Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Krimpet

message: Krimpet's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit stats

message: :This discussion was moved here from the RfA's main page
:*Because I no longer find the voting system possible to use. The current climate at RfA regards discussion, beyond a few bare comments, as something to be avoided. I can't support a system that does such a thing, when the system is supposed to be a consensus building one. Further, voting has nothing to do with consensus. So, I refuse to participate in a voting system. I'd rather discuss merits of a candidate. Since I can't do that in this system, I've added a section. If you'd like to discuss the reason for this section, I'd suggest we take it to WT:RFA or at least the talk page of the RfA. We should be discussing the nominee, not the format. --Durin 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The "Discussion" header (at the top) is the appropriate place for comments like Durin's, isn't it? Xoloz 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No. That presumes I agree with the format in that I have no vote to make, but am engaging in discussion only. I'm not engaging in discussion only. There's no place on this RfA to engage in consensus building. --Durin 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think anyone would mind if you changed the name of that first heading to "Consensus-building discussion", although I though that property was implicit in every discussion on Wikipedia.  At least in theory, we're always discussing with that purpose in mind. Xoloz 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As noted, meta discussion about the format of this RfA is best directed to WT:RFA or the talk page of this RfA. --Durin 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since, Durin, you have gone out of your way to make others participate in your RFA formats, and gone as far as to remove comments from those RFAs if they discuss the formatting, or if they add sections not envisaged in your formatting, I very much feel like giving you a good WP:PROD with a WP:POINTY stick at this stage. AKAF 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *cute. --Valley2city₪‽ 16:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since I have commented on the nominee in question, you would be completely out of line for doing so. --Durin 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you weren't completely out of line for disrupting this RfA to make a point? Durin...you are quickly losing your position on solid ground. I respect your position, but please choose a better way to represent it. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Such as voting? Sorry, no. I'm contributing to consensus. That is the point of RfA. By the way, the accusation that I disrupted this RfA is utterly false. I impeded no one's ability to do anything on the RfA. Anyone who thinks voting is a good means of operating an RfA was completely unaffected by my addition of a section to the RfA. It also did not break any bots. What is the disruption you are referring to? --Durin 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Since the RFA already has a 'Discussion' section, I think it's not unreasonable to ask what you find so objectionable about that section. I'm being serious here, because I'm really just not understanding the need for a new section. AKAF 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * (undoing move) AKAF stabs Durin with a WP:POINTY stick. AKAF 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And, re-undone. Meta discussion is inappropriate for the page itself. This is why we have talk pages. Thank you, --Durin 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *(slight refactor) Ah, nice question. My reply to Xoloz above might help to answer. Let me expand a bit; The "discussion" section has never been about forming consensus. It's just people making comments without any real attempt at forming consensus. The section I made is, so far, a rudimentary attempt to do so. Frankly, I'm uncertain how that will evolve at the moment. But, it'd be nice to see it evolve. Also, I feel that by contributing to the discussion section, I'd be rubber stamping the format of the RfA, squelching my voice regarding this candidate. "Discussion" implies I am only discussing the candidate. I'm not. I'm seeking consensus, which is a super set of discussion. Hope this helps, and thank you for not continuing the reversions. --Durin 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add that Durin's first paragraph intermixed comments on the candidate with comments on his dislike of RfA's form.  If one wishes to enforce strictly the recommendation to go to the talk page with that sort of comment, his paragraph would need to be split somehow. Xoloz 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps yes, but that paragraph is partially to bureaucrats considering the discussion and also to contributors to aid in consensus building. It's not strictly speaking meta discussion. --Durin 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the format of this RfA 

message: *Since the RFA already has a 'Discussion' section, I think it's not unreasonable to ask what you find so objectionable about that section. I'm being serious here, because I'm really just not understanding the need for a new section. AKAF 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *(slight refactor) Ah, nice question. My reply to Xoloz above might help to answer. Let me expand a bit; The "discussion" section has never been about forming consensus. It's just people making comments without any real attempt at forming consensus. The section I made is, so far, a rudimentary attempt to do so. Frankly, I'm uncertain how that will evolve at the moment. But, it'd be nice to see it evolve. Also, I feel that by contributing to the discussion section, I'd be rubber stamping the format of the RfA, squelching my voice regarding this candidate. "Discussion" implies I am only discussing the candidate. I'm not. I'm seeking consensus, which is a super set of discussion. Hope this helps, and thank you for not continuing the reversions. --Durin 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add that Durin's first paragraph intermixed comments on the candidate with comments on his dislike of RfA's form.  If one wishes to enforce strictly the recommendation to go to the talk page with that sort of comment, his paragraph would need to be split somehow. Xoloz 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps yes, but that paragraph is partially to bureaucrats considering the discussion and also to contributors to aid in consensus building. It's not strictly speaking meta discussion. --Durin 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion vs. consensus sections

message: Or, more to the point, since you appear to have a burning need to disrupt RFA, why shouldn't your opinion be ignored? AKAF 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disrupting this RfA