Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trödel

Not yet transcluded

I'm putting this here because this is not yet transcluded on the request for adminship page. I'd be deeply concerned with having someone closing deletion debates who organises "votes" into categories. I'm open to discussion about how deletion review is more "vote-like" than our other debate forums, but it still looks very bad to me. - brenneman ^{L} 04:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Curious why putting no votes and yes votes together is a bad thing for you Brenneman? Nop data was lost - just made it more readable. That is how the votes are organized on Requests for adminship and nearly everywhere else, and it makes it easier to read. And it shows that as an admin, he'd be logical and linear in thinking. Perhaps I don't understand your concern - can you explain more? -Visorstuff 06:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to ask.

• We should leave request for adminship out of this, because 1) Trödel wouldn't be called on to decide those and 2) The vote-like aspect of request for adminship is hotly debated on a weekly basis.
• Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (did I miss any?) and you'll see that none of these are organised in this manner.

The reason that it's bad in those venues is because it fundamentally misunderstands what's going on. There we're not counting votes, we are making arguments. It's the better argument that is meant to win the day, which is why the Guide to deletion expressly says not to refactor like this. There is latitude here since deletion review is somewhat less consensus-driven in its foundation, but I'd like to hear Trödel's thoughts on this.

brenneman ^{L} 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Not sure if I agree or disagree, as I see benefits both ways. I also would like to hear Trödel's thoughts. -Visorstuff 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been resolved? See discussion here -Visorstuff 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a valid concern as the vote in question started because of an organization of comments in a disputed deletion review, especially since I have come to strongly oppose "voting" in nearly all Wikipedia decisions. Since the edit to organize the votes was created by a current admin, I didn't think it appropriate to just reverse the organization so I added a seperate category and moved the comment category to the same level as the grouped comment headings.

Aaron has also asked that I explain my views on voting v concensus - since I think that is of general concern I am going to draft a response - edit it severly so it can be concise and post it as a question on the main page; however that might take a while ;) --Trödel 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count

Username	        Trödel
Total edits             8219
Distinct pages edited	1765
Average edits/page	4.657
First edit	        21:31, 17 January 2005
	
(main)	        2985
Talk	        1273
User	         893
User talk	1155
Image	          26
Image talk	   5
MediaWiki talk	   3
Template	 377
Template talk	 141
Category	  30
Wikipedia	1030
Wikipedia talk	 301

Editcountitis stats generated using Interiot's Tool. Nishkid64 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on wikitruth and wikipediareview

Sorry for the delay in answering this question - I had to finish my In the news responsibility and work was extremely demanding yesterday. --Trödel 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!!!! - and my non talk page spamming idea

I appreciate your comments towards helping me be a better contributor. And as a unique (and hopefully useful) thank you (transcluded below or click to add the transcluded userpage to your watchlist):

I want to thank those that commented on my RFA nomination. However, rather than leaving each person a message on thier talk page, I want to use my efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia.

So to THANK YOU!!! I plan to quickly scan the last 100 edits (article namespace) of each editor, then pick an article that each editor has been editing frequently and to which I feel that I can make a useful contribution. The selected article will be listed below along with status. (suggestions/replacements/etc welcome - "this is a wiki").