User talk:Gazimoff/Archives/2008/June

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re:

Thank you for taking the time to do so! iMatthew T.C. 01:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Re: Electric zerobike

Thanks for the note on the Electric zerobike prod. I thought I'd put in a reason ... I've added one now. Appreciate the note. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your research!

I wrote this at WT:RFA, in case it gets lost in the shuffle. It contains a lot of nonense, but once in a while, it shows a bit of the community's general vibe towards RfA/adminship type things. Also links to past polls for historical reference going back to 2004. In case you weren't aware of them, tis all. "Gazimoff, a potentially good reference point from about a month ago would be WP:AMP." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info, I appreciate it. Early indications are encouraging, although I'll probably wait a day or so before putting up a dedicated page to hold a framework. After that, we'll see what the contributions say.Gazimoff WriteRead 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove's responses

  1. Candidate selection: Is the current process of invite or self-nom appropriate?
    I think both are fine. Some editors gnome and don't really make friends or get noticed. They're no less valuable than other types of editors, but less likely to find a nom. If we were to switch to a nom-only system, one way to help such editors would be through editor review. It currently reads "If you are here because your goal is to become an administrator, you should direct yourself to Wikipedia:Admin coaching." I know it has been, at least in the past, used to gauge an editor's readiness for adminship. For anyone who doesn't care to participate in coaching and thinks they are ready, one could express their desire for nomination through this.
  2. Admin coaching: should it be disbanded, maintained as optional or made compulsory? Should some kind of pre-nom mentoring scheme take place?
    I don't think admin coaching should be compulsory or disbanded. There are some very good coaches out there, and plenty of candidates that don't need it. This should remain optional, I think.
  3. Nomination: Should the current nom+com be kept, or should something else such as a debate-only phase or a support and oppose declaration be considered?
    I suggest running RFA much like board elections. Have the first, say, four days be for questions and discussion only, then three days of voting. The problem with this is that for people who only log on once a week, they would not get the chance to participate in both phases. More fair for participants would be a week of questions and discussion followed by a week of voting, but do we really want candidates to go through two weeks of RFA? It's daunting enough as it is, but then, as many point out, adminship can be stressful, so it's not really unfair to put pressure on candidates to see how they react. So, at the very least, it may be worth doing a trial.
  4. Advertising: Should canvassing for input be encouraged or discouraged? Should input come from a jury-selection system or similar?
    I think on-wiki neutral canvassing should be allowed by everyone. As we leave notices for Wikiprojects when related articles are up for deletion, I believe a simple "User:Example is requesting adminship" with a link to the request should be placed on all projects for which the candidate is an active member, as a standard. I believe they are often the best editors to contribute to RFAs, as they have often had the most interaction. I also believe that anyone, including the candidate, should be able to inform others of the request, however, I think it should be limited to allowing nothing more than the link to be posted. No debate on whether an accompanying message is neutral if there is no accompanying message. And, as is currently the policy, if anyone is canvassed in a non-neutral way, then the same measures that current stand should be taken. I am wholly opposed to any sort of "jury" process.
  5. Election: Is it better to have a pure vote, a pure debate, a debate then vote or a concurrent debating and voting process?
    See my response to question 3. Questions and discussion/debate followed by a vote.
  6. Declaration: Should an RfA be closed through a simple summing up or an interpretation of the election? What rules should be used? Should an Arbcom style process be used?
    I think the current process works well. I think I share a trust with the majority of the community in the bureaucrats determining consensus. The idea of running RFA like ArbCom is an interesting one... A nom statement could be made, those who agree could endorse the statement. Those wishing to point out other things could make their own statements. Users only permitted to endorse one statement... I don't know. A viable option that could be built upon and possibly built into something worth trying.
  7. Probation: Is this a good idea? Should it be considered? Should any conditions be attached? Should it have a minimum/maximum length?
    This has been suggested before and I agree with those that oppose this idea. New admins would simply mind themselves until the probationary period is over. If such a provision was added to adminship, there'd have to be a process set up in which the new admin would be reevaluated and then either officially granted the tools or have the bit removed. It seems to me a better process would be to create a viable community desysopping process. But, as we know, this has been discussed at length on a pretty regular basis to no consensus.
  8. Recall: Should it remain as an optional process? A condition of an RfA?
    This goes back to the previous question. You could make it mandatory, but what's to stop admins from imposing completely impossible conditions? There would have to be some sort of standard set. Not necessarily one set of criteria for all, but something to keep it realistic. And I can't envision the community coming to a consensus on that.
  9. Omissions: Anything that isn't covered by the transition from editor to administrator.
    Can you clarify this question, please... perhaps I'm too blonde. :p
    Lara❤Love 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Portal screenshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Portal screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)