User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Archives

Where is the archive (Archive 1)
Hi, I can't find the nominations before 15:17, 14 Jun 2003. Where are they moved to, or are they deleted? Fantasy 10:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Removed - check the version history.&mdash;Eloquence


 * OK, it's me who has a problem with deleting things. I think it is part of Wikipedia so this things should not be removed. But if that is the current policy, I will at least save my part on my User-page... schade... Fantasy 13:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify - as is suggested below, we didn't have this page until June 14, 2003. Before that, virtually all sysop requests were made via the WikiEN-L Mailing list (or the Wikipedia-L list before the WikiEN-L list was established). --Camembert 23:06, 15 Aug 2003

I was looking for the Adminship of User:172, to understand the discussion better. Is it somewhere, I can not find it in the history... Fantasy 20:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He got it before this system was established. His nomination or self-nomination (I don't know which) occurred on the Mailing list or some obscure place on Wikipedia. He received some but not much opposition (only Mav if I'm correct). --Menchi 20:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, it was more than one person to oppose him being a sysop. Read http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003150.html, and the e-mails around that time.  &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 20:54, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales decided to overrule these concerns. --&mdash;Eloquence 23:09, 15 Aug 2003

Discussion of 172 moved to Adminship of 172 -- Stevertigo 20:54, 15 Aug 2003

User:172's comment on adminship (Archive 2)
See Archive 1

Sorry about how the adminship nomination went. I guess that you wouldn't want to deal with all the pointless bickering and politicking. Oh well, it's the community's loss. Good job on the Continuation War, btw. 172 01:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC) -- 172 01:59, 29 Aug 2003

Archiving all votes (Archive 17)
I was told that there was no archive of votes on admins, aside from those who actually became admins. Shouldn't a page be maintained for those who didn't become admins as well, instead of having to sort through the history for the votes? CryptoDerk 12:01, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * See Recently created admins unless anyone objects to it being there. I'm not convinced it's needed or a good idea though. Angela. 17:35, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Archiving (Archive 35)
I archived the exceedingly long list of Archives to an Archive at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives. Cheers. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Should we archive the archive of archives? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Only if the archive-archive is aware of its own Gödel number. (apologies for the lame-ass math joke) gkhan 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Archiving (Archive 39)
Why are sections being archived when the latest comment on them was barely a day old? Archiving is important, yes, but I think we should establish that an archive should only be made after a decent amount of time has passed since the last comment to the section. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The alturnative may be that the page becomes uneditable due to size [mode=cynic] we also know from a lot of past exprence that all this talk of reform wont go anywhere.[/mode]Geni 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There were a total of 4 edits made less than three days ago in the material that I archived. In the case of the first two, they were in regards to a section of this page that had already been archived. Continued discussion on that section appeared to have concluded based on the comments that were left. The other two were two days ago and in another section were additional commentary continued on in sections that were not archived; thus in my opinion I was not interrupting an ongoing discussion by archiving those sections. Lastly, the talk page was more than 130kb in size. It was time to archive. If you disagree with my archive/removal, feel free to pull the section(s) you dispute being archived back to this page. The material isn't gone; just archived. --Durin 15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with removal (after a while), I just think that by removing topics which have only just finished being discussed (or are precursors to a followup discussion) we are preventing people from replying to points (unless they start a new section, which is disjointed) which may be perfectly valid. I don't think we lose anything by leaving a few sections for a few days longer, so why not say a week after the last comment in a section, archive it? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's scalability issues involved. If we left discussions until the last comment in the section was a week old, we'd already have a talk page well in excess of 200kb. This will get worse over time. --Durin 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There has to be a better solution of hiding it away in an archive somewhere; perhaps a Village Pump-style system for discussions based on various topics related to RFA? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there's a number of scalability issues plaguing Wikipedia. Archiving of large talk pages is just one of them. On my own talk page, I gave up archiving in segments; it makes it harder for people to find things they might be looking for. It'll end up being a huge page, but I think it's more scalable than dozens of archive pages. Here on this talk page, the standard is multiple archives and I'm not going to upset that cart :) --Durin 17:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Durin. If we dont archive regularly, it is mighty difficult to follow what's going on. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind an archive by topic, myself, to supplement (rather than replace) the archives by date. Some time when I feel like massive wikiprocrastination I may do this, unless someone beats me to it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Where can I get the record on an old RfA?? (Archive 55)
I am curious abut a specific, approved RfA, and I would like to do further research. Alas, I am unable to figure out how to locate this user's RfA. Where are the RfA archives held?? Thanks, Madman 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/YOUR NAME HERE should work unless someone's been doing something odd. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the RfA was successful, you might be able to locate it on the list at Recently created admins. Redux 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you don't want to have to scan the chronologically listed Recently created admins, you can first look up their adminship date at List of Administrators (with service dates). NoSeptember   talk  19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And if it wasn't, try Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. -lethe talk [ +] 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An even easier option is to Google! Just type "adminship YOURNAME" and Google will do the rest for you. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA's (Archive 62)
If I wanted to read a user's RfA from the past, how would I find it? Are succesful RfA's stored and is there a list that I can't find cos I'm being really dumb? --Robdurbar 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your best chance is going to be to look at Requests for adminship/Their user name - if you end up with a failed first attempt, then try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Requests+for+adminship%2F_______&namespace=4 but replacing the _____ with the first few characters of their username. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're looking for Recently created admins. It contains links to all the successful RfAs. For those that failed, see Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Z iggurat 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can also look in the The NoSeptember Admin Project. --Srikeit (Talk 04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a specific person, Unsuccessful adminship candidacies works fine for failed RfAs, but Recently created admins is not alphabetical, but rather chronological, making it harder to look up. You can use List of Admins (with promotion date) to get the promotion date though. NoSeptember  05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ctrl + F" + username also works well on Recently created admins. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Archived Material (Archive 67)
Was some discussion refactored or inadvertently deleted from this page today? I just referred a user to the discussion of "young admin candidates" that was going on on this page as recently as this morning, but it's not here any more, and I don't see a talk archive. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was archived (check the page history) to the normal place (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives) as archive 66. There is an archive header at the top of this page!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the quick reply and I now see the heading (based on the first line there I thought the archives referred to the RfA's themselves rather than this talk, but I now see the second line is different). I guess I just wasn't expecting to see a thread archived to which I had contributed as recently as today! But no harm done, it was petering out anyway. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems I modified the page to use archive box so it is more prominent. I will add a link to archived RFA applications as well so otehrs dont get confused :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok done, what do you all reckon - look ok? it does overlap the top edit link.... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe keep a link to the latest archive directly on this page, save people clicking around. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving (Archive 75)
Just stopped by to say I noticed most of the archiving here being done by a small group of individuals, and to offer the services of User:EssjayBot II to do regular archiving of the page. Thoughts, comments, objections? Essjay ( Talk )  01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with (re?)instating your bot at archiver. --210physicq  (c ) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As archiving by hand is usually superior to bot archiving and we have people who do it, why should we use a bot? Kusma (討論) 08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is? The bot hits 100% on archiving to exactly the right page, exactly on schedule, and never misses a post that should be archived... Essjay ( Talk )  02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just, will the bot also maintain the topic list? Kusma (討論) 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with the bot archiving this page, given that it's already being used on a number of other high-profile pages already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes doing it by hand is the best way to archive dead discussions, where line comments are added which are not related to the core topic. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We could sign Essjaybot up to do most of the archiving, with a longish time period before archiving (7 days?), which wouldn't preclude manual archiving of threads that finish up sooner than that. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)