Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 21

Counting edits
Not really sure what the best place for this is, but since it's mostly an issue here, this'll do :-)

Developers can now check the number of edits from a user very quickly, without loading the database - if possible, it's helpful to ask a developer to do this rather than going back to the start in a user's contribution history, which puts a lot of strain on the database and sometimes doesn't work anyway (due to timeouts from it taking too long). Thanks  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 06:19, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Immortal Words
One of the most amusing (and perhaps insightful) comments I have seen on Wikipedia on the issue of edits-as-voting-qualification was made by Ezhiki during his adminship voting:


 * I could stop using "Show preview" button for a while :)

func(talk) 13:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Some people IMO put far too much stock in edit counts. I've noticed something over time about this page. When the page was new people were made admins with but a handful of votes.(I think I had about 6) This was partially due to the fact that wikipedia was smaller then but also IMO partially to do with the fact that the only people who voted were those who actually knew the candidate concerned. When only actual friends and foes vote, then edit counts tend to be irrelavent, because people can actually discuss how trustworthy the candidate is based on the behaviour they have seen. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg's nomination
I am extending the time on this nomination for 24 hours from its original end. There is substantial support and significant arguments against, but it has consistently (so far) failed to reach even the lower threshold for consideration of promotion. I am making no judgment whatever on the quality of nomination, but setting an end time against the possibility that a clearer consensus may be reached without having this drag on indefinitely. Of course, anyone is free to repropose the nomination in a month. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: subpages
How about putting each discussion into a subpage like the VfD page is organized? That way it would be possible to watch a specific discussion that interests you, or the page as a whole for new nominations/changes to the intro. As it stands the watch mechanism is useless 'cos the page changes all the time. Gadykozma 14:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  19:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea -- looking up old nominations is a pure bitch. -- orthogonal 20:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, as shown by the last couple comments, I went ahead since it looked like everyone was in favor (then Gzornenplatz showed up with the objection). About making the link directly editable, I'm not sure, but I think the possibility was discussed when VfD switched over to this model. Perhaps it's too difficult, or maybe it's problematic because it's part of the section heading or something. Maybe one of the VfD regulars could explain either how to do it, or why not to. --Michael Snow 00:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) There is (atleast) one downside to subpages for RFA. After the voting is over, the nomination subpage still remains and people may feel the need to add votes or change their vote after the user has been made a sysop. For example if a user is made a sysop in September, someone may decide a month later that they no longer support that person and remove their vote from their RFA subpage. Of course people shouldn't do that, but unlike before where the discussion was in the page history, the nomination is still readily viewable and editable.
 * It would also make it easier to look at people's nomination histories (i.e. I nominated myself twice, and succeeded only on the second try). ugen64 20:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was necessary because the volume here isn't comparable to VfD, but the point about looking up historical nominations is good. --Michael Snow 21:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very good idea. Right now, nominations which end simply "disappear", and one must page through the page history to find out what happened.  I've seen so many cases where users wish to leave parting words, etc., and simply have them all erased with the nomination.  In addition, I've heard it's a bit of a server load to look up way old versions in RfA (especially with those stupid toctallies). V V  21:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Great idea. --Lst27 21:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I offer a very wimpy support vote, since I think it's a fantastic idea and I have no personal enthusiasm for actually doing the conversion myself. If others are willing to do it, I think it would be a worthy service to WP, but I don't think I'd be any help at all.  Sorry! Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It would be trivially easy to do, I think: /Sample Vote on sub-page for User:Jimbo Wales. -- orthogonal 22:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Link fixed. Graham 87 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was more envisioning pushing votes over without losing any in the transition.....coming up with an agreed on format to make nominations retrievable (for users nominated more than once)....etc. Perhaps I make too much out of it in my head. Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Just start new votes on subpages after some date. As for second nominations, I'd want to conveniently see the results of the preceeding votes for that nomimee, so I'd suggest pushing preceeding votes to a single sub-sub-page, using a move page to preserve history, and linking to that from the then blanked vote page. -- orthogonal 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Instead of moving the old vote, just edit over it and add a link to the old revision afterwards. --Michael Snow 00:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. The page is not too big as VfD was, and it's more practical if you can cast multiple votes on one page. Gzornenplatz 23:47, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the fact that separate subpages could make people give more thought to the individual merits of each candidate. --Michael Snow 00:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can complain that Gzornenplatz does not give candidates individual attention. And BTW, Gzornenplatz, I want to thank you for digging up all the evidence against Anarion. Good job. Gadykozma 15:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't complaining about Gzornenplatz personally, just saying that casting multiple votes on a page lends itself to less individualized consideration than voting on separate pages. --Michael Snow 15:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea, for the reasons stated by others above. Is it possible to make the "Vote here" link go directly to edit mode? That way, using a tabbed browser, one could cast several votes easily. &mdash; David Remahl 23:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * To make it editable, just add &action=edit to the to the url and use the one set of brackets and http:// syntax. I demonstrate: Sample Vote on sub-sub page for User:Jimbo Wales.
 * To accommodate both readers and editors, I'd suggest the following format: View Vote on User:Jimbo Wales Edit
 * I also wonder if it's easier on reader to not lexicographically include the text of the sub-pages in the main page, and just use links instead; this departs from the VfD usage, but is perhaps easier to read. -- orthogonal 00:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Fixed link. Graham 87 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's still enough convenience in having all the text visible on one page that inclusion is the better choice. In fact, your argument seems like it would be stronger on VfD, which has so much volume that trying to load and read the page is overwhelming. --Michael Snow 00:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I changed it so that 'vote here' isn't in the TOC, and so that the links edit directly. clicking twice is indeed annoying. +sj +  20:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I don't think it's a major issue. When a vote is closed, the page could be terminated with a message, "Voting has now ended. $CANDIDATE is now an admin / $CANDIDATE's candidacy failed to gather consensus. Please do not edit this page." Further changes to the page could then be reverted at sight, and any discussion could take place on the talk page. The history will continue to exist, so verifying that the page has not changed after the voting ended is simple. &mdash; David Remahl 18:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? What the harm in changing one's vote after the discussion is over? Neutralitytalk 19:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Format of RFA
Are any of you getting a huge amount of blank space at the bottom of the RFA page? Of course, I'm using a nightly build of Mozilla,w hich might be the problem, but... ugen64 00:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Boilerplate questions
I find the addition of the boilerplate questions for nominees to be, at best, marginally helpful, and at worst, demeaning. The questions are written in such a way that the correct answers are obvious, and I suggest that we quit using them. uc 22:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. V V 22:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would agree that they should not be a boilerplate. However, if someone actually wants those questins answered, I think they have a right to ask them.  It could easily be done on the user's talk page, but perhaps it is better to have it out in the open?  I don't know if they're particularly good questions, and certainly I personally pay only passing attention to the answers, but I've always assumed they're put there because someone wants to know what the answers are before deciding.  If we allow comments, why not questions?  Is the objection to the questions themselves, or to the fact that they seem to be "imposed" on everyone? Jwrosenzweig 22:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't care that much, although I wouldn't call them demeaning. Still, it does produce a tendency to parrot acceptable answers, and they take up a lot of space on the page. I would prefer to see nominators and nominees do a better job of articulating why the candidate would make a good administrator. Questions can then be asked in the comments section, preferably of a more individualized nature. --Michael Snow 22:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote the first three questions, someone else the next two, and Meelar contributed the last. The reason I originally posted them was to try to get some simple commitment from candidates that they were really interested in the job, and didn't want to be admins simply as an honorific. I was encouraged to do this by two things: (1) the fact that many people appeared to be voting one way or another for no obvious reasons, or were listening to what other people were saying without actually hearing from the candidate; and (2) a candidate who couldn't answer simple questions about the duties, even after being prompted. They seem to have caught on and I believe actually encourage the candidates to think about the job they are up for. Also, since an admin really should have decent people skills (like, when they use their admin powers and are challenged) we should see how a potential admin responds to a few straightforward questions. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess my point is that this has become ritualistic, and while some of the questions may be appropriate for some candidates, they have become ritualistic and candidates clearly feel obligated to answer them even when they have already covered the same ground elsewhere (in their response to the nomination or on their user page, for example). uc 19:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I also feel it helps maintain a level playing field in asking all candidates to answer a few identical questions. I think voters' decisions can be enhanced by seeing not only what the candidate answers, but how. It introduces the candidate to Wikipedias who may not know them. As to your point that "clearly feel obligated to answer them even when they have already covered the same ground elsewhere" that can simply be dealt with by saying "Please see my acceptance." -- Cecropia | Talk 19:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with UC, the questions are something along the line of the "Are you transporting a bomb?" questions at the airport. I've seen too many good candidates shot down because of a casual or even semi-humorous response taken the wrong way. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:31, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't like the questionnaire either. The answers to the first three questions are Yes, Yes,, and the rest reads very much like a job interview. But nominees are not applying for a job, they're offering to maybe participate a bit more than before in Wikipedia housekeeping. All in all, I find the questionnaire pretty unhelpful. To judge a nomination, one still has to check a cross-section of the user's contributions and draw on experiences made in prior interactions with the nominated user. Lupo 15:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I also think they aren't working and that they should go -- it hasn't really been helpful to me in trying to decide who would be a good admin and for me they do seem a bit demeaning -- I think the answers don't mean anything, and I think UC and Lupo have laid out my reasoning. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that question 6 is useful as it atleast provides a helpful avenue to self-criticize possible past mistakes, and an easy way of having the nominee mention himself what may be his worst mark against him todate (rather than have others mention it for him). To counterbalance it question 4 and 5 can be merged into a single question about some of the candidate's best contributions. But I agree, that the first 3 questions atleast are worse than useless and they should go. Aris Katsaris 16:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the first three questions, which is pretty much why I wrote the second three. My purpose in the second three was so that editors I didn't know as much about could quickly point me to the salient details of their editing, and so that I could look and make a reasonable judgment about them. The idea was to have them point me to their editing contributions, their participation in the Wikipedia community at large, and their biggest mistake. I never particularly liked the change from biggest mistake to a question about edit conflicts, however - I always preferred my original question about biggest regrets.

In any case, I think the latter three questions do serve a purpose, which is giving people who haven't had a lot of contact with a given editor the chance to look at their work and make an informed judgment about them. I wouldn't mind if the first three went, though. Snowspinner 17:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The major purpose of the first questions isn't to get a "yes" or "no," as such, but to have candidates declare that they have made an effort to understand what the job is about, since some candidates obviously didn't have a clue what privileges, powers and responsibilities the job entails. As to the last question, I agreed with Meelar's change. "What is your biggest mistake?"-type questions are too Maoist-self-critical for me, and are actually intrusive, because they force someone to come up with a potentially BS answer to show how honest they are. OTOH, revealing how they've dealt with conflict, and how they feel about how they've dealt with conflict goers to heart of a good admin. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some random thoughts:


 * I don't think it is wise to turn adminship requests into either a job interview or an essay contest.
 * Historically, adminship was granted to almost anyone based on participation and a relative absence of problem edits; "this should be no big deal."
 * Newer Wikipedians are reminded that up until 18 months ago adminship was granted by acclaimation on the mailing list. Then the wiki page was set up.  The now-mandatory 80% voting threshold was adopted sometime later, about a year ago.
 * As of some months ago, there has been greater focus on the duration of participation and the number of edits, and both of these bars appear to be creeping ever upward.
 * The recent trend is towards treating the adminship requests like an interview where a single ill-considered comment can become disqualifying.
 * I think the questions are bad because they continue this trend.
 * I believe that having an effective review process in place that is conducted periodically for existing admins who wish to continue their adminship may help reduce some of the paranoia.
 * I believe the role of adminship in the project has shifted. Administrators now have greater authority than they once did.  This has become a big deal.  There are many causal factors, probably the greatest being an increasing willingness to deal with non-regulars in a summary fashion.
 * I am concerned that this process has evolved considerably with little debate and discussion.

uc 18:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see all your points, but it is what it is (or what it's become). For example, on the one hand a number of editors did not want running tallies for good reason: this is not supposed to be a popularity contest. OTOH, other editors demand that promotions be objectively justified. If we don't have firm rules, how can we criticize anyone for not following them?


 * If we feel this is all bad, then we need some way to review the whole process systemically rather than piece by piece. Personally, I'm not expressing an opinion at this point on which way this should go. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany is perceptive as usual in his analysis of Wikipedia trends, but I would say the evolution has involved much "debate and discussion", not little, as is indicated by the 20 archives of discussion from this talk page. Cecropia may also have a good point that some systemic analysis of adminship is necessary, including consideration of a possible review system for existing admins. --Michael Snow 05:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * While you are correct that there has been a great deal of discussion, it has been chiefly limited to implementation matters, things like toctallies and "bureaucrats" and whether and how to remove bogus nominations before they're expired. This stuff has value, but it's not the same as discussing and agreeing upon the standards for approval, which are evolving on a case-by-case basis.  This evolution is driven by people who have enough interest to vote here.  People can vote any way for any reason.  While there's been some discussion about the required number of edits and the number of months of participation, and even some votes, there was never any consensus on these issues.  Yet, the policy has changed, vis-a-vis where it was 18 months ago.


 * I agree with Cecropia that some sort of comprehensive review would be more valuable than a piecemeal approach. We could start by asking whether we need admins (probably yes), how many we need, what the effects of admins are on group dynamics and how we would like to change this, what makes good and bad admins, and so on.  It would be helpful to have some sort of numerical analysis of the use of admin-only functions - perhaps there are many admins who use these features rarely if at all.  Perhaps there are only a few people doing the bulk of the admin work.  I have my suspicions but the data would be rather more actionable.


 * I am currently of the opinion that, since page protection, rollback, and page deletion actions are rarely controversial and readily reversed, that these abilities should be handed out more liberally than at present. Page protection is the least used of these and has the most potential for creating trouble since it confers the ability to edit protected pages.  Bans and blocks, and image deletion, are potentially more problematic and could perhaps be made available only on a more limited basis.


 * uc 15:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changes made
I have rewritten Requests for adminship/Candidate questions based on the discussion here, consolidating the first five questions into two and leaving the last one intact. This should hopefully solve the problem of leading questions that make the candidate give the "proper" response, and reduce the amount of space they take up on the page. It will not eliminate concerns about interviews/essay-contests, but I figure making the questions less flawed is at least an improvement in the situation. --Michael Snow 18:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I have one problem with the rewrite, and that is that I feel we need something to light a fire under candidates to know and acknowledge that they have a clue as to the powers, extent of the powers, and limitations of adminship. I realize that the former first two questions may not do the trick, but I think we need something.


 * I've observed that even some well-meaning new admins make mistakes that they shouldn't have made if they had familiarized themselves with policy, such as protecting articles that they've edited on, or protecting or unprotecting without being asked by the editors on the articles. One new admin posted material suggesting (s)he was available to perform certain admin duties on request which should normally only be performed as the result of consensus.


 * I know that there is some sentiment for a structure for de-sysopping, but I would support that only as a last, last, last, last (did I mention last?) resort. I have seen some situations which show (IMO) the problems of such a structure, not the least of which is that such a structure would lead to harassment and political attacks on perfectly good admins against whom some editors have a grudge. Much better to give admins a little gentle vetting up front than fall back on a nasty de-sysopping later.


 * Maybe we need a "So You Want to be an Admin" checklist that every prospective admin should have to read with questions like "When is it OK to delete an article without consensus?" (Only when a new article is obvious vandalism), "When a block is justified, how long should an initial user block be"? (24 hours). "We have hashed out an article version that has unanimous support on Talk from all the editors on it. Can I protect it and require new edits to be vetted through talk? (No). And so on. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free to continue rewriting the questions, obviously, but I have to say that the checklist/quiz for prospective admins sounds disturbing to me. We have never required people to pass an examination here at any level of participation, and that's the direction this seems to go. I am willing to accept that new admins may occasionally err in the use of their abilities, just as new editors make lots of mistakes out of unfamiliarity. I think it is more important to determine whether candidates will listen to corrections and learn from their mistakes than to receive an assurance that they will never make mistakes. --Michael Snow 20:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it should be an examination, but rather a FAQ that each person should know before promotion. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, we have Administrators' reading list, which could probably use some updating. I am for the most part unconcerned about candidates' knowledge of the intimate details of policy regarding use of admin-only features. Most new admins strive to be noncontroversial and procedural errors can be reverted (and are). Editors who have weathered a reasonable amount of work in the articles themselves usually have an understanding of the ephemeral "way things work at Wikipedia," and that along with judgement and levelheadedness are the key qualities, IMO. They can peruse the reading list after being promoted.

Some of the special page templates should probably be updated to warn of the more common gaffes. uc 17:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse
Now someone has even removed the "Vote here" links. How are we supposed to get to the voting pages? Can we please return to the old format? Another reason is that it is impossible to watch the page as before. You only see when a new candidate is added. If you want to watch all votes, you'd have to put every new candidate page on your watchlist separately (and remove it again when the vote is over, if you don't want to clog your watchlist with useless entries). Also, in the old format you could see all tallies in the TOC, and see at once which nominations were essentially decided and which were still open. The whole change was a bad idea to begin with. Gzornenplatz 07:58, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The "vote here" links are redundant following the software change that means the section edit links link to the included template's edit page. Pcb21| Pete 08:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Except to the people who don't do section editing. Gzornenplatz 08:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, not everyone has it enabled in their preferences. I figured that was why the "Vote Here" link was there, to cater to those without the edit links. --Golbez 08:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Presumably there is a good reason why that preference is available? If so, then that new feature is not so great. Pcb21| Pete 08:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be a handy function. However, I have disabled it, because it inhibits my ability to type "edit" to select the edit link at the top of the page in my browser. The vote here links _must_ be there for me to be able to use the new RfA in a reasonable manner. But I don't agree with Gzorenplatz at all, that the whole change was a poor choice. But I do understand that the new format may be less ideal for people with other usage patterns. &mdash; David Remahl 10:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I should note that toctallies were quite controversial when first introduced - I believe the vote was very close to 50/50 re having them. The benefits of being able to watch an interesting candidate are significant, the fact that edits to the main page are now simply nominations, promotions, and removals makes it much easier to track the "big picture", and the fact that nominations are now easily accessible in the future will prove quite valuable in time. All the arguments given above for this change have held. The "edit link" issue I'm sure is within our abilities to handle. V V 10:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't update for me. I am forced to edit behind a proxy, and cannot rely on CTRL+F5 to reload the main page after voting on a subpage: as the page has not changed itself I do not get the new page until the proxy expires. And I miss the edits. {&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628; } 10:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Has this been filed as a mediawiki bug? &mdash; David Remahl 10:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't reach Mediawiki from here (blocked). And the new page now showed, it just takes forever, as if the page is not rebuilt correctly. {&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628; } 12:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I get the same thing. Frankly I liked the old way better, but I check my watchlist every 10 minutes or so.  Although it's a minor thing, I always like having RfA at the top or near the top of my watchlist.  CryptoDerk 15:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The support for the subpage idea was nearly universal until it was implemented. Is it really that bad, or are people just griping while we get the kinks out? I would be fine with reinstating the "vote here" links for people who don't have section editing, but I really think subpages themselves are a major improvement. --Michael Snow 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be some sort of MediaWiki bug/quirk/feature which prevents the RfA page from immediate updates. But like many weird bugs in the new software, it should be sorted out soon enough. V V  23:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Any edit to the main page updates displayal of all subpages as well, but that's the only way that does. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 07:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-

What about a formal vote regarding whether to keep the subpages or not?
What about a formal vote regarding whether to keep the subpages or not? Acegikmo1 14:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Let's have a vote. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. CryptoDerk 15:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note we have set no procedure for establishing who has won this vote if no clear consensus develops. Does a deadlock support an inertial preservation of subpages, or an automatic return to the previous model?  I know it's tough to make those decisions, but that's why it's kind of important we do it before the vote has concluded and there are clear stakes involved.  Next time, please move with a little more care, Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote
Vote ends 15:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Support subpages
 * 1) Much more convenient tracking of individual candidates, better history/auditing, RfA on watchlist lets one monitor nominations and promotions instead of individual votes. David Remahl 15:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Michael Snow 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:36, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Much much much better; like we do on VfD. James F. (talk) 19:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Improv 21:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) V V 23:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) For the reasons noted above: Highly valuable for tracking individual nominations, especially for the future, reduces load on RfA page.  Objections don't seem very potent.
 * 7) 100% agree with what David Remahl said. &mdash;Stormie 02:44, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Changed to a support vote, I can get used to this. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 07:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I can now see the global picture of what's happening by watching the page. Convinient. Gadykozma 09:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Initially a little skeptical, now very much in favor.
 * 11) Angela. I've liked this idea ever since it was introduced on the Sep11 wiki earlier this year. I'm surprised it wasn't done here earlier.
 * 12) func(talk) 00:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) I always agree with Angela... oh, and I like the subpages.
 * 13) &mdash; Matt 13:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 14)  &#8475; yan! |  Talk  05:18, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) BrokenSegue 01:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) I actually find them convienent, now. Neutralitytalk 01:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) older &ne; wiser 01:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) [[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose subpages
 * Too inconvenient to vote on multiple people. Neutralitytalk 15:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seconded. More trouble than they're worth. {&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628; } 15:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) New-fangled complexity layer. Don't need it gosh durn it! Gehirn
 * 3) It is rather confusing, but more importantly it now evades my watchlist and that is a major problem for me (and part of why I don't really follow VfD anymore). The only time I really remember to check is when something is changed here. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) pir 20:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) CryptoDerk 15:14, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) I'm in the neutral category now.. I do like the idea, but the non-updating of the main page is bad. Hopefully that will be fixed.
 * 2) Too new to support so far, support at 50 subpages. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp   19:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

To deal with the issue of updating the page, for now I've added the "Purge the cache" link at the top of this talk page, which is similar to the solution used for the Main Page and the Community Portal. --Michael Snow 05:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Subpages considered harmful! 1 2 3 (added by User:AnAccount)
 * All those arguments are about subpages in the article namespace, and have nothing to do with whether they're desirable here. --Michael Snow 05:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)