The policy regarding who can de-syssop needs to be more clearly defined; should de-syssoping only occur via an ArbCom decision?
That being said I also think that if Cecropia were to set himself up here like Raul has done on FAC, and was the one and only person that dealt with the decision making on admin appointments then there wouldn't be many complaints.--nixie 04:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *"there is something of a race to see who can act first once the vote concludes, and that discourages discussion." Is that your motivation? That's not my motivation. First you were complaining about the way I was handling the process, and now you're claiming that we have dueling admins. You mainly seem interested in changing the process. You seem to be one of the very few who think the process is broken. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Where do you get that idea from (that bureaucrat work was intended to be evenly shared). You certainly weren't making much effort to "evenly share" the work until I suggested that you might be a more active bureaucrat if you wanted to influence the process. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bureaucrat reform

message: Here's an RFA that has a lot to do with things that happened to me a year ago, so I'm just staying awake 'till very early morning, and watching what the bureaucrats will decide...  they should have already decided... help!
<bites my nails> Kim Bruning 02:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But which one is it? :P  Redux 02:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  FeloniousMonk, and he just got promoted :) Kim Bruning 02:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes.  But why were you anxious?  He seemed to have a strong support base; apparently, it was a done deal.  Regards, Redux 03:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see.  26 votes between oppose and neutral.  Not that "done" after all.  Actually, it was close.  The last time I had checked, it was not that tight...  Well, it's over now.  Regards, Redux 03:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Staying up late to watch an RFA close

message: I wanted to wait until both RfAs had closed and some time had passed before bringing this up, since I did not want for this to be taken the wrong way.  I would like to call attention to these two RfAs: Jtkiefer's and Flcelloguy's.  The first was unseccessful (no consensus reached: 18/15/8), whereas the latter was successful (40/2/4).  The problem is: how could these two have opposite results given the poignant similarities between them?  I'll explain: there were two decisive characteristics that were rigorously the same in both cases, one of a somewhat subjective nature, whereas the other was an objective one: 1)Both users were recognized as being excellent contributors and definitely "Admin material" (this is subjective, of course, but in both cases the people who voted generally admitted to both users' qualities); 2)Both users had been here for a short time (Jtkiefer: 2 months - Flcelloguy: 3 months).  In Jtkiefer's RfA, the bulk of the oppose votes were based on the fact that, although he was a great contributor, he was not experienced enough to be an Admin, and this costed him his promotion.  The same was true for Flcelloguy, however, and it was pointed out by Brian0918, and yet not nearly as many people (hardly any, in fact) opposed his nomination.I would like to make it crystal clear that I'm neither "bitter" because Jtkiefer didn't get it nor "frustrated" because Flcelloguy did.  I think both users are great, and they are definitely Admin material.  I said as much in both RfAs, and I voted exactly the same in both: neutral, for lack of experience.  But I wonder what happened with all the opposition that came down on Jtkiefer's RfA.  Obviously, Flcelloguy had a wider support base (by the sheer number of support votes), but what intreagues me is the lack of oppose votes in Flcelloguy's RfA for lack of experience.  Can anyone make sense of it?  Regards, Redux 18:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a general problem of sheep voting on oppose votes?  IMHO, it seems much more likely that sheep voting would occur for support votes, given that users are not likely to be harassed for a support vote in the same way they are for voting oppose. siafu 18:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: Three Sams up for nomination at the same time. Wow.
(While not in his username, Asbestos' name is also Sam. Acetic Acid 00:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
:By contrast, Sam Vimes is a pseudonym - see User talk:Sam Vimes#Administrator? and Samuel Vimes :) --Thryduulf 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a Sam world after all! 

message: I've got a bunch of stuff to do as the Fall approaches (despite rumors, I'm not retired) so, now that a few of our bureaucrats have gotten more active and we seem to have two new b-crats on the way, I'm going to try to Wikivacation for the month of September. I know y'all are in good hands! Cheers to all, Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try four. Oh well...I'll man the fort. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cecropian Wikivacation