Wikipedia talk:Successful requests for adminship/Archive 2

I have been looking at some of these elections, and emphasis is mostly put on number of edits and such. It just kind of bothers me that that seems like the determining factor of being elected admin, etc. Maybe some users just don't know enough to make that many edits, such as myself, but are useful in other ways such as settling disputes. I have been watching the arbitrator position elections for a while, and it seems to me that the best people for the job aren't getting elected because of their edits. But the way candidates with few edits conduct themselves around Wikipedia seems better than those elected on the basis of their edits. I don't know, maybe there should be a distinction. Osbus 20:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Could one of the busy bees around here archive this page down to a more manageable size? I've promoted several new admins this week, and I think it's time to move some down to the list, as the transclusion is making the page very slow to load. I'm headed off to bed, but I'd appreciate it if someone could have a go at it. Essjay Talk •  Contact 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 12:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Trödel's RFA
Answer to User:Blue Tie No, that was not merely a difference of opinion. He put up a POV-Because tag at Martin Luther when asked by and instead of somebody else (who had promised on the talk page that he would not mess around with POV tags). Then seeing that the tag was on AfD, he first deleted the mention at the POV-Because tag page that it was up for deletion, voted against its deletion and asked the man whom he had helped to do the same. WP:POINT? The placing of that tag was disruptive and caused one of the participants in the debate over Luther to go berserk. Although that guy got banned eventually and deservedly, valuable edit time by both sides was lost during unnecessary bickering. It also extended the time to get the tag deleted. But well, what the heck, Adminship is not a big thing.--Pan Gerwazy 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion?
Must RfAs be transcluded here? The page is really big and difficult to navigate. Any reason why links can't be used instead? JDtalk 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the page is often very long, making it difficult to load and to edit. I see what you did, but then the Bureaucrats listed newer promotions by transclusion &mdash; in fact, I just did it :0, even though I had already linked one before.  Force of habit...  Although I do believe that transclusion works better for the purpose of this page.  I'm thinking that what we need is to set a limit, and a small one, for the number of RfAs that should be transcluded on the page at any given time.  We could, for instance, determine to have no more than 3 or 4 simultaneous transclusions, and everything else goes to the archive, which is made up of links.  The user (normally a Bureaucrat) who comes to list the fourth or fifth RfA, would be responsible for moving the older transclusion to the archive.  That could solve the problem.  Thoughts?  Redux 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the transclusion inconsistency that was on the page, and made it as it would look like in my proposal above: just 4 transclusions at one time. See what you think :).  I'm also thinking of another change: the archive list is getting way too long, I'm thinking of breaking it down in subpages, separated by year.  On this page, we'd have links to all of the subpages &mdash; alternatively, we could keep here the archive for the current year: for now, 2006; when 2007 comes, we'd move the list to the 2006 subpage, making the space available for the 2007 promotions to be listed here.  How about it?  Redux 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Four transclusions still makes the page long, but if the Links to earlier successful nominations section were to go, the page would be bearable. I think as much of this page's content should be kept as separate as possible - put all the earlier nominations on a separate subpage for each year, including the current one.  The list of 2006 nominations is massive, and the year isn't even over yet.  For the current year, a link near the top of the page would probably do.  Do nominations for this year need to be on this page?  JDtalk 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that was just a possible alternative. I actually agree that it would be better if the promotions for the current year were also on their own, separate page already, keeping here only links to the subpages.  Especially since we have more and more promotions with every passing year, which makes the lists very, very long.  I'll just wait a few days, to see if anyone else would like to weigh in this proposal.  If there's no opposition, I'll proceed to breaking down the archive as I mentioned.  But we can still consider other options to make this page easier to manage, if anyone would like to propose something else.  Redux 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Be aware that some of us have scripts that semi-automate the closing of RFAs; transcluding to this page is part of it. If the system is going to be changed, someone needs to let User:Voice of All know so he can update the scripts. Essjay   ( Talk )  06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We won't make any changes until the necessary adjustments have been made to prevent any problems with the scripts.  In fact, I had considered that this would affect VoA's code.  Even if nobody had posted here, I'd still have dropped him a note about the proposed change before going ahead with it.  Although we might have to actually create the new pages before VoA can actually make the exact modifications needed, so it might happen that the scripts could "malfunction" for a day or so.  But I'll coordinate everything with VoA.  Thanks, Essjay.  Redux 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename?
Is the name of this page accurate? Yes, there are recent RfAs here, but there are ones going back to 2003... Perhaps a better name might be along the lines of Successful requests for adminship? -- Majo  ( rly? )  00:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At a glance, sounds okay to me... they probably were "recently" created admins when the page was created, just no one bothered to update the name. --W.marsh 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. It needs renaming as it is no longer the case. -- Majo  rly  22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. There's no harm in changing it, so long as the current page becomes a redirect. James086Talk 03:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, wasn't the point of this page to show people who just became administrators within the last week or two? My only problem is with the word "recent". Can it be reworded to Recently successful requests for adminship?  Nish kid 64  21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But it contains RfAs going back to 2003. -- Majo  rly  21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh haha. I never even saw that on the bottom before. Okay, never mind. I'm perfectly fine with changing this.  Nish kid 64  21:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the new title be consistent with the page title for unsuccessful RfAs: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies? NoSeptember  21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I guess so. I think Successful adminship candidacies sounds better, and it's shorter.  Nish kid 64  21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense.  John Broughton  |  Talk 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. ( Radiant ) 10:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, better name. —Doug Bell talk 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved it. -- Majo  rly  00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion touched the subject of older RfAs (as far back as 2003, as mentioned) being archived here, which makes the page rather long and difficult for some to view, perhaps you'd be interested in the thread immediately above this one, about the proposal to change the archiving system for older RfAs &mdash; mainly, create subpages by year, and keep only the truly recent RfAs on this page, with links to the subpages. Any comments would be appreciated.  Redux 13:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want too many pages. How about just two? One with the recent and transcluded RfAs. The second with all the others (without any transcluded RfAs, this second page would not be so big). NoSeptember  13:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)