Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 17

message: How do you think about this format? -> User:Someuser (x/y) where x is the count of Support votes and y is for Oppose votes. The (x/y) thingy is called a toctally (Table of Contents Tally). Toctallies are nice because we can see what's happening easily from the Table of Contents (TOC) without scrolling the page. But they need some maintenance/updating (just like the normal tallies) Optim 19:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my plea for less polling and more discussion didn't get much of a hearing in the Optim household :-).  I have no opinion on toctallies because I have tocs turned off. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: well, you should create a new vote category called "I like and I dislike toctallies" or choosing any other title you like. Optim 21:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made up my mind. It's quite useful, nice and cool! (maybe because I am there? :)Pfortuny 16:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toctallies 

message: Feel free to criticise. Optim 19:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on toctallies/running totals (18 for / 16 against / 5 other votes)

message: :I guess my plea for less polling and more discussion didn't get much of a hearing in the Optim household :-).  I have no opinion on toctallies because I have tocs turned off. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: well, you should create a new vote category called "I like and I dislike toctallies" or choosing any other title you like. Optim 21:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made up my mind. It's quite useful, nice and cool! (maybe because I am there? :)Pfortuny 16:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on Toctallies/running totals

message: Please review the following link, esp. if you are thinking of nominating me for admin  Sam Spade 03:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked this typo in the linked comment: "nobodies getting paid". We are nobodies... but if we're getting paid now no one told me about it :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say were paid according to our status, just like anywhere. We just havn't got much status ;)Sam Spade 09:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  requests for my Adminship 

message: Don't get me wrong, I like TOC tallies. But the biggest problem I've found with TOCtallies is that the link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Fennec; ends 00:41 3 April 2004 won't stay put. One moment it could be :::The biggest problem I've found with TOCtallies is that the link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Fennec; (4/1/0); ends 00:41 3 April 2004 will rapidly turn to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Fennec; (10/3/1) ends 00:41 3 April 2004 to whatever the next vote is. A consideration. 
A possible solution. Make the user's name alone the heading, and then place the user's discussion status/end date in a separate heading, below the username. The disadvantage here is that the TOC length is nigh unto doubled. -- Fennec 20:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just place it below, not in a separate section heading, and the TOC length is the same. Then you solve at least one of the problems with toctallies. --Michael Snow 01:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random TOC tally complaint + suggestion 

message: I want to thank each and every one of those who voted for me for my nomination for admin. I additionally want to thank those who took the trouble to read through all the material presented to determine whether or not I was fit for admin; and I have to say a special word for those who perceive my political beliefs to be different from theirs, but voted for my anyway because they thought I would be a good admin. This is what civilized discourse and reason are all about. And of course, I appreciate and am flattered by the kind remarks and evaluations many posted.
I also thank those who felt I wasn't qualified where their opposition came from a belief that I didn't have the qualifications at this time to be promoted. 
For the very few who voted against me for on a political basis, especially if they thought that they would somehow be defeating my ideas by defeating me, please understand this: The world is bigger than you and me and Wikipedia. As I understand it, this is to be an encyclopedia. I find it an incredibly wonderful concept, which I elaborate on a bit more on my User Page. But you need to know that even a committed ideologue, who might be looking for factual material here, knows bias when they see it. If an article contains bias, and all the bias in an article is on one side, the entire credibility of the project is tainted. So, if you succeed in getting "the last word" in an article; if you succeed in driving off those with other views; you will have won a hollow victory, because the result will look too much like Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Moore, or the official press of a controlled state; so when you win, you lose.
Lastly, thanks to Ed Poor for bringing this all down to earth. Cecropia 03:06, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cecropia, we did not oppose because of your political views but because of your misbehaviour, shown by a specific example. I however have to admit that when doing this I had not really informed myself enough about what adminship means and to whom it should be granted. And while we continue to sicken each other - at least I guess I also sicken you sometimes - I point out that the only thing close to misbehaviour I have seen from you since was quickly dealt with. Our latest abuses consist of chatting on talk pages, which can also be done without admin rights... Get-back-world-respect 20:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when there's a full moon... -- Cecropia 14:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Even when candidates I support have been turned down, I would say that the majority of the votes on both sides were basing their votes on valid concerns.  Granted, sometimes I disagreed, but I always recognized that the concerns had a basis in something real.  I think on some occasions popular users get overwhelming support because they're popular, but I have never seen that effect allow the promotion of an unqualified administrator. Jwrosenzweig 18:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My support or opposition is never based on whether I like someone. It is based on their time of service and their behavior. I have supported people I do not like and opposed people I like. Kingturtle 22:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I believe the official term for that phenomenon is "transition to WikiDemocracy". anthony (see warning) 21:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cecropia's late nomination 

message: *Michael Snow 18:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I especially can't see 80% as hard and fast when any one negative wipes out four positives. Do you take into account that someone has been campaigning (notes on user pages, etc.) for or against a nomination? What about where people are convinced to vote by an opponent's baseless, notably POV, or simply lying charge? As in real-world politics, many good people will decide that the destination is not worth the journey. Cecropia 19:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bureaucrat judgment

message: If someone is getting twenty or thirty "support" comments, and no oppose or "other" comments, do we still need to wait a full 7 days? I'm itching to press the button for Michael Snow! --Uncle Ed 12:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy for you to say: but what if you promote him too soon and we find out he's really Osama bin Laden ... or ... JOHN ASHCROFT?!?!?! (OK, OK, so do it already) -- Cecropia 13:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Perceived unanimity

message: I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but would it not be easier if this page and for example Vandalism in progress had a layout like that of Vote for deletion such that every nomination could be kept as an entry of the watchlist? I certainly would not want this whole page on my watchlist since it is so frequently edited but placing a particular nomination on the watchlist would  facilitate following. Get-back-world-respect 20:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VfD switched to that format because it was getting far too large and unwieldy, and edit conflicts happened constantly.  This page is big right now, but it's usually not anywhere near this large. Isomorphic 21:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Isomorphic -- I think this is a very unusual number of nominations.  And GBWR, I don't really understand why you wouldn't want this on your watchlist?  It's only one page.  It would actually take up more room on your watchlist to have to watch all those separate votes, I would think.  Maybe I don't understand your objection? :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want all votes on my watchlist, only the ones I am interested in because I do not want to overlook a question as last time when Cecropia got nominated and asked me why I thought he had misbehaved. It does not make sense to put a page on your watchlist that always shows up because it gets constantly changed. I see the same problem with "vandalism" and "protection" and the page where you ask for advice. Get-back-world-respect 01:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Ok, god help me, I put my engineering training to use. I waded back through wikistats and the page history for the admin page going back to April '03. I put them into an Excel document together and generated some nice graphs. You can get them here Wikianalysis.xls. 
The gist of it is - my hunch was right on. Our admin/article count is the 2nd highest its ever been, although our admins/contributor isn't terribly high (which I suspect is from a large number of anon IPs making a small number of edits). Anyway, everyone please let me know what you think. →Raul654 06:51, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks very much for the charts.  Anyway, my interpretation of them is thus: as Wikipedia grows, the number of new users is increasing faster than the number of new articles.  Since new admins go up with new users, this creates upward pressure on the admins/article measure.  
:I think that this "new users increase faster than new articles" phenomenon is reasonable.  Many, many topics are going to be covered--a new user in March 2004 will have fewer red links to follow, and fewer truly encyclopedic topics unwritten about.  Thus, users increase, leading to an increase in admins.  Meanwhile, the article count grows as well, but slower.  Not a problem--it just means that more work is getting done on our existing articles. Meelar 07:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell from the chart, the highest admin/contribution percentage was 0.035566584 on 10/1/03. To match that percentage today, we would need to have over 240 active admins. As for the Admins/thousand articles percentage...I think three-quarters of one percent is a tiny amount. I think we should shoot for 1%. The idea of an admin is utilitarian. Admins clean and maintain. I think we need more admins. Kingturtle 07:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need more admins - there are hundreds of out-and-out vandal assaults each day (by which I mean changes that all Wikipedians would agree are bad), and it's very disturbing to look at an article for the first time and discover little vandalisms that went unnoticed for weeks or months. We also need to not chase away or discourage existing admins. Stan 16:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistical anaylsis on admins vs indicators

message: I am removing the following nomination because I believe it is inappropriate.  User:Lst27 has nominated six individuals for adminship during his eight weeks of participation at Wikipedia.  Only one of these nominations has actually been approved by the community.  I believe these nominations are a distraction to the community and are a source of embarassment for the nominees.  I have asked for an explaination on User_talk:Lst27 and received no reply.  At a minimum, I believe that Lst27 should explain his rationale for these nominations before continuning them or reinstating AaronSw's nomination, which I have moved below.
UninvitedCompany 19:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lst27's nominations 

message: AaronSw has been making a lot of good contributions since August 2003 and has a lot of experiences with Wikipedia. --Lst27 22:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:AaronSw]] (1/1/0)

message: Why did UninvitedCompany remove my nomination before the closing date? You are not giving others members of Wikipedia the opportunity to vote. It may have seem that I was not getting support but you never know what might happen last minute, Also why have a closing date if you are going to ignore it anyway by removing the nomination before users get a chance to vote. The nomination should remain until the closing and then and only then be removed. It seem apparent to me that the actions taken by UninvitedCompany were a blaten violation of Wikipedia rules and therefore I insist that my nomination be reopened for additional time so that all Wikipedia members can get their votes in. Misterrick 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You may certainly move it back if you wish.  Policy is that widely opposed nominations are removed when it becomes clear that the nomination won't be supported.  UninvitedCompany 16:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  UninvitedCompany All I was asking for is a fair opportunity that's all, Nothing more.... Nothing less... Misterrick 18:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, but a continuous barrage of oppositions would be considered embarassing by virtually everybody, even if some support has been rallied subsequently. UC simply executed this very sensible policy. JFW | T@lk 11:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Misterrick's nomination

message: I have written a summary of the criteria I use for supporting nominations.  Prospective nominators and nominees may find it helpful, and they and other may wish to comment on it on the related talk page.  UninvitedCompany 18:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria