Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Draft

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship, discussion continues over there

Striking Comments

I wouldn't strike comments, just as we don't strike votes. I'd just reccomend that users/bureaucrats (dunno) add a comment and let other users decide when it comes time to vote. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

If you're going to have people present diffs, I'd strongly suggest limiting them to the last XX months (otherwise people who have a vendetta against someone will dredge up anything and everything even if the candidates recent behavior has improved). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too worried about that; we have some admins now who started out with a checkered past on Wikipedia. When past transgressions were presented, those comments were met with either 'That's too far in the past, recent behaviour was exemplary, let it go' or 'You're right, that's awfully recent'—or both. Putting a hard time limit on the diffs will lead to arguments about the limit and edit wars over inclusion of 'expired' diffs. Leaving it up to the judgement of people reading the discussion usually works; if someone is pursuing a vendetta it's generally pretty obvious. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess we'll see if/when this gets tried out. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments vs rants

I think that it may be useful to move overly lengthy comments (as well as discussions and back-and-forth arguments) to the talk page. If someone posts a link to a personal attack, it would be good to add a one-liner below that e.g. "that was eight months ago". However, if people start with lengthy elaborate discussions (a.k.a. rants), that will not improve legibility of the page, and may obscure more succinct valid points. The "oppose"-sections of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me have some examples of what I mean. Radiant_>|< 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone posts a long reply or if there is a back-and-forth a one-liner link can be added (see my edit on the main page to see what I mean) — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone replies here they can do that, or if someone moves it, we can say 'Discussion moved to Talk page' — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Should users without voting suffrage be able to comment? This should be straightened out in less ambiguous terms on the main page. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nah, don't bother. Newbies don't have anything useful to say. We don't need newbies. <rolls eyes> Newbies are the very lifeblood of Wikipedia. Treat them with respect, please. --Durin 14:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote?

Hrrm. While I like the idea of encouraging more discussion, this also formalizes the voting bits even more. Bit of a toss up, really.--Sean Black (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded so that it's a consensus discussion. In fact that doesn't need to be in the form of a poll. Could we make it some kind of negotiation or negotiation framework? That could be interesting... I'll ponder it. :-) Kim Bruning 22:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, and discussion?

I have objections to two things in this proposal. First, the ability to remove long comments: many comments are part of a good discussion and don't do any harm. For instance, whenever I vote oppose, I tend to give an explanation, usually a short paragraph, about why I voted. I don't think anyone minds that; instead, if comments were moved to the talk page, people would now have to go to that page to see some of the arguments either for or against the candidate. The second objection I have is the "discussion period". I first brought up this proposal a month or two ago, if I remember correctly, and it never gained much approval. If we are to do this, I would highly recommend that the discussion period be cut down to one or two days; five days is way too lengthy and won't accomplish much. In addition, note that WP:FPC has since eliminated the discussion period, citing inefficiency and poor results. I won't be surprised if that happens with RfA with a long discussion period; people will vote anyways, and after the initial discussion, things will die down. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if comments are to be moved, who moves them ? I would like to see only the b'crats do that. Tintin (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means that only long threads of back-and-forth will be moved to the discussion page and a link placed there, not the original comment. As for the discussion period, that's open to debate. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I just suggested in #wikipedia-en-admins

I think a possible idea could be a section on the RfA where the candidate must give three reasons why they should be granted with adminship powers. For example:

Three reasons why you believe you should be an administrator?

  1. Reason 1 here (for example: So I can assist with cleaning up AfD).
  2. Reason 2 here (for example: To help with the backlog at WP:RM).
  3. Reason 3 here (for example: To be able to clean up vandalism on Greek architecture more quickly).

This would sort of serve as the default questions do now, being on every adminship by default. It would clearly show the intentions of adminship candidates, making them define why they wish to become an admin, and why they would be a good one. The reasons would show the user's true colours, if you like, and would help to get rid of those who want it for the wrong reasons.

Something like this, I think, would be an interesting and helpful concert for RfA pages. Hedley 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also kind of uncertain about this diffs idea. I think there's potential for it to get ugly; Plus, it's hard to define a "meritable action", and there's too much potential argument around it. I think it's unnecessary. Hedley 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By meritable action, we mean good things. Vandalwhacking, copyvio watch, RC patrol, etc. — Ilyanep (Talk)

Too many requirements

  1. If I don't want to provide diffs, because I cna't be bothered to hunt through acres of archives, then I shan't. Are you going to remove my comment, or ignore me?
  2. Anyone removing one of my longer comments to the discussion page is going to be unpopular with me.
  3. It doesn't provide for generalised comments of the kind I often make, which fall into neither the meritorious nor dubious cases. How do I provide a diff for someone who's not been around long enough?
  4. It doesn't appear to have a space for the candidate to make their case, as there is at present. This is very useful.

Can I simply ignore the days of discussion and just a comment to go with my notvote? -Splashtalk 21:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Then how do I know your comment even has merit?
  2. Not the freaking comment will be removed...just any long threads of conversation that follow from there and it'll be linked too.
  3. I'm sure space can be made for such comments
  4. Of course there is...just put it where it usually is.

— Ilyanep (Talk) 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your average voter simply doesn't have time to search for diffs. And how to define diff's merit? I honestly think that the providing diffs is unnecessary, and that is can create more problems than RfAs need. Hedley 22:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you can't force people to cite diffs, but we should stress the point that you will be taken more seriously if you cite diffs. If someone says "bad experiences with this user" I'd like to know why. If someone says "fierce revert warrer" I won't even believe that unless I see evidence. The latter is an important comment, and a nasty allegation. >Radiant< 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Negative comments like that are much easier to provide diffs for, of course. What's harder to prove concisely is the opposite, or any broadly positive statement (of the sort that regularly appear in nomination statements). Christopher Parham (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diffs aren't helpful for this sort of thing. We need to know what an editor is like in the vast majority of circumstances. Everyone has their occasional bad day, and encouraging diffs just encourages people to trawl through contributions looking for them at their worst, rather than just giving feedback on what they are usually like to work with. Ambi 01:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry but I really don't believe that the average editor is going to spend their time trawling through edit histories to find diffs unless they have serious issues with (or a really, really high regard) for the nominee. I much prefer to be able to give general comments like "person x is great, they really helped me when I was a newbie" or "I see them on AFD and they exhibit sound judgement" (or "they're a power crazed ass" of course). Furthermore, I'm not sure those of us over 30 can remember what we'd looking be for, which would increase the time consumption yet further. --kingboyk 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical - I like it!

RfA has been in need of reform for months and perhaps this is just what we need to stick a rocket up those high criteria that some people hoard. Plus, I like it that there was no discussion first, that just creates a large morass of comments that gets you nowehere, especially with contentious issues like this. Nice one! --Celestianpower háblame 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This proposal actually doesn't seem very radical at all -- it codifies some things we already more or less do and makes mostly cosmetic changes to the structure of the page. RfA remains a process where candidates are nominated, users express support or opposition for more or less whatever reason they feel is appropriate, and then if ~80% of the people commenting support, the candidate is promoted. I think it's unlikely that any substantial changes to the outcomes of the process (i.e. who's promoted and who isn't) will come of this. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description of user

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship

See--

Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, let's please discuss the policy there as opposed to over here...which is just an example. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan, the entire page is SCARY! What's with voting all over the place? Could we at least pretend we're a consensus run project? *sigh* :-/ Oh well, we can sort something out I'm sure.  :-) Kim Bruning 23:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead...be bold...I'm just one person who has no clue what he is doing anymore. Where's there voting, btw? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship, discussion continues over there

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Draft"