Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 90

message: Have each RFA (in otherwise substantially the current format) preceded by a few days or so of freeform discussion leading up to it, so that people can all get on the same page rather than what one issue seemed to be with the previous format, which is tendency of people to vote and then their concern is later addressed but they don't come back to change it even though they might. This way any concerns that people have either way can hopefully be brought up and addressed before 'voting' opens. We keep trying to add various more or less structured formats, but i really think that adding a period of simple thread-mode discussion would be refreshing --Random832 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea isn't new, but I can find one potential weakness already: people have to come back to the RfA page twice. —210physicq (c) 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are free to only participate in one or the other phase. This simply attempts to ensure that a thorough discussion/sanity check has occured before voting opens. --Random832 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No point.  Block voters have already had their minds made up for them made up their minds even before the RfA is posted.  The only thing this will do is perhaps make it easier for waterfall voters (voters who try to vote with the consensus) to vote -- they will presumably be able to tell from the discussion whether or not to vote for or against.  Kelly Martin (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that important? Being able to look at the discussion and use that as a factor in whether or not to vote for or against? Say a discussion starts with 50 supports and 0 opposes, and ends at 60-10. It's a passing nomination, I suppose, but someone raised an issue that convinced half of the subsequent voters that the nomination shouldn't pass. Was it voter #49 who "waterfalled", or the tenth oppose? Yet it's "consensus" because of the overall tally. An exploration period would encourage a deeper evaluation of the nominee's background before anyone piles on. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I will say something heretical here. The current support/oppose format works better for discussion. When I look at an RfA, I glance quickly at the support votes, read carefully the oppose votes, perhaps take a look at the questions section, and then decide what to do. And if you wanna say something to the stinky opposer of your favorite candidate, just start a thread under his vote (be polite though :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I support trying out a discussion period. Its implementation can't possibly prove as controversial or confusing as the current experiments. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea (less substantial change) - thread mode. 

message: Allow the crats to exercise discretion early - Explicitly state what !votes are to be discounted by crats, i.e. what they consider to be poor arguments, sockpuppets etc. These !votes are to be struck out (e.g. Oppose, not enough blah counts!) by any crat anytime during the RfA along with an explanation. These struck !votes may be overriden by any other crat which would then be discussed at the noticeboard, and they be discussed/critiqued by any other editor if they feel that there are lapses in discretion. Everything else be left the same as it is. 
Also consider : possible extension to support !votes as well? - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd always agree simply writing Support 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would alleviate the problems encountered with Carnildo's, Danny's and Ryulong's RfAs, where the numbers indicated that the candidates hadn't passed but the Bureaucrats decided that consensus had been achieved.  Explanatory notes and a summary of the 'crats findings would have been useful in determining how the decision had been made. (aeropagitica) 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I'm looking out for the crat's thought process during the course of the RfA !voting, rather than at towards the closing time. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There was one RfA I remember (no idea whose) where the first two Oppose votes both attracted heavy criticism from users (the nominee wasn't involved, but other users were complaining that the votes weren't based in policy, etc.) As a result, the third vote simply said Oppose without a reason. (By the way, see the talk page of WP:QAV to see why you have to be very careful about disallowing votes.) --ais523 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that any of these could be discounted - each RfA can be equally measured against these criteria and the only those that they fall down upon need be highlighted in the striking of votes and summation at the end of the process. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose. If bureaucrats have this much discretion in closing RfAs, we may as well let them do on-sight promotions. See a user, promote a user; no community input required. -- Black Falcon 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *That would be ok with me. The reasons people are being opposed these days are often absurd. I trust the judgement of a bureaucrat considerably more than I trust the judgment of a person who says "Oppose: Only have 897 mainspace edits, and I demand 1000". --Durin 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would then raise the accusation of the existence of a cabal of like-minded admins who support a particular line of the promoting Bureaucrat.  A transparent process would be better for all involved and passive observers too.  A meritocracy is more beneficial to this collaborative project than a series of cliques.  This is a worst case scenario but I can all-too easily imagine the accusation being raised as soon as a promotion goes ahead when someone opposed to the new admin's way of thinking decides to speak out. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If there was something that could give information about what not to vote in RfAs besides Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions (which is only ideas and theories anyway), we would have fewer arguments about which reasons are valid reasons to support and oppose. Captain panda 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and seeing the process whereby that decision was arrived at is important if the restructuring of RfA is going to be along these lines.  Transparency in elections is a very useful thing for all concerned in order to see that due process has been observed. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Simple Suggestion 

message: This isn't yet another post about the correct method to use for RfAs, but instead a merely technical suggestion. At the moment, RfAs either have to use Support in bold as a section header (with no section-edit link), use ===Support=== as a section header (lengthening the RfA TOC to beyond a usable length), or use noinclude trickery (acceptable on current-style RfAs, but leading to much confusion in the case of Matt Britt's). If a proposal I've made on MediaWiki talk:common.css to make it possible to limit TOCs to a certain depth doesn't receive objections (and I don't see why it would), a fourth method will become possible: using ===Support=== as a section header (complete with [edit] link), and limiting WP:RFA's table of contents so that the 'Support' entry doesn't appear there. What do people think of this possibility? --ais523 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is support to use ====Support==== and ====Oppose==== and ====Neutral==== (level 4 currently), I don't think there's a need to supress them from the table of contents because it's only 3 subheadings per RfA. With 10 or so RfAs at any given time, the TOC at WP:RfA won't override into the first nomination. –Pomte 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section editing on RfA.  Yes, please. SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've toclimited the TOC at 3, so that fourth-level sections and below will be disregarded in the TOC. The RfA bots will need to be updated before we can transition to level 4 headings and enable section editing. --ais523 12:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The noinclude tags on Matt Britt's RfA, and support/include/neutral sections using the current RfA method 

message: I got curious, and ran the numbers totaling contributions to WT:RFA per rolling 7 days through the extant history of this talk page. The prior record for the number of contributions per rolling 7 days was during the Ryulong promotion affair with 567 comments, back in January of this year. In a close second place was the Carnildo promotion affair back in September of '06 with 538. We've just blown that record out of the water, with 748 contributions in the last 7 days. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem to indicate the Moralis and Matt Britt RfA formats are controversial. ;) --Durin 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that you added an incorrect negative sign in your mental math.  More discussion implies more controversy.  GRBerry 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I would say you missed the ";)" on the end of my comment. :) --Durin 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I wouldn't say that having so many comments is necessarily a good thing. Every comment made here (to fix something that isn't broken, in my opinion) is one less minor improvement to an article. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Getting RfA to work properly will significantly help the project. These aren't wasted edits. --Durin 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That assumes that it currently doesn't work well enough. But, as you noted yesterday, I suppose this is something about which we'll have to agree to disagree. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *What he said. Kafziel Talk 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *What, it's somehow detrimental to participate in policy-forming activities? There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Every article improvement that can be done will be done - whether sooner or later. You seem to be implying that a comment made here will actually subtract from the total number of article edits a contributor will make in their career here. That's a totally false implication. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, I'm not implying that. I'm just pointing to the opportunity costs of every comment made here. Every edit made here consumes time that could be spent elsewhere. Now, of course, I'm not lobbying for an end to policy discussion as such discussion is necessary to establish and maintain frameworks in which article editing can take place. The intent of my comment above was simply to express the opinion that the commenting in the past few days (in which I admit I heavily participated) may not have been ... and please don't lynch me for this ... the most productive. I would love to be proven wrong by seeing some sort of positive result, but I can see only two: (1) we adopt one of the two experimental formats as the standard, or (2) we keep the existing standard. I view the first to be a negative result and the second to be neutral (no change). Of course, there is the fact that we now know of 2 formats that won't receive consensus support. If you think the current format of RfA is broken and needs significant reform, then that's probably consoling. If you don't, well ... -- Black Falcon 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A record has been set 

message: An admin has just gone rogue. Has this ever happened before? The rogue admin got in three edits before being blocked and then emergency desysopped, and got in 25 blocking, unblocking, unprotecting, and deleting actions. See WP:ANI#Robdurbar. Carcharoth 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirteen minutes from when he deleted the Main Page until he got desysopped... Carcharoth 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's shocking. I would say we need either (a) more active stewards or (b) to give crats the ability to desysop. Higher standards at RfB, whoopee. – Riana ऋ 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely, except for the bit about raising the standards. B-crat candidates are already pretty much doomed because of all the "we don't need anymore" voters; hence, the standards are already high. — Deckiller 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, my sarcasm didn't translate - I don't want higher standards. RfB is ridiculous. We're going to need to get people canonised before they can become crats. – Riana ऋ 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Undoubtedly this will raise new questions about whether admins claiming "right to leave" should be desysopped. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I was beaten to it. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a good reason why the crats can't desysop? Moreschi  Talk 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably some separation of powers thingy. Carcharoth 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't think of one, especially with the already amazingly high standards. Plus, my immediate response to this incident was "we need mroe crats!" before someone reminded me that crats can't desyssop. That incident alone means I shouldn't run for RfB for six months :) — Deckiller 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Was there actually a bureaucrat around and more accessible than jhs was? —Cryptic 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so relevant: standards at RfB are stupidly high anyway. Moreschi  Talk 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think more to the point is: should admins be able to unblock themselves? That would be the short-term answer before the question of de-sysopping is even required. – B.hotep u/t• 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that has always seemed bizarre to me. Will (aka Wimt) 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Admins can and do block themselves by mistake, and in this case admins who were blocked found it pretty useful to unblock themselves. Moreschi  Talk 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but you could make it possible to remove your own blocks but not someone else's. Or just wait for someone else to unblock you! Will (aka Wimt) 11:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allowing to self-unblock only if you self-blocked seems like a reasonable idea. To control a rogue admin with a blockbot who blocks every available sysop you'll still need a steward, though. Kusma (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is needed is to set the system up so a self-unblock only restores editing privileges, and not admin privileges. To regain the admin privileges, you need to get someone else to complete the process. Then you hope that the number of good admins outweighs the bad ones and they get their blocks in first... Hmm. Maybe that wouldn't work! Carcharoth 11:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ouch, that's the terrifying scenario. The problem with allowing self-unblocking only if you've blocked yourself is exactly that: in that scenario, you'd need the stewards to unblock maybe hundreds of admins, desysop the rouge admin, block him, and then clean up any other mess he's left behind. That's probably why we need admins to be able to self-unblock. Moreschi  Talk 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure whether it would be possible to introduce some kind of protection that prevented a sysop blocking more than three sysops in 24 hours or something. That would prevent that kind of blockbot attack. Will (aka Wimt) 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good question too, I thought of that when I unblocked myself. Blocking should mean blocking from all editing privileges, including administrative privs. – Riana ऋ 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, one other: User:Husnock was rapidly desysopped after it emerged he'd given away his password to help someone evade a block. Moreschi  Talk 12:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Those were not security breaches. Sorry. Even if they were, that's what... .5%? The point stands. --Durin 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GRBerry, see WP:RFDA. --bainer (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A record of another sort? 

message: In response to a couple of requests, I'm posting a brief comment on my views on the structure of Moralis' RfA.
In general, I found that the new format wasn't particularly helpful in determining consensus.  On the plus side, it did encourage users to explain their reasons for support or objection, but on the negative side, it led to a large number of comments mixed throughout the discussion repeating issues which had appeared earlier.  This made it far more time-consuming than an ordinary RfA to determine which issues had been raised and how many users felt that these were serious concerns.
This was an interesting experiment and well worth conducting, but if it is to be repeated, I would be keen to see some sort of grouping of related issues.  I am particularly interested in the format of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt, which seems to address this, but may carry some new difficulties. Warofdreams talk 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing Moralis' RfA

message: We've now completed one experiment, and have another three days underway. There are still several other experiments to be conducted. I'd like to request volunteers to be guinea pigs for near future further experiments. The only qualifications are that you want to be an admin, and you think you'd make an ok candidate. You don't have to be perfect. 
If you're willing to be a guinea pig, you will of course have the opportunity to refuse to be a test case for a particular format of an RfA. This is purely voluntary on your part. If you are interested, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you, --Durin 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... How about we take a slight break from experimentation? Sure, you're not forcing every RfA candidate to take part but you are forcing every RfA participant to deal with these. It's ok to be bold but at some point, you do have to ask around and ask "mind if I experiment a bit?" Pascal.Tesson 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *This goes to a point two people raised, about whether there is permission to do experiments or not. I don't have to have permission. I'm not saying this to be hostile, I'm saying it because the past three years of RfA have demonstrated that this community is incapable of coming to any consensus regarding reform, and it's unlikely that the community will suddenly now agree that experimentation is good. Look at all the rancorous debate that has occurred on this page in the last 72 hours. I'm not going to hold myself hostage to a group that is incapable of forming consensus in any direction. Indeed, that is one the chief problems I am attempting to fix. --Durin 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be a guinea pic if one's really needed. The only problem's that i'm already an admin, haha. I do think we should do these slowly, like 1 up at a time so that RfA can at least still flow.--Wizardman 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't see the experiments as disrupting any flow; any can ignore a given RfA if they like. But, 1 a week is at least at this point pretty much defacto, as Matt's will conclude before I'll have sufficient time to craft another experiment. --Durin 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And if the community shows no consensus that change is needed, why is it being forced down our throats? - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent question Anthony, an excellent question. I'll leave my response at this. --Durin 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would like a response. There is absolutely no sign that the community supports changing the system, yet here we are. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I am not changing the system. I'm experimenting. There's considerable difference. --Durin 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: do you think that quoting the illustrator of Alice in Wonderland re-inforces your point?--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not interested in reinforcing my point. --Durin 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to generate the consensus to do this at all. There is no reason we can't gain consensus on this, unless the current system is actually preferred over any alternatives. While you could argue that the community has trapped itself into a system where what it likes is not was is needed, unilateral tests are not acceptable. RfAs should not be failing or (more importantly) passing based on a system that has not been approved by the community. Some of these systems drastically change the role of the Bureaucrat, and having some RfAs be "easier" and some "harder" to pass is not something that should be done. Design, test, then implement; don't skip the first two steps. Prodego talk 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Every experiment that has been attempted via the method you have suggested has utterly failed to ever make any progress. This is in part because of the community's inability to reach consensus. I recommend you read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", with an eye towards the possibility of RfA reform coming from this community's consensus. The fact that the community can not come to consensus about anything makes this community dysfunctional and incapable of evolution. --Durin 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia we never have settled rules for anything, except in the policy, and we resist expanding that, to avoid instruction creep. If we were to DECIDE to close down some of the RfA options, like 'You must not oppose because of insufficient portal talk edits', that would be a instruction creep, and everyone would resist that. So it's hard to object to what Durin is doing (unless you just plain think it's annoying).  EdJohnston 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is disruptive to the process to make large changes to some, but not all of the RfAs. I want RfA changed. But I do not want candidates able to put forward their RfAs in whatever format they want, which is what this is leading to. Process, though it can be unwieldy if used improperly, is the guide that holds the project together. Please consider that RfA is an important process that shouldn't just be messed with to see what works. Prodego talk 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're making the presumption that these experiments are damaging to the project. They are not. Do not allow yourself to be process bound, especially when consensus is utterly incapable of forming. Please read the essay cited above, "A group is its own worst enemy". RfA can not come to consensus, and it thus can not evolve in any direction. A process that can not do so is inherently broken. --Durin 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, with all due respect, do you not see the problem in your attitude? Tossing out opponents as though they don't understand group dynamics as well as you do, insisting that your experiments are not disruptive when a number of people have fairly explicitly said they find them otherwise, seeing yourself as the one guy with a clear strategy for a better tomorrow when the rest of us are simply process bound, essentially implying you've got some kind of a mandate to shake things up when you're getting as much negative response as positive response (and I'm being generous here). I really, really am not being antagonistic here but I think you might need to walk away from all of this, just for a short while. I believe there's value in what you're trying to do but you're not going to achieve much if you keep being so inflexible about it all. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think you are viewing my efforts in completely the wrong light Pascal. I'm not under any particular tension or stress, and have no need of walking away. I would have thought my sprinkling of humor at different points on this page would have pointed to that, but I guess not. To respond to the rest, you're inferring there is consensus that I should stop. I'm sorry, but I don't see that consensus. You're welcome to start a process to gain that consensus, and I'd be happy to abide by a consensus decision that I should stop, if such a consensus formed. --Durin 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand by everything I said, because it is absolutely factual. A lot of people have said this is disruptive. You flatly say it isn't. When asked to compromise, you say you won't. When asked what your plan is, you post a picture of a cheshire cat. What part of that is untrue? Kafziel Talk 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That would have been me, and I accidentally reverted you Durin. It was not deliberate, and I apologize for not reloading the history before I reverted myself. Prodego talk 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see how anyone would have a problem with that. He is eminently well-qualified and trustworthy. --Guinnog 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please read the top of the poll I created. Prodego talk 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your poll question asks the wrong question. I attempted to include commentary from this poll to that one, and you immediately reverted it. Good grief. --Durin 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, I am sorry, I only meant to revert my edit. You must have edited in the middle, and reverted you as well without realizing it. I reverted that revert :-), it was a mistake. Prodego talk 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Closed this one too, doesn't follow polling guidelines. (What's a consensus poll?) --Kim Bruning 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we were talking about consensus, how to gain consensus, ect, it seemed a suitable name. I don't know why Durin is saying I follow policy too closely. I mean "Polling guidelines"? What polling guidelines?  Prodego talk 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Kim, I guess we had an edit conflict when you closed it and I didn't notice, so I put my 2 cents in. Honestly, when I previewed my post, I just thought, "Oooh, purple. Fancy." :) Kafziel Talk 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like purple too. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WANTED: Guinea pigs 

message: :Hmmm... How about we take a slight break from experimentation? Sure, you're not forcing every RfA candidate to take part but you are forcing every RfA participant to deal with these. It's ok to be bold but at some point, you do have to ask around and ask "mind if I experiment a bit?" Pascal.Tesson 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This goes to a point two people raised, about whether there is permission to do experiments or not. I don't have to have permission. I'm not saying this to be hostile, I'm saying it because the past three years of RfA have demonstrated that this community is incapable of coming to any consensus regarding reform, and it's unlikely that the community will suddenly now agree that experimentation is good. Look at all the rancorous debate that has occurred on this page in the last 72 hours. I'm not going to hold myself hostage to a group that is incapable of forming consensus in any direction. Indeed, that is one the chief problems I am attempting to fix. --Durin 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be a guinea pic if one's really needed. The only problem's that i'm already an admin, haha. I do think we should do these slowly, like 1 up at a time so that RfA can at least still flow.--Wizardman 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't see the experiments as disrupting any flow; any can ignore a given RfA if they like. But, 1 a week is at least at this point pretty much defacto, as Matt's will conclude before I'll have sufficient time to craft another experiment. --Durin 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And if the community shows no consensus that change is needed, why is it being forced down our throats? - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent question Anthony, an excellent question. I'll leave my response at this. --Durin 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would like a response. There is absolutely no sign that the community supports changing the system, yet here we are. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I am not changing the system. I'm experimenting. There's considerable difference. --Durin 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: do you think that quoting the illustrator of Alice in Wonderland re-inforces your point?--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not interested in reinforcing my point. --Durin 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to generate the consensus to do this at all. There is no reason we can't gain consensus on this, unless the current system is actually preferred over any alternatives. While you could argue that the community has trapped itself into a system where what it likes is not was is needed, unilateral tests are not acceptable. RfAs should not be failing or (more importantly) passing based on a system that has not been approved by the community. Some of these systems drastically change the role of the Bureaucrat, and having some RfAs be "easier" and some "harder" to pass is not something that should be done. Design, test, then implement; don't skip the first two steps. Prodego talk 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Every experiment that has been attempted via the method you have suggested has utterly failed to ever make any progress. This is in part because of the community's inability to reach consensus. I recommend you read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", with an eye towards the possibility of RfA reform coming from this community's consensus. The fact that the community can not come to consensus about anything makes this community dysfunctional and incapable of evolution. --Durin 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia we never have settled rules for anything, except in the policy, and we resist expanding that, to avoid instruction creep. If we were to DECIDE to close down some of the RfA options, like 'You must not oppose because of insufficient portal talk edits', that would be a instruction creep, and everyone would resist that. So it's hard to object to what Durin is doing (unless you just plain think it's annoying).  EdJohnston 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is disruptive to the process to make large changes to some, but not all of the RfAs. I want RfA changed. But I do not want candidates able to put forward their RfAs in whatever format they want, which is what this is leading to. Process, though it can be unwieldy if used improperly, is the guide that holds the project together. Please consider that RfA is an important process that shouldn't just be messed with to see what works. Prodego talk 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're making the presumption that these experiments are damaging to the project. They are not. Do not allow yourself to be process bound, especially when consensus is utterly incapable of forming. Please read the essay cited above, "A group is its own worst enemy". RfA can not come to consensus, and it thus can not evolve in any direction. A process that can not do so is inherently broken. --Durin 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, with all due respect, do you not see the problem in your attitude? Tossing out opponents as though they don't understand group dynamics as well as you do, insisting that your experiments are not disruptive when a number of people have fairly explicitly said they find them otherwise, seeing yourself as the one guy with a clear strategy for a better tomorrow when the rest of us are simply process bound, essentially implying you've got some kind of a mandate to shake things up when you're getting as much negative response as positive response (and I'm being generous here). I really, really am not being antagonistic here but I think you might need to walk away from all of this, just for a short while. I believe there's value in what you're trying to do but you're not going to achieve much if you keep being so inflexible about it all. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think you are viewing my efforts in completely the wrong light Pascal. I'm not under any particular tension or stress, and have no need of walking away. I would have thought my sprinkling of humor at different points on this page would have pointed to that, but I guess not. To respond to the rest, you're inferring there is consensus that I should stop. I'm sorry, but I don't see that consensus. You're welcome to start a process to gain that consensus, and I'd be happy to abide by a consensus decision that I should stop, if such a consensus formed. --Durin 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand by everything I said, because it is absolutely factual. A lot of people have said this is disruptive. You flatly say it isn't. When asked to compromise, you say you won't. When asked what your plan is, you post a picture of a cheshire cat. What part of that is untrue? Kafziel Talk 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That would have been me, and I accidentally reverted you Durin. It was not deliberate, and I apologize for not reloading the history before I reverted myself. Prodego talk 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see how anyone would have a problem with that. He is eminently well-qualified and trustworthy. --Guinnog 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on whether to have experiments

message: This poll asks the question, "Should experiments in format be allowed on live RfAs?". A number of experiments before going to RfA have been tried over the last three years without any of them coming to consensus that they should move forward to experimenting on a live RfA. I can provide a rather large number of cites to this effect if anyone questions this. Thus, the question phrased as it is. 
Note: This question does not ask if the results of an experimental RfA is binding. Bureaucrats are charged with and expected to evaluate consensus. If, given an experimental format they can not, it is reasonable to expect they would return the RfA is incapable of evaluating consensus and thus close as such. I note that the Moralis RfA was closed by User:Warofdreams without too much trouble. I expect that there may be considerable difficulty in closing the Matt Britt RfA and if so the bureaucrats should return it as unable to close. 
PS: And yes, I know polls are evil. But, quite a number of people who are opposed to the experiments seem very much in favor of voting, so...
Should experiments in format be allowed on live RfAs?
In responding, please keep your vote short. If you would like to engage in extensive discussion, please use the discussion section below. Thank you. 
Yes
# Support: The experiments are not damaging in any respect to Wikipedia, are not binding on the bureaucrats to close, and are done in cooperation with the nominee, not against their will. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. --Durin 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please read the top of the poll I created. Prodego talk 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your poll question asks the wrong question. I attempted to include commentary from this poll to that one, and you immediately reverted it. Good grief. --Durin 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, I am sorry, I only meant to revert my edit. You must have edited in the middle, and reverted you as well without realizing it. I reverted that revert :-), it was a mistake. Prodego talk 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL: Should experiments in format be allowed on live RfAs?

message: I created this page where we can both !vote and discuss the changes, which will both gain consensus about the changes, and show the relationship between a pure vote and a consensus system. The poll asks if "you support making changes to RfA" and if "you support the way test changes are being conducted". I highly recommend anyone interested answer both questions, and make their arguments on the talk page. Prodego talk 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed this one too, doesn't follow polling guidelines. (What's a consensus poll?) --Kim Bruning 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we were talking about consensus, how to gain consensus, ect, it seemed a suitable name. I don't know why Durin is saying I follow policy too closely. I mean "Polling guidelines"? What polling guidelines?  Prodego talk 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Kim, I guess we had an edit conflict when you closed it and I didn't notice, so I put my 2 cents in. Honestly, when I previewed my post, I just thought, "Oooh, purple. Fancy." :) Kafziel Talk 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like purple too. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Consensus poll]]
 

message: Ironically Polling is not a substitute for discussion is much more lax than Straw polls. Either way, the way folks are trying to do polls on RFA talk utterly ignores either guideline, so I've closed them both. --Kim Bruning 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't. Polls are tools to help gauge consensus, and by no means a substitute for discussion. However, based on the discussion on this page, is there agreement (consensus) to make these changes? If we can't be sure, this is where polling helps us decide. Prodego talk 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there consensus on the content of the poll and on the questions you are asking? --Kim Bruning 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Prodego: I don't think anyone is saying polling is a substitute for discussion. But we've got ten tons of discussion here already. A little poll won't detract from that. Kafziel Talk 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the poll on which we are being asked for a consensus? --Selket Talk 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So ... the next step would be to have a poll on whether to try to establish consensus for the content of a poll to poll whether we can poll for the existence of consensus to experiment with RfA? ;) -- Black Falcon 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be fine, but please establish consensus for the poll before you start it. --Kim Bruning 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling guidelines 

message: I noticed that the wording to the standard RfA questions has been changed. Was there discussion related to that change? Did I miss it in the midst of all the Moralis/Matt Britt talk? Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I think someone was just bold enough to do it. Pascal.Tesson 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone decided that linking to :Category:Administrative backlogs in question 1 was making it too easy to answer.  A candidate for adminship should know independently what sysop chores he/she intends to do.  You can ask User:Majorly about this; I think he could point you to the original discussion. YechielMan 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. It would be pretty dumb if this was really the motivation for the change. I mean, the question isn't meant to be a test. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording change? 

message: Here's an idea to try and reconcile everyone. One of the problems I see with experimenting RfA formats on various guinea pigs is that it's hard to separate the effects of the format from the effects of the candidate. Consequently, we' re bound to end up with experiments which nobody will agree on how to interpret. Eventually, we'd like to have tested 5 or 6 formats and be able to compare their effectiveness but I don't really see how to compare, say, the effectiveness of Moralis' format versus Matt Britt's given that they have such different profiles. I'm also still skeptical that experimenting with "live" RfAs is the best solution. So I'm proposing we find a universal guinea pig: let's take one editor and run RfA's for him under different formats. Now I know that Durin will argue that RfAs which are not meant to be "real" RfAs will generate little or no action but I think that if we actually transclude these experiments on the RfA page (with some little note about its experimental nature) this might turn out ok. In the long run, this could allow a better basis for discussion on how to tweak the process whereas I'm very much convinced that the current string of experiments will only serve to entrench people in their beliefs that this or that format is preferable. Pascal.Tesson 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. I would suggest letting them go one (perhaps two) at a time so the main RFA page doesn't get clogged, it reduces confusion when voting and it doesn't generate comments here on WT:RFA like "OMGZORS WHY IS USER:X UP FOR 6 RFAS?". Obviously it should be a candidate who will receive a few opposes. James086Talk | Email 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, finding that guinea pig will be no cake walk. Ideally it would be someone who will indeed generate a bit of opposition but it should also be someone who's in no rush to become an admin... Pascal.Tesson 12:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pascal is right, we need opposition and neutral commentary to get a good test of the format.  Any reasonable format will handle candidates with an obvious yes or no, the tough decisions are the ones that really test a format.  GRBerry 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig. I never, ever want to be an admin, I am fairly qualified, but I have got some stuff that would probably generate opposition. But I'd only volunteer with the understanding that I would not serve if promoted. ;-) Anchoress 12:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of the preparation, you might want to sprinkle a few incivil comments here and there. :-) All kidding aside, I'd rather have a candidate that actually wants to be an admin. But maybe that's just me. Pascal.Tesson 13:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... but didn't you just say you are looking for someone who's in no rush to become an admin? Make up your fucking mind. ;-) How's that? Anchoress 13:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pascal. It's one thing to (in my opinion) disrupt RfA to test a format. But if the candidate doesn't even want to be an admin, then it's really just disruption to prove a point (the point being that the format can or can't work), without even pretending to have a useful goal. Kafziel Talk 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a little bit sadistic. You're looking for someone who wants to be an admin, who is willing to go through the rigamarole of being a guinea pig, but someone who would generate a fair bit of opposition? So in other words your ideal candidate is someone who wants to be an administrator but may not get to be one? Except that they're also not in a hurry to be an admin. That sounds like a tall order, plus a bit cold, if you don't mind me saying so. Anchoress 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does. That's why I disagree with the whole premise of putting other people's RfAs on the line for the sake of a throw-away test. Kafziel Talk 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I suppose my secret plan to stop the experiments by suggesting we select a guinea pig that doesn't actually exist has now been uncovered. ;-) I could be that guinea pig myself, I have some interest in being an admin although it won't cause me undue stress to go through a few weeks of format experimentation. But (don't know how to say this without sounding really vain) I'm not sure I'd generate enough controversy for this to be useful, although I did get enough opposition to fail my first RfA. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "No ambition, but could use the tools" is probably about right for a test like this; if a user in that situation isn't promoted, it's not really a problem for the user, but it reduces the workload on the other admins. --ais523 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do too shabby last time, perhaps I should resign and run again! Pulls tongue out of cheek. Seriously though, I have a couple people in mind I may email.  We'll see how this discussion goes further first.  Teke 05:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To qualify why that was tongue in cheek, I do believe it was incredible that I didn't get any honest opposition, at least a few opinions.  There were instances in my diffs that I wasn't comfortable with that I expected to be drug out of the murky past.  Nothing major, nothing that would have hindered my RfA in the long run, but anything.  So it was a pile on, and frankly I'm not too proud of that fact.  The consensus to promote I am proud of.  Something I've wanted to get off my chest for awhile, carry on. Teke 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to use me as a guinea pig for any experiments you wish to run.  I have no interest in seeking adminship, and I'm sure my candidacy would engender objections as well as support in the community.  At the same time, I have a fervent interest in seeing the adminship appointment process reformed. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to break the deadlock

message: In an effort to find out which factors are important to people when they give their opinions on requests for adminship, and how important those factors are, I've started a survey at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Factors. It's not a poll, or a vote, it's just a survey to generate some ideas and hopefully, to develop a better understanding of what the community looks for in a candidate.
I've started it off with an initial selection of factors; feel free to add more factors, but try to keep them broadly defined. --bainer (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea in my opinion, I will watch this with interest. Camaron1 | Chris 11:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the questions that were asked in that survey are a little different to this. Camaron1 | Chris 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That was mainly about the performance of existing admins and the mechanics of the operation of this page. This aims to find out more about what's important to the community when assessing a candidate. --bainer (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors survey 

message: This does not seem to be working. How do i see which candidates' edit summay usage? Simply south 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works fine on my computer. · AO Talk 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The toolserver was down I guess, as interiot's tool did not work either. Now both tools are working.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathbot tool