Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 91

message: Kelly Martin sounded positive, but wrote on my Request for adminship that she was withholding support until I was endorsed by a WikiProject. Now there is a problem with that: WikiProjects don't endorse candidates for adminship. There are two possible WikiProjects that I have helped and I could drop them a note asking what they feel, but as explained on User talk:Kelly Martin, some editors might consider that to be canvassing. This puts me in an impossible position: asked for an endorsement, but unable to either confirm or deny it. Sam Blacketer 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it go. Kelly has been doing this for a couple of weeks now and when people point out to her that it's ridiculous she replies that everyone's being uncivil to her. Pascal.Tesson 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Pascal.  I cannot understand why Kelly Martin feels so strongly about this, but you should have no trouble gaining adminship even without her support, so don't worry about it. YechielMan 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What they said ... Besides, you are hereby formally and officially endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements. I believe that my status as the 16th member of the project and the first editor to oppose its existence while simultaneously becoming a member gives me the right to speak on the project's behalf. ;) By the way, someone should really consider deleting that thing already ... -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing as Kelly hasn't gone campaigning in favor of the idea (I don't think she's actually wrote up a proposal, instead simply referring to it on RfAs), it appears that she hopes to see her endorsements idea take root and become standard practice, simple as that. How is the question: how is this going to come about? Force of personality? I'm not sure if Wikipedia ever functioned so spontaneously, but it certainly doesn't nowadays. Anyways, it's not like she's opposing over it, just "witholding support," so you shouldn't worry about it. Picaroon 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The two I was thinking of were Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies (because I have written a lot of biographies of British Members of Parliament) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies (because some of them have been Baronets, and I have also written stub articles about the Baronetcies in these cases). I can give you more details if you want. Sam Blacketer 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate in an impossible position 

message: The sections have been removed. I'm almost sure there is no consensus for this, but I would never have noticed had a new RfA not just come in. Could we please not change things on the template without some sort of note here? -Amarkov moo! 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do revert that. We've pretty much agreed to experiment slowly. There certainly is nothing close to consensus regarding this and Moralis' RfA was not too conclusive on that kind of format. Pascal.Tesson 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections were added without consensus, so I duly removed them. Is there a problem? We're having a discussion, not a vote, sections aren't needed, the bureaucrats aren't stupid. Majorly (hot!) 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about the bureaucrat's stupidity, it's about making it easier to read the darn thing. Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were promoted to do the job, in whatever form RfA may take. Majorly (hot!) 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand what I mean. Sure, bureaucrats can still evaluate the RfA without these sections (and did so in the Moralis experiment). However, it is unquestionably making the RfA harder to read and harder to review in retrospect. Note also the not so enthusiastic comments of the closing b'crat. Pascal.Tesson 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note Majorly has removed them again. . This is getting tiring. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now protected/reverted (not by me on either count). --W.marsh 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bureaucrats will be doing nothing of the sort. If they were counting, I'd ask them to resign. We do not need pointless sections in a discussion. Majorly (hot!) 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Majorly. perhaps you could leave the RfA template alone for a while. Quite a lot of the recent edits there are yours, and such things rarely help achieve consensus on talk pages. There's more to writing an encyclopedia than hanging around RfA, you know. :)  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oleg, I'm rather offended by that. I am actually free to edit pages as I please. I've been continuing to add references to List of English monarchs this afternoon, closed an AfD or two later, and now I'm here. Please don't say I'm "hanging around RfA". I'm concerned, and I can comment and make changes as much as I like. Majorly (hot!) 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They'd all better resign then, because I guarantee you none have closed an RFA in years without some ballpark idea of what the % was. --W.marsh 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly, check all recent successful RfBs, answer to question 1. We have like 5 exceptions that are under the magic 75%, which goes to show that they stick to numbers so carefully. In light of these discussions, if there are any who do, I hope they change. Majorly (hot!) 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That conclusion is not supported by your initial premise. You note that few RfAs below 75% have succeeded, yet seem to reject the possibility that they failed because there actually was no consensus. I think "failed because of no consensus" is a more plausible explanation than "failed because they act like bots", especially since there are exceptions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't be exceptions though, they should be the norm. Read the answers to Q1 on all recent successful RfBs, and you'll see how they determine "consensus". Majorly (hot!) 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we have sections in an AfD? No. Is AfD a discussion? Yes. Is RfA a discussion? Yes. Do we have sections in an RfA? Yes. Is this logical? No. And exact same comments are made on AfDs as well too you know ;) Majorly (hot!) 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An AFD can produce roughly a dozen common decisions (transwiki, merge, delete, redirect, etc.) and numerous wacky other decisions rarely. An RFA can produce one of 2 decisions, period. So you're kind of comparing apples and oranges even before mentioning the fact that the average AFD gets 3-5 participants and the average RFA gets 50+. --W.marsh 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... Not so convincing. For one thing AfDs rarely attain the same level of participation as RfAs. In any case, the goal here is not to dogmatically figure out a way to impose a structure on RfAs so that it looks like Afd but rather to pragmatically find a structure that makes RfAs easy enough to follow. Pascal.Tesson 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of those rare XfDs (Daniel Brandt, Esperanza, Encyclopedia Dramatica) that get a lot attention. The admin that closes that has the same job as a bureaucrat. Majorly (hot!) 23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure wish that these were refactored to make the discussion more intellegible and less painfully redundant. Pascal.Tesson 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Majorly, my response is ... what W.marsh said. RfA has only 2 outcomes, whereas AfD has many. Also, RfA has many more participants. Also, I would think that we would want to avoid RfAs that look like the Daniel Brandt AfD. That thing was awful! -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Tried it here, but auburnpilot decided voting sections were better in a discussion, and re-added them. Majorly (hot!) 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I found the diff you were trying to point me to, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. I meant leaving in the support, oppose, and neutral sections, but using * instead of # at the head of each comment. Dekimasuよ! 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's not try to paint a different picture than actually exists. Completely removing the sections (as you did Majorly) is very different from replacing a "#" with a "*". - auburnpilot talk 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. What I did was removed the sections, so the discussion area could be used instead. This uses bullets. Majorly (hot!) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything I try is reverted, Kim, so I doubt I'll be doing much else BOLD :( Majorly (hot!) 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|RfA}}, for the fifth(?) time 

message: Since there's eviddently a dispute (resulting in a edit war) over the template's content, it shall stay fully protected until this matter is resolved. Also, while administrators may still edit the template, they should (and I believe they will) observe the protection guidelines, as the edit page suggests. Миша13 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: ShadowBot3 has been sending archived discussion to archive 86 instead of archive 88, and manual archiving has been done that has sent other things to archive 87. The two seem to overlap as well, but archive 86 is generally newer than archive 87. ShadowBot3 is correctly set to archive 88 now, but would someone helpful like to go through and clean up the order of the archives? Dekimasuよ! 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives: annoying task 

message: Even the RFAs that are not experiments aren't the same. Why do some current RFAs have the vote summary and some don't? We should process them all the same for uniformity's sake, and all this experiment should cease for the time being until the boat settles back to an even keel; no wonder they're all akilter right now.Rlevse 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they're fine. If you see any with a tally it can be removed though :) Majorly (hot!) 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, very subtle. :) I'd rather have active RfAs see no format changes; they should end the way they started ... unless the format is so horrible that the RfA is stopped prematurely and restarted. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the rule that says they shouldn't have a tally? They should at least all be the same. No they are not fine. Changing the format of an RFA once it starts is just plain wrong.Rlevse 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah calm! Remind me why there is a tally again? Give me a reason why they should have a tally. And how is it plain wrong? Majorly (hot!) 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: God, the tally is a non issue, have one or don't, but don't argue over it. A tally does not change how people cast their opinions. If they want to know the count they will find it. There is no reason they have to be uniform either. I would leave it up to the person running. If he wants to do it in ROT13, then let him, I won't support, but all the power to them. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say they should or shouldn't have a tally, i said the RFAs should be consistent and the format of a specific one should not change once it starts. What I said is wrong is changing format on one after it starts. I don't think it's a nonissue, they should all be the same so everyone gets an equal shot. You give a reason they should not have one.Rlevse 00:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not a vote, that's why. Majorly (hot!) 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why'd it ever get started with the tally? The tally makes it easier to see how it's going. Actually, I don't care that much about the tally, but I firmly believe the formats should be consisent, that way no one can claim another had a more favorable format. Take a look at the recent RFAs that were victims of the experiments.Rlevse 01:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It got added in without discussion, by Ed Poor in 2003/4. Why on earth would you want to know how it's going? Do some research and make your own mind up. This isn't an experiment, this is common sense. Majorly (hot!) 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was uncalled for and you should know better.Rlevse 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Majorly (hot!) 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it was common sense it would be common to other people. I like the tally, it saves me time. I have not heard it explained how it causes any harm. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation I've heard is that the tally manipulates people into treating RFA like a vote, and removing it learns them better. Personally I give people more credit than that... and never really thought it was our job to tell people how to think about RFA in the first place. I agree that the tally is just useful, some people see it as a psychological key to RFA or something like that. --W.marsh 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the tally in my RfA was in ROT13, it's just that it contained no letters so nobody else noticed. --ais523 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also confused. Since everyone loves the tally so much, we may as well make most use of it :) Majorly (hot!) 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call whatever you want, but supporting and objecting is a vote. Otherwise, we should just nom someone and let a bureaucrat decide it on their own without them worrying about whether they got 85% (or whatever).Rlevse 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually, I think that there are people who think this would be a good solution, provided we have a weeklong discussion on the candidate beforehand. I happen to think it wouldn't simplify the whole process but it's not an incoherent proposal either. Pascal.Tesson 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, RfA is a vote. And there is nothing wrong with that. Voting is the best way to gauge the opinions of a large community. And the larger Wikipedia becomes, the more more vote-like things will get. Yes, that scares some people away from adminship, I've seen that first-hand. Yes, some people's votes are silly. Some people think other people's votes are silly. That's sad, but mixing people's comments together and hoping that the enlightened bureaucrats will just read everything and come up with a magic decision which will please everybody and remove the pain from the process is just not realistic. The current process is simple, and it works. Giving bureaucrats more authority will make things not better, I'd argue.  And perhaps not everybody's meant to be an admin after all? And perhaps the current backlogs are due to people like me not using their admin powers too much, but what can you do in a community of volunteers? And anyhow, no attempt of reform I've seen in two years has produced anything. This one generated more discussion, but I doubt the outcome will be any different. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do not know how many registered users we have, but I found the number 4,000,000 at English_Wikipedia page (not sure if that includes not registered or not), so say that we have 400 voters for one admin that would make it 0.01% that actually did vote, I'm not sure that is a good way to 'to gauge the opinions of a large community'? At least I do not think so. Stefan 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In statistics, a poll of 1000-2000 random people is enough to tell how the entire US population feels about an issue with an accuracy of a few percent. Granted, the RfA voters are not a random bunch, but surely they are more representative of the community feelings than the bureaucrat who would make the "hard decisions". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but as you say, I do not think the people voting now are very random, nor representative of the average user. Stefan 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, aside from the fact that statistical significance can be attained in relatively small samples (e.g., 1200 of a population 300 million), we should also keep in mind that although the English Wikipedia has 4 million registered users, only about 50 thousand are active (I remember seeing the figure 43000 somewhere; I'd be most grateful is someone could tell point me in the right direction). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Majorly-I see why Rlevse interpreted what you said the way he did. You may want to be more careful how you word things. Oleg-well said.Sumoeagle179 10:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Stable the universe is ... visions of instability reflect inner turmoil and failure to attain oneness with the self and with life. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect, why shouldn't their be tallies, it makes it ten times easier to judge how an RfA is currently going and peoples opinions, as well as making it easier for for the closing b'crat to view the tally then decide of promotion, changing it now is silly.Tellyaddict 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can an RfA be judged by the tally? You voice your opinion whatever it may be. I really, really hope the bureaucrat ignores the tally as it is completely redundant. No, it is not silly to remove it, logical is the word. It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and you cannot count a discussion.  Majorly (hot!) 20:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not the same

message: Or, even better, randomly generate voters! I'm sure I remember a "random user" generator somewhere. Spam 100 randomly generated user talk pages where the user has been active in the past week, and say they have been granted the singular honour of voting on this candidate's RfA. This is a bit like jury service in the UK, which, with checks and balances, is essentially a random selection of your peers to sit in judgement on you. Carcharoth 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. People selected at random tend to take their duties very seriously. If this idea took off, and if even only 20% of the 100 random users participated, then you would get 20 people carefully picking through the contributions history and giving their opinion on the candidate. Also, in case you get a random selection of 100 trolls, allow the candidate to rebut oppose votes, and still leave the ultimate decision to the bureaucrat. Randomly selecting from the entire pool of users might be a bit much, so instead maybe randomly select from a large of list of those "willing to serve at RfA". Carcharoth 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea. Want to add it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform? — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A random user generator is located at Wikipedia:Random, although that only takes you to users who have created user or user talk pages. I do not think your proposal will have the desired results. First, editors may not appreciate being spammed. Second, we may accidentally spam vandals and trolls. They, for the time being, are not overly interested in disruspting RfAs ... I hope we can keep it that way. Third, the proposal creates a new level of bureaucracy that goes against the principles expressed in Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Fourth, it restricts participation and discussion by active editors. Fifth, I believe your premise that "People selected at random tend to take their duties very seriously" may not hold. Those things for which I've been randomly selected are usually the ones I take least seriously. If someone considers sampling me just as good as any other poor sod, I see no reason to take things seriously. I am, of course, referring to surveys and not to to jury duty, which I'd take a little bit more seriously. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the phrase 'jury duty', which led me to Jury duty#Selection, which I've now added above and over there. I was looking for jury service, which I might turn into a redirect if no-one else beats me to it. Carcharoth 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem ... I'll do it right now. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hey! Humour is not allowed in the Municipal Fortress of Vengeance. Seriously, there are some valid points here, mostly that a simple bureaucracy (backed up by bot-generated lists) may be needed to counter the dynamics of large groups. Carcharoth 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random voters 

message: After an absence of several weeks from WP policy and process pages, I came by to take a peek. We used to have an RFA process that wasn't great, but by and large promoted the people who would clearly be good admins and did not promote those who would be bad ones. There was occasionally some gnashing of teeth, probably some mistakes, and a gradually increasingly higher bar, but it by and large worked. Now, in the name of "making the atmosphere less poisonous", I see an awful lot more poison on both WP:RFA and this talk page that I recall before. Are we really making progress? Martinp 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "poison" that you speak of? —210physicq (c) 04:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he's referring to my comment on Kelly's oppose to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mallanox. Now I'll readily admit I could have chosen kinder words but opposition on the basis of behaviour which is accepted by an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians (and completely inline with our guidelines) is destructive as it creates the impression that going through RfA is like running the gauntlet. Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your opinion was a little strained, really.  The presence of these items on a user's page does certainly suggest a certain cluelessness that doesn't enhance one's confidence in a user's fitness for adminship. Would I oppose that candidate's adminship?  Perhaps.  Would I take into account his userpage?  Perhaps.  Would I look at other factors?  Certainly. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on Tony. Kelly is using RfA to campaign against userboxes, in favor of WikiProject endorsements (not to be confused with WikiProject Endorsements) and this is in effect asking for shrubberies. It also perpetuates the idea that an RfA is some gruesome process that you can only escape without a scratch by being superman. Not only is she being unreasonable about it, she's also spouting incivility warnings at anyone who tries to explain this to her. The culture of RfA is horrible precisely because it's filled with opposes that concern things that no candidate had ever assumed (and were never told) might cause the slightest problem. Pascal.Tesson 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Let me be harsh for a moment) Welcome to the world of adminship, where everything you do is wrong. No, really, when you're an admin, your actions will be scrutinized closely, and there will be at least one person who doesn't like what you did, what you're doing, what you will do, or any combination thereof, and will raise the tattered banner of "admin abuse." RfA is the first step in seeing this reality. —210physicq (c) 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Join the secret cabal of non-admins who help out at admin stuff without being admins yet. Joooin uss... -Amarkov moo! 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me? I'm an admin, and already part of the Cabal, not a cabal. Heheheheheh...wait, are you talking to me? —210physicq (c) 05:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Physicq, if we want to train our admins at getting unfair criticism, let's do that outside of RfA. And is it really that much to ask that the obnoxious behaviour of systematic critics of admins come from another source than longtime Wikipedians who should know better? Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not condoning some of the...eh...strange opposes that I have seen. Some of them are, as you have said, essentially asking for shrubberies and cutting down trees with herrings. However, it is also expected that as an admin, such implausible and arbitrary complaints will be coming their way, and one way to see the candidate's fitness for adminship is their response to such opposes. For one thing, since when did this opposes make a real dent in promotions? Unless you want to say that this is hurting some editors' feelings, in which I will say that it is not Wikipedia's job to mollycoddle a person who is willing to dip their hands (and their entire bodies) deep in mud. —210physicq (c) 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't think it's fair to say that Kelly is "campaigning" on userboxes.  We know they're not suitable for Wikipedia and that they're severely deprecated.  If users persist in using them even when they know this, then it may be taken to suggest that they're not really admin material. This isn't campaigning, it's commonsense. --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So am I unfit for adminship, under your assertion? —210physicq (c) 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But Kelly has some userboxes herself. Not that I'd judge her suitability for adminship based on that... the wub "?!" 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Tony: Kelly is using RfA to campaign for changes. Don't take my word for it, take Kelly's word. Pascal.Tesson 12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How sad and how bizarre 

message: Like , . Should we now start protecting the whole WP:RFA page and its subpages until this issue is being sorted out or is there a consensus that the live RfAs should be left alone as it is being started? --WinHunter (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am striking this "proposal". I will quote a part of a comment I made below: "I did not intend [the proposal] to be taken entirely seriously. Please note the part about abuse via fish." To avoid any confusion, I feel it's better to strike this. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Instruction creep. Grossly misformed RFAs can be restored to readability; giant monster RFAs can be refactored for readability and accessibility. Removing vandalism does not fall under your definition; this is instruction creep, pure and simple. 'This is a wiki, and subject to modification due to changing consensus and bold edits. So long as those edits do not disrupt (which has not been proven in the cases of the modified RFAs), they should be allowed. -- nae'blis 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Object to all as instruction creep.  Use common sense.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about instruction creep?  It is your belief that everybody should know your unspoken rules, your own personal instruction creep on how to be your ideal rfa candidate.  Similarly, your capitalised gibberish could bee seen as said instruction creep, and as a matter a fact, it looks like much of everything you are trying to push through RFA could also qualify as such.  A bit hypocrytical if i do say so myself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does your comment above pertain to the issue under discussion?  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in regards to my beliefe that certain editors (you included) are attemtping to use RFA to push personal agendas.  It is a point made (while in a convulated manner), expressing my concern that you are quick to call anything you disagree with "instruction creep", but quick to require it for others, which confuses me as to what you define instruction creep.  Perhaps I should have clarified better and you have my apologies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your comments were, in fact, an ad hominem, intending to address not my position that the proposals above are instruction creep, but instead intended to demonstrate that I am a hypocrite for holding that position.  Thank you for making your intentions clear.  Kelly Martin (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my comments above were part of a discussion, in which I weigh all parts of the conversation, including any conflicts of interests or other issues that may affect a particular editors judgement.  It was in reference to you, however I felt it appropriate to this particular line of conversation, in an effort to understand what qualifies as instruction creep in your eyes.  If you read much further into it, I apologise if my agenda seems deeper than you deem it to be.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Chris, referring to Kelly with things like "unspoken rules" and "gibberish" and calling her a hypocrite is really out of line. --Durin 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I am sorry that you find it out of line.  I found it appropriate for this line of discussion.  Also, "capitalised gibberish" is there campaign.  Please show to me how they do not apply to this conversation?  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm sorry, but you're speaking gibberish, forcing your unspoken rules and are a hypocrite. --Durin 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Wow.  I've never seen someone presented so clearly with the fact that their argument is a logical fallacy and then just continue on.  I see wonders every day.  --Iamunknown 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First off durin, thank you for your concerns.  Second off, I am a little bit confused here.  Please point out to me my gibberish, and I will kindly correct it.  As well, If you believe that I am applying unspoken rules, or acting in a hypocrytical manner, you are welcome to address them with me and I will amke every attempt to correct it.  I have adressed my concerns with Kelly martin on her talk page and felt this was along the same lines to discuss further.  Again, I appreciated and respect your cocnern for my content, but would apprecated a friendly note (or even a not so friendly note) explaining it to me.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You call someone else's edits gibberish, hypocritical, and having unspoken rules. Now when you're called on it, you become conciliatory? You can comment and object to someone's thoughts on something without referring to it in such terms.  --Durin 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Durin, you may be unaware that Kelly Martin has a "no meaningless gibberish" rule on her talk page (meaning acronyms), which is probably why the phrase is being invoked here. -- nae'blis 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First off, please read the lengthy conversation kelly and I had on her talk page in regards to "capitalised gibberish". Please not, I am not commenting that any of her content is gibberish, and to the fact, based on her beliefes, she is strongly against it. My references to "capitalised gibberish" are a reference to her expectations that people will not quote wp policies in capital letters. Please again, you have my humble assurance that I am not calling anything of hers gibberish. I believe the comments about unspoken rules being hypocrytical were appropriate in the context of this conversation, however could have been stated perhaps in morre apporpriate terms. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also please note, I have attempted to discuss my concerns with her, most recentlyhere, which she promptly removed as an "intrusive comment."  Please note that I am taking every effort here to be appropriate, discuss this with the correct people, and when my concerns are removed as intrusive, i will start addressing them elsewhere. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there exist users trying to make a WP:POINT by modifying existing RfAs instead of changing the template by consensus. --WinHunter (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Two words: instruction creep. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have plenty of existing ways to deal with content disputes, and that is exactly what this is, sort of a lame one too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, and perhaps I should have started this threat under a new heading.  I do not either supoort or reject winhunters proposal.  My concerns are complelty independant of the above proposal, however the above proposal made a good place to start attempting to address them.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The {{[[RfA]]}} edit war now being spilled over to the live RfAs? 

message: I suggest that we adopt one of the following as a new rule at RfA:
#Do not modify the format of an RfA once it has started.
#Do not modify the format of an RfA once it has started without the consent of the candidate.
#Do not modify the format of an RfA once it has started without the consent of the nominators.
#Do not modify the format of an RfA once it has started without the consent of the candidate and the nominators.
#Do not modify the format of an RfA once it has started without the consent of the candidate, the nominators, and all other participants.
Modification includes any action that does not fall under asking questions, discussing, commenting, and stating opinions. Any editor who violates whichever of these provisions is adopted may be subjected to abuse by herrings while being forced to mutilate a tree. Or, we can just follow an established policy: do not use Wikipedia or any parts thereof (including RfA) to make a point, especially if you know that your point is contested. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am striking this "proposal". I will quote a part of a comment I made below: "I did not intend [the proposal] to be taken entirely seriously. Please note the part about abuse via fish." To avoid any confusion, I feel it's better to strike this. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Instruction creep. Grossly misformed RFAs can be restored to readability; giant monster RFAs can be refactored for readability and accessibility. Removing vandalism does not fall under your definition; this is instruction creep, pure and simple. 'This is a wiki, and subject to modification due to changing consensus and bold edits. So long as those edits do not disrupt (which has not been proven in the cases of the modified RFAs), they should be allowed. -- nae'blis 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Object to all as instruction creep.  Use common sense.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about instruction creep?  It is your belief that everybody should know your unspoken rules, your own personal instruction creep on how to be your ideal rfa candidate.  Similarly, your capitalised gibberish could bee seen as said instruction creep, and as a matter a fact, it looks like much of everything you are trying to push through RFA could also qualify as such.  A bit hypocrytical if i do say so myself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does your comment above pertain to the issue under discussion?  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in regards to my beliefe that certain editors (you included) are attemtping to use RFA to push personal agendas.  It is a point made (while in a convulated manner), expressing my concern that you are quick to call anything you disagree with "instruction creep", but quick to require it for others, which confuses me as to what you define instruction creep.  Perhaps I should have clarified better and you have my apologies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your comments were, in fact, an ad hominem, intending to address not my position that the proposals above are instruction creep, but instead intended to demonstrate that I am a hypocrite for holding that position.  Thank you for making your intentions clear.  Kelly Martin (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my comments above were part of a discussion, in which I weigh all parts of the conversation, including any conflicts of interests or other issues that may affect a particular editors judgement.  It was in reference to you, however I felt it appropriate to this particular line of conversation, in an effort to understand what qualifies as instruction creep in your eyes.  If you read much further into it, I apologise if my agenda seems deeper than you deem it to be.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Chris, referring to Kelly with things like "unspoken rules" and "gibberish" and calling her a hypocrite is really out of line. --Durin 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I am sorry that you find it out of line.  I found it appropriate for this line of discussion.  Also, "capitalised gibberish" is there campaign.  Please show to me how they do not apply to this conversation?  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm sorry, but you're speaking gibberish, forcing your unspoken rules and are a hypocrite. --Durin 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Wow.  I've never seen someone presented so clearly with the fact that their argument is a logical fallacy and then just continue on.  I see wonders every day.  --Iamunknown 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First off durin, thank you for your concerns.  Second off, I am a little bit confused here.  Please point out to me my gibberish, and I will kindly correct it.  As well, If you believe that I am applying unspoken rules, or acting in a hypocrytical manner, you are welcome to address them with me and I will amke every attempt to correct it.  I have adressed my concerns with Kelly martin on her talk page and felt this was along the same lines to discuss further.  Again, I appreciated and respect your cocnern for my content, but would apprecated a friendly note (or even a not so friendly note) explaining it to me.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You call someone else's edits gibberish, hypocritical, and having unspoken rules. Now when you're called on it, you become conciliatory? You can comment and object to someone's thoughts on something without referring to it in such terms.  --Durin 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Durin, you may be unaware that Kelly Martin has a "no meaningless gibberish" rule on her talk page (meaning acronyms), which is probably why the phrase is being invoked here. -- nae'blis 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First off, please read the lengthy conversation kelly and I had on her talk page in regards to "capitalised gibberish". Please not, I am not commenting that any of her content is gibberish, and to the fact, based on her beliefes, she is strongly against it. My references to "capitalised gibberish" are a reference to her expectations that people will not quote wp policies in capital letters. Please again, you have my humble assurance that I am not calling anything of hers gibberish. I believe the comments about unspoken rules being hypocrytical were appropriate in the context of this conversation, however could have been stated perhaps in morre apporpriate terms. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also please note, I have attempted to discuss my concerns with her, most recentlyhere, which she promptly removed as an "intrusive comment."  Please note that I am taking every effort here to be appropriate, discuss this with the correct people, and when my concerns are removed as intrusive, i will start addressing them elsewhere. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there exist users trying to make a WP:POINT by modifying existing RfAs instead of changing the template by consensus. --WinHunter (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Two words: instruction creep. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have plenty of existing ways to deal with content disputes, and that is exactly what this is, sort of a lame one too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, and perhaps I should have started this threat under a new heading.  I do not either supoort or reject winhunters proposal.  My concerns are complelty independant of the above proposal, however the above proposal made a good place to start attempting to address them.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for new RfA rule

message: What is the point of RFA? To determine if the community trusts an individual with a few extra tools through a judgement of consensus. While there may be some varying degrees of interpretation, that is my interpreatation of what it boils down too.  I guess the question that frustrates me is what RFA is not.  I do not see RFA as an sandbox, a place to expirement with new ways of determening consensus.  When it boils down to it, that is really what we are trying to determine through an RFA?  Why not expirement with another process, one that does not have real people.  While we say that adminship is no big deal, it is somewhat to my belief the contrary, and in fact, the large amounts of discussion here are almost hypocritical with that statement.  The fact is, I have seen alot of work here recently on trying to "revamp" the RFA, or that it is broken.  The cact is that we are not truly addressing the problem which is what is consensus, and what is the best way to determine it?  I believe that this problem stems out much further than rfa into WP:AFD, and WP:RFCN, as well as many other areas of wikipedia.  While I am fairly sure that this rant will fall on deaf ears, I urge this community to go about a different way of solving this problem, and not use "live targets" in an expirement to solve a problem that does not only exist in the WP:RFA process.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if the point is to determine if trust exists for an individual, then the format or process is not nearly as important as some people seem to believe. It is not a stone tablet, but an organic process that can be improved (albeit with caution and deliberation). -- nae'blis 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree, and I am not saying it is set in stone, and am not adverse to changing it.  I agree trust is an important factor, but againt, it comes down to how do we judge it?  The foggy hazy answer is consensus, the problem is, consensus is hard to define.  Please dont get me wrong, i am not fighting against change to RFA, i am just asking that we dont define the problem via the solution.  In this situation, I do not believe that the problem is RFA is broken, I believe the problem to be issues regarding appropriate jdugement of consensus.  Does this seem to be a valid assertion? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My other concern is live tests.  I know it is hard to test something like this but, i think a good long discussion regarding the best way to determien consensus would go along way before we all start making changes on our own.  I agree that being bold is important, however i feel it is also important to step back and look at the big picture before making massive changes.  (guess I have been a software developer with SOX for too long. lol)-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *And once again the insistence that we conduct no 'live' experiments, when every single experiment tried on non-live thought experiments has resulted in pure gridlock. You're victimizing yourself; Wikipedia is very definition of evolution. Every article can and should evolve over time. The notion that we must adhere to a process and never experiment until everybody agrees we should experiment would have us give up on Wikipedia if we were to follow press story after press story after press story. Unleash yourself from it. --Durin 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What I think is that the current process is doing what it's supposed to be doing just fine. "If it works, don't fix it." is all I have to say. · AndonicO Talk 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Point of RFA