Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 61

message: This way of creating admins is failing. It is dominated by geeks who love to vote, and the main criterion for adminship is the number of edits the particular user has. This discriminates people who 
* work 8 and more hours a day
* prefer sports to sitting in front of a computer
* prefer doing anything to sitting in front of a computer
* have kids
* are not school pupils
* are not high school students
* are not lame university students
I think that the RfA should be considered by a special comittee, that would also take other characteristics into account. ackoz  18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An elitist proposal? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   LOL! I needed a good laugh, thanks! And I'm not against discriminating against those who like sports. Such people need to be shot :P. —Celestianpower háblame 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. We elected a bureaucrat (Redux, see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3) who in two years got only 5,400 edits. This shows that the complaint at the top of this section is baseless. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that admins need to be around the project a lot, and people who are not around the project a lot tend to edit rather than vandal fight or other sysop chores, to describe this as discrimination seems unreasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Oleg, what are you doing rounding down almost a hundred of my edits??  But seriously, and in actuality, apart for one or two exceptions, all of them more recent promotions, Bureaucrats don't usually have amazingly high number of edits at the time of their promotions (and for the "older" Bcrats, that's not even easy to assess, since we didn't use to count edits and post the numbers at the time of their RfBs).In general, both in RfA and RfB, we do tend to place more importance on the experience that the user's history suggests than on the sheer number of edits (recently, a couple of candidates with + 12 thousand edits received a lot of opposition because they had little experience in project space).  Many users also feel that enthusiasm doesn't necessarily prepares for Adminship (users with five-digit number of edits, but who did it in only a handful of months, often receive opposition justified as "lack of experience").  Redux 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hmm.. ok for the elders, but now the numbers matter right? There are always people who only look at the numbers. Personally, I think that having 50 edits per day or more for one year is a significant health risk. ackoz  22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that RfA can be flawed at times, but in the long run, it's the lesser of evils.  Having a 'committee' would simply be creating a cabal, and it would severely restrict the potential evaluation of a candidate.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About having 50 edits a day being unhealthy. Well, it probably is, but on two occasions I managed to get 500 in one day and I didn't suffer any health problems, so I think were safe. — The King of Kings 12:59 July 02 '06
Related to the first comment: Is there a profile of a typical sysop? I know that most work 8 hours a day, so the first assumption isn't true, but the 2nd and 3rd... I hope they aren't true either, but I'm not too sure. :P As for assumption 4, we're all dedicated Wikiholics aren't we? Kimchi.sg 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can debunk assumption number two, as I am a sportsaholic, both in the sense of playing and watching sports, and I know that there are several other admins of whom this is also true. However, many of us live in constant fear of Celestianpower's vigilante group. :oP EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure of Rf Adminship 

message: This somehow managed to alert me to the existence of this. Offhand I forget what the procedure is for this kind of thing, and as I'm connected to the net agonizingly slowly and expensively right now I'm not in a mood to investigate. -- Hoary 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm connected cheaply and quickly, but busy-ness means I'm still not in a mood to investigate. I'm inclined to leave an avuncular message about the reality of administration on this person's talk page, and then just to zap his extremely botched attempt at a self-nom. Any objection? -- Hoary 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Jkelly 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I notice that Konstable has already left a splendidly avuncular message. I'll let the RfA attempt live for a few more hours (while still not transcluding it, of course). -- Hoary 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When we made you an admin, we expected that you would willingly dig into your pocket and pay those expensive connection fees if necessary as a condition of the job ;-). NoSeptember 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you did, so you did. I sit corrected! -- Hoary 07:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RFA/BJAODN

message: Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/nominate, there have been several cases now of people getting an RfA subpage (nomination page) made for them when they didn't necessarily want that, and it perhaps put them in a bit of an awkward spot, so I tweaked the page to suggest that one should ask first before creating the RfA subpage if there is any doubt... I am mindful of instruction creep as always so maybe the wording could be tightened a bit but I do think it's caused some people needless stress lately. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also make it clear that it is ok to delete RfA subpages that are never used (not accepted and transcluded), and when the candidate is ready, they can start the page again (without restoring the deleted edits). NoSeptember 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, a very good idea. Of course the candidate will have to ask someone else to do it for them in almost all cases (reconfirmations excepted) as they're not an admin. :) Please enhance the text if you think it proper, and thanks for catching that. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small tweak to the nomination process page 

message: "WP:RFA" could be confused with a request for article... so perhaps a dablink at the top for WP:AFC and WP:RA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.11.138 (talk • contribs) 
:So go ahead and do it.  Be bold!--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to make an account and then wait a week for it to cure. When it's no longer green, then I could do it, as the page is edit restricted. 70.51.10.208 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, I forgot that RfA is semi-protected.  I'll go do that now, if it hasn't been done already.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab linkage 

message: Not yet, but I should be one by doing 100,000 edits.
--RCT Locomotion Wikipedia 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just yet. 

message: Why not make a Table for future nominations - so that we can see a visual charter of the votes (Support, Oppose and Neutral)? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because RFA is not a vote, but consensus. Making a table would make it appear as if we only care what the user vote, not the rationale he had used. There are autogenerated tables for RFAs around, like Tangotango's one. -- ReyBrujo 13:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean a table like Wikipedia:RFA summary, or something else?  If the former, then it already exists, if the latter, please explain more. --Tango 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, I was trying to find the link to the summary, but couldn't for my life find it :) -- ReyBrujo 13:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Suggestion 

message: Talking about checkuser... can someone check this post that user:24.66.94.140 (signing as a C-c-c-c, who is blocked) wrote on User talk:Bormalagurski. . Nevermind. See #explanation. --Ante Perkovic 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I understand from the above, is that if this turns out be a hoax', then you'll privy everyone to important information on myself and Boris, and what we have to do with the incident? Wouldn't that mean you're involved too?
P.S. Don't use idioms if you don't know how to use them.  C-c-c-c 22:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another case for checkuser 

message: OK, help me out here... from the tranlsation, it seems that someone logged on to make us think that HRE had died... but if so, why has he not edited to tell us otherwise (even from an IP or an unblock message)? Am I missing something here --Robdurbar 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're seeing this mess from the vantage point of a mentally sane person. So, you need a change in perspective.Mir Harven 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if someone compromised HRE's account, they could have changed the password, locking HRE out - although nothing would prevent HRE from creating a new account and writing us from that to inform us of the situation. bd2412 T 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be naive. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Mir Harven 21:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read through User talk:Sad News who posted this in the first place? Tyrenius 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or HRE talk page Tyrenius 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused