Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

message: Any idea's of where this should be listed? If the bot is going to be listed, where should the tag be placed and under what section to send people to comment here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, I was just thinking that myself. That, and I've not used RFC since the bot system was put in place, so I'm not exactly sure how to set it up. ^demon[omg plz] 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it under user conduct as it is a community discussion we want. If someone disagree's then I guess they can figure out how to list it elsewhere! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone will probably disagree as a simple matter of process/beureaucracy... SamBC(talk) 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just added it to the Community bulletin board. --Chris   G   07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing 

message: There are polls, there is discussion, 117 people have already contributed and the page is not that long. a.z. 01:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 117 people having contributed is a bad thing. Three people together have trouble enough discussing a topic; 117 simply can not have any sort of rational discourse with each other. -Amarkov moo! 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that 117 people can not have any sort of rational discourse with each other? Do you think we should elect representatives for this discussion? a.z. 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should either decide to have a vote (which would kinda be against the point here), or have a discussion without voting, thus removing all the people who aren't interested in a serious discussion. RfC tries to be a hybrid, and thus utterly fails on things like this. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Question, if 150 people give an opinion in an RfA, but 117 people say RfA is broken, who wins? Don't mind me, just being a smartass. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should regulate the inflow of views, somehow. Make it so that every view is given a fair share of appreciation, make sure every option is considered. Subpages, with a new view featured every quarter of a day? This is a very weird suggestion, I know, but how else can we make sure everyone is heard, and every alternative considered properly? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, as you see here we are having the fundamental problem of trying to have a discussion with 60+ people... its hard, especially as we are limiting our selves to no abstractions. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the exact quote, but something like, "A committee is an organism with 48 limbs and no brain". --Quiddity 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know the quote as well. Of course, 117 editors and 48 limbs does produce kinda weird results. John Carter 19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One format that could be considered is the "evidence" sections of RFA... and leave it to the B-crats to determine if enough evidence has been found negative to disallow adminship. Thats a system where all choice making is put in the B-crats hands based on evidence gathered by the RFA community. I don't advocate this... as of now... its too raw, and not well thought out, but such a system has been proven to work at arbitration. Customs would have to be developed as to if folks were allowed to post in other's evidence section... should similar evidence go in one location, should people be allowed to comment / vote on evidence as saying "thats important to me" etc. No matter what though the key problem is the sheer number of people involved, right now RFA as it is, can deal with those numbers. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone had an idea that was truly better than what we have now, I think it would be clear that it is supported, instead of the fractured groupings of ideas that are floating about here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The format is fine

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia:Community enforced administrator recall for discussion on a new community desysopping process. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Community enforced administrator recall]]