Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Feel free to join the discussion on the future of Requests for adminship process at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Everyone's comments are welcome!

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis

This RfA has been refactored to not have split support/oppose/neutral sections and vote counts have been removed. The refactoring was done with the knowledge and consent of User:Moralis. The intention here is to break away from the obsession with vote counting and focus on discussion and relative merits of the nominee. --Durin 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how this turns out, including if this will become a first step toward a permanent change in RfA. Though, if that happens, the Bureaucrat RfA table will need updating. Camaron1 | Chris 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How bold. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this format become the standard for RfAs. As for the bcrat table, it could be modified to have the total number of comments (single *s) instead of S/O/N. I think the fact that it would be difficult for a bot to accurately parse the page is a feature, not a bug. ;) ChazBeckett 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage. If people don't want to vote count, don't look at the numbers. If they do want to vote count this system does not stop them, nothing short of secret ballot would(which is not going to happen). All this does is make it more cluttered and harder to determine how it is going. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD has worked off this system for years. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with trying to hide information from people. Editors will vote/comment in whatever way they want to, by counting votes, or looking at article contribs, or counter-vandalism efforts, or whatever takes their fancy. We should just present the information and let people decide. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that editors will comment however they wish, but how is information being hidden in this format? It's true that the raw vote counts are more difficult to determine, but all the information is on the page. Overall it's still easy to get a rough idea of how the RfA is progressing. ChazBeckett 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of what you're focussing on. The opinion counts are slightly harder to find, but the temporal progression of the discussion is easier to grasp. The latter is actually easier when you're working on building a consensus (but harder for the closing bureaucrat). It's merely a different tradeoff. --Kim Bruning 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) AFD also a lot larger range of responses that people give (e.g. delete, keep, rename, merge, ...). I tend to agree with HighInBC, if refactoring just means mixing the sections together and using * instead of #, while still using bolded opinions, then I think it is a net disadvantage. It obfusticates the RFA while not really changing anything about the process. Sort of how writing "!vote" can make people feel better but isn't really changing anything about the nature of RFA. I'd be more curious to see a more radical refactoring tried though, such as the RFC style suggestion or something with a non-voting discussion period. Dragons flight 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a yes/no question like promotion to admin is. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)\

• RfA is NOT a yes/no question. If you want that, then implement the German solution which is strictly voting 66% pass. RfA is NOT a vote. It is a consensus building mechanism. --Durin 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If RfA is not a Yes/No question, then what is the third alternative? In an AfD you may wish to support deletion, keeping, merging, redirect, keeping under condition of certain action, close due to bad faith nom...... it goes on. But an RfA is either promote or not promote, what other options exist? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD conversations generally get 5-10 votes on average. RfAs can easily get 50.--Wizardman 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC: You mean RFA is simpler than AFD? Ok, so why is AFD handled by admins and the occaisional normal user, and what is this extra trusted bureaucrat position needed for on RFA then? :-) --Kim Bruning 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then make closing AFDs a bureaucrat-only duty. At least that way, we get rid of the "we don't need more bureaucrats" problem... :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Making it harder to determine how it is going is part of the point. This format encourages people to *read* what is being said, rather than just lock stepping with the votes. And you know what? This is how it used to be done, before User:Ed Poor came along and started adding tallies back in February of 2004, without any discussion with the community as to whether this was a nice direction to go. So its been changed for a single RfA, rather than all of RfA. How radical! :) RfA is NOT a yes/no question. It's a consensus building mechanism. If you want a yes/no RfA system, then implement the German solution, which is a yes/no system strictly enforced on 66% support votes with no bureaucrat evaluation of consensus. We've been trying to cut this both ways for too long, and the human tendency is to glare at the votes and stick to that rather than what RfA is supposed to be; a consensus building mechanism. --Durin 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of the philosophy of forcing people to make their decisions a certain way by arranging a discussion differently. I look at the count, I don't use it as my sole indicator, but it is a valid start point. I like to to read the opposes before I support, and read the supports before I oppose. Jumbling them all together for the purposes of forcing someone to go through them in a random order seems counterproductive. I want to read one type of comment first, then another, I don't think that is a bad thing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to read the opposes first, you can do that. If you want to read the supports, you can do that too. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. This IS a consensus building mechanism, and any dressings of it being a vote are antithetical to the process. --Durin 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By random I think you actually meant chronological. Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By random I mean dispersed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We should junk the robot table. It gives people entirely the wrong idea about the nature of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! --Durin 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit information in that way, after all the information is there to be had, so why should we not organize it for those who wish to see it? There is no claim on the table that "These numbers represent consensus". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Data on how many support, oppose and neutral votes there are in a given RfA is not information. It's useless to the purpose of determining consensus. --Durin 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Nor do they. Which calls into very serious question what possible relevance they could have. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. If for nothing else, because it turns red when a nomination is due to be closed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also used to detect duplicates !votes. Something that is very hard to do with this jumbled configuration where comments and !votes are all mixed together with no numbering system. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Then re-write the bots to go through edit histories, not screen-scrape. --Durin 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the bot and table are not to much of an issue in the long run, the bot could be edited for the new system if it became permanent. Camaron1 | Chris 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since they aren't votes (which is what the "!" in "!votes" means, it doesn't matter how many times someone comments. It's easy enough to write some code that turns a funny color when the time approaches a deadline. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was just about to say the same thing :) --Durin 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Those of you stepping up to oppose this need to consider that THIS IS HOW RFA USED TO RUN, and it managed to promote a rather large number of admins without causing harm to the project. Stop being addicted to process and look at goals of the project. --Durin 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The way you organise something affects the way it is used. Organising it in Support/Oppose/Neutral categories tended to make us treat it like a vote, even those of us who didn't think of it that way. It isn't so we shouldn't organise it as if it were. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely agreed. --Durin 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, how things were done 3 years ago when a large RFA might get to 20 comments is not really a good basis for judging what will be effective today. Of course, then I continue to believe that a democratic process accepting of votes is the only practical way to manage a process that has the size and level of participation that RFA has now. In my opinion, the continued rejection of democratic principles in favor of a feel good but but hard to understand "consensus" process actually creates more tension and conflict in the community than it is worth. Even if "consensus" decisions are objectively better decisions than ones reached by vote counting, I feel the conflicts created whenever peoples' opinions are "ignored" are more destructive than the marginal gains to be had by improving the selection of admins through "consensus". Dragons flight 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fine. Then implement the German solution and make it a strict vote. This charade that it's a consensus has gone on long enough, wouldn't you say? :) --Durin 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• You're begging the question. RfA doesn't exist for its own sake, and it certainly doesn't exist for the sake of the participants. If RfA isn't serving the needs of the project then it should be killed with fire and replaced by a process that does. We got ourselves into this mess by allowing the development of a process that runs counter to our core principles but we owe no fealty to this false idol. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  I'm happy to restructure the process, except the false idol I'd remove is the misplaced fealty to "consensus". We've grown too big for the concept to serve us well here. A real consensus, such as we hopefully achieve on many talk pages, is a back and forth discussion between many engaged parties. RFA ceased to have any resemblance to that long ago and in my opinion the continued pretense that we ever reach consensus here is harmful to the community. I wouldn't go totally German, because I think the inline discussion is useful, but I would restrict who passed or not to a straight 2/3 vote. Dragons flight 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The german solution sucks, according to an ex-steward friend of mine :-P .

Anyway, If you want to follow the will of the community, from most accurate to least accurate:

1. Read their minds (Difficulty: yeah, right, we are not borg!) (accuracy: perfect)
2. Find a negotiated consensus (Difficulty: takes time) (accuracy: pretty close)
3. Condorcet optimum (Difficulty: hard to understand) (accuracy: not bad)
4. First past the post (difficulty: easy) (accuracy: should be taken out and shot)

Since we're building an encyclopedia, we don't have to worry about time aspects, so consensus seems like the best choice in this case. It is an objective measure, have no doubt. As to how it works? That's for a different article. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping in to say that I fully approve of this method of organizing RFA discussions. Definitely a net positive; none of the objections I've seen raised above seem to me to have any real merit. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but I'm curious what the crats think. They're the ones who will have to sort through that jumble to try to make sense of it. And if you think they get second-guessed now, just wait until they don't even have any clear percentages to lean on. It's one thing to do it that way on AfD, where an article improperly kept can be deleted and an article improperly deleted can be restored. RfA doesn't have anything like WP:DRV, so without a percentage the bureaucrats are going to have to spend more time explaining their decisions. Kafziel ^Talk 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• However, an RfA promotion isn't a bad one until the administrator goes berserk. When that happens how they got promoted is moot, and we have ways to deal with the problem. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of the unsuccessful ones. We don't have a community-moderated appeals process for RfA like we do with AfD. At least, not that I know of. Kafziel ^Talk 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, a bureaucrat's decision is final until someone runs again. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that if we don't like the result of an RFA we have to live with it. This isn't a big deal. Dispute resolution can and does flip bits where this is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the RfA itself, I find the whole experiment unconvincing. The noble idea of having something that doesn't look like a vote has some value but then removing the tally and removing the numbering would have the same effect. However, the chronological order makes it harder to parse the debate and that's not because, as Durin seems to imply, I'm too lazy to read the whole thing. In any debate, it makes sense to group opinions that are similar in spirit. Of course, we could do this by not only grouping the opposes but also grouping the opposes that are primarily concerned with lack of experience, those that are concerned with civility issues, etc. Pascal.Tesson 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable suggestion and has been made at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform#Proposal_by_Picaroon. --Durin 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA consensus involves both (i) a clear agreement among those participating in the RfA and (ii) how we go about getting that agreement. Guide to requests for adminship states, "In general, candidates with over 80% support are likely to succeed, and it is unusual for those below 75% to succeed, but all cases are weighed on their merits." Rough consensus states "Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough." To deny that there is a percentage element to the consensus agreement goes against the meaning of consensus. As for how we go about getting the RfA agreement, I could not find the process that says RfA is a consensus building mechanism. If someone has that diff, please post. Also, what does it mean to have a consensus building mechanism? Is the consensus supposed to be built over time? The Moralis RfA arrangement was refactored to list the support, oppose, and neutral !vote positions chronologically. Should posts later in time have more weight because they take into account the existing posts by having read what was said through the new Moralis RfA arrangement? I agree that RfAs should avoid polarization and the marginalizing opposition. However, since the outcome of an RfA is polarized in that the outcome is either successful RfA or unsuccessful RfA, how do we avoid this win/lose !vote dichotomy in favor of an RfA compromise or other potential consensus solution? Reality is that RfA consensus is not some sort of zeitgeist conclusion free of structure or process. RfA consensus is a decision process where opinions may be supported by reasoning laced with evidence and where a go/no go decision is made at the end of the process. Using Support/Oppose/Neutral categories helps those involved in the process treat the process as though the outcome will be either a successful RfA or an unsuccessful RfA. The Moralis RfA arrangement does not do this as good as the Support/Oppose/Neutral categories. -- Jreferee 01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Referring to Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship as gospel is fraught with problems. I initiated that page, and have watched it evolve. It is still badly broken. I will note that you say you haven't seen a diff indicating that RfA is a consensus building mechanism. Yet, Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship mentions consensus in several places. Why would it mention that if it were not a consensus building mechanism? Later posts should influence people. The idea is a discussion evolves whereby a group comes to an agreement. Understand; consensus is NOT a vote. Anyone holding the idea that consensus is gained via a vote needs to divorce themselves from that idea. Consensus can NEVER be defined by percentages of a vote. RfA has maintained a charade for a long time now that it is a consensus building mechanism. In reality, it's pure voting system, and the bureaucrats have as a group lockstepped with this idea as shown by results of the RfAs done by User:Majorly. Rarely have bureaucrats exercised any discretion. People here are mad because Moralis' RfA isn't much like a vote anymore, and it's a very hard shove in the direction of consensus. We can't have it both ways. Either RfA really *IS* a consensus building mechanism, or it's a vote. A hybrid system can not work, by definition. --Durin 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I'm starting to see what you are getting at. RfA is not a true consensus - the outcome is either successful RfA or unsuccessful RfA and compromise or other potential consensus solutions are not available. The RfA category arrangement may result in polarization and/or the marginalizing opposition. Of course, Wikipedia:Notability is not notability (importance/fame) as that term is commonly used, but that is for another discussion. As for "consensus building mechanism", Wikipedia:Consensus states "Wikipedia works by building consensus." It is odd that AfD and RfA both are to meet Wikipedia:Consensus policy and one uses a chronological arrangement and the other uses a category arrangement. Perhaps comparing the Daniel Brandt AfD#13 with the Danny RfA as to which came closer to meeting Wikipedia:Consensus would be a good discussion. -- Jreferee 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a proposal recently that suggested allowing only discussion for the first 2-3 days of an RfA, and allowing normal !voting after that preliminary period. I think that would be an effective experiment with someone's RfA as well. Like HighInBC, I like to see the oppose rationales separated from the support rationales. Support votes tend to have little explanation beyond expressions of agreement with the nomination, but oppose votes are often quite substantial, and well-reasoned oppose votes often result in the failure of an adminship request. If they are lost in the middle of a sea of support votes and fail to garner more attention, I worry that this setup will cause problems that were not evident when there were far fewer votes to read. Dekimasuよ! 04:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just remembering... the last time someone did this change, he got many oppose opinions about WP:POINT. It is a good way to prevent having a RFA closed due snowfall, as most are lazy to count the opinions. By the way, Tony did !vote for or against? ;-) -- ReyBrujo 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just inserting my strenuous objections here. I have no love for numbers, but the current format is so much more difficult to comprehend substantively. Trying to follow all the arguments at once is head-ache inducing. This change converts RfA into AfD -- what a disaster! When I come to a big AfD to close it, I expect to have my head spinning. If RfA follows that road, expect people to pay less attention to what others say, and worry more about making their own voices heard through endless sub-commenting. I pity the poor b'crats who will have to solve this mess! And this RfA is for a "non-controversial" candidate. Sheesh. If Danny's had been run this way, we seriously might have reached a MB of text. Xoloz 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revert back to the standard form. Having RFAs in this manner makes it extremely difficult to read, not to mention a huge waste of our time. We should be be evaluating some of the concers raised by the community (read 'opposes') filtered by the oppose section to determine suitability. I strongly disagree with the format which is intended to mask some valid opposes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Intended to mask some valid opposes"? Please assume good faith. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed! NOTHING about this is intended to mask opposes. Good grief! --Durin 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NichalP, I strongly urge you to retract your claim. This format is certainly not intended to mask opposes; your suggestion that was intended to do so is offensive and quite unbecoming of you. What it does certainly do is make it difficult to casually inspect the RfA and tell if it's passing or failing by the numerical rule for pseudoconsensus that has been so popular at RfA for so long. Many of us consider that a good thing. You can readily find the concerns raised by the community by reading the RfA. Please do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed to hear a remark like that coming from a bureaucrat. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone with the 'mask' thing. I don't see the outcome of this modified RFA being any different from a standard RFA other than making a promotion a more subjective. And yes, I have read the RFA, the discussion here as well as an ofshoot on WP:BN. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I second NichalP was a resounding huzzah. Whatever the intent, opposition is "masked." Hence, "reason" is masked -- all semblence of a discussion is masked. It has become a disorganized jumble of voices, and it is very, very hard to tell who is talking to whom about what. Darn near incomprehensible. I guess saying, "Bureaucrat, decide on the basis of the evidence 'jumble of text 3000 lines long' is the dream of some of the more oligarchic b'crats: Call it promoting by impressionism! The proposed format, though, is a defeat for everyone who isn't a discordian or b'cratic totalitarian. Xoloz 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cool! I guess I'm a discordian and/or bureaucratic totalitarian. I'll take fascist for $300, Alex. --Durin 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You're not these things for your suggesting it, no -- but, if you like the result we'll gotten in the Moralis RfA, you're either a discordian, or... something else I can't describe, because that RfA makes no sense to me at all. It is like we are speaking different tongues.Xoloz 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Noting what I said before, the possible outcomes of this format change are NOT restricted to "it's a bad format" or "it's a good format". Yes, I most emphatically like the outcome of the Moralis RfA format change. So, I guess I'm a fascist then. --Durin 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This borders on the ridiculous now. The implication that a bureaucrat cannot or refuses to do at RfA what administrators do every day at AfD beggars belief. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference is that RfA is about articles, grounded in objectively verifiable facts. When you deal with people (the candidates), if you make judgments using that system, you'll end up with a process unfair to the person, and result that doesn't correlate to their merit. Xoloz 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Whether the articles are objectively grounded in facts is beside the point. AfD determines whether those articles themselves are grounded in policy, and policy interpretation is not an objective process. If it was, we could dismantle AfD and DRV immediately. Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But there is nothing objectively verifiable about a candidate -- there are no sources to consult, so debate would meander forever unless you stick to something like the old format. Xoloz 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Except that there are sources. You have their edit history. You have their interactions with other users. You have every single edit they've ever made on Wikipedia. If you cannot judge from the totality of someone's contributions whether they're trustworthy or not then you probably shouldn't comment on them. Mackensen (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Marvelous. If you choose to look at that way, then you have as many sources as the editor has edits. Thousands of tiny edits. That certainly won't help to clarify discussion, will it? Hundreds of people, debating semantic minutiae over an evidence base that expansive still results in chaos. When it comes to human beings, it is important to keep the discussion ordered. Whether you believe it is because there are no reliable sources, or because there are too many, the central point is that there is too much to discuss, if the forum is left to open free-wheeling discourse. If people debate the candidates in the same manner that we now do articles, hostility increases, and clarity declines. Xoloz 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • You are creating a problem that doesn't exist. An editor should proffer an opinion based on the sum of those edits, otherwise he's not offering an opinion about the candidate, but rather about a sub-section of the candidate's edits. At the extreme of this you have someone who offers an opinion based on how many edits an editor has. Certainly if we can narrow our discussion to whether X has N edits in Y namespace, the epistemological uncertainty which you evidently fear evaporates. Mackensen (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Wait a sec. Sometimes, commenters do rightly point to one or two particularly terrible edits as a negative indicator; other times, they do as you suggest. The (increased) "epistemological uncertainty" in the new format stems not from the manner in which commenters make their individual choices, but in the way those choices intertwine. The new stem promotes a thousand voices, talking among each other, at once. The old allowed each of those voices their own space, making it clear who was making what point, and how strongly. Conversation among commenters was limited by convention; and if it took place, its presence was less visually disruptive. It is the visual flood of so many simultaneous voices that makes the new format nearly impossible for me to decipher. I know what I said; but, it becomes terribly difficult to follow what anyone else has said. Xoloz 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to both Durin and Mackensen, thanks for trying to oversimplify real objections into straw-men that you dispose of pithy quips. How uncommon a rhetorical strategy that is here these days. Xoloz 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thinly veiled contributions aimed at calling people fascists is an uncommon rhetorical strategy too. Interesting that you should use it, then attack me for using straw men. --Durin 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting that read words into my comment I never wrote -- look at it again. Xoloz 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You did say "everyone who isn't a discordian or b'cratic totalitarian". Fascists are totalitarians. If you don't want people to assume you mean totalitarians, perhaps you shouldn't accuse people of being totalitarians and then yell at them for making straw-men. *Sigh*. --Durin 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • By "b'cratic totalitarians", I mean those people who would like the judgment of the b'crats to control RfA, without reference to any community input. I am sorry for the confusion. Since you know that I like you, I had assumed you would not infer a comparison to Hitler. My mistake. Nevertheless, see my comment to Mack. below. Outside of those two groups (hell, I actually *like* discordians, even if they are a bit odd), I *still* don't know how any reasonable person can think that Moralis' RfA turned out well. Please explain to me why you think the result is a good one. Xoloz 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • On totalitarian/fascist; thanks for the clarification. For the record, I don't care who likes me or doesn't like me. As a result, I tend to forget who would generally snipe at me and who would not. The limitations of text based communication can make that problematic.
        • Look at the discussion that has been generated here on this talk page. This is one of the outcomes of the format change on Moralis' RfA. Another is the fact that his RfA now has more than 70 contributors, which is shocking given his <1000 edit count. Normally, this would have been delisted in rapid fashion. Instead, the candidate is actually being discussed. It's not as much discussion as I'd like to see, but something very interesting is happening on that RfA. These are just two of the unusual outcomes. There's more. Just saying "it's bad" or "it's good" is a vary tightly defined array of ways in which to view this format change. There's plenty of gems to be garnered from it. Plenty. --Durin 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

garnered from it. Plenty. --Durin 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I agree there is a lot to gained from it, in the sense that one can gain knowledge from a failed experiment. It seems to me, however, to 1)destroy any sense of continuity to the discussionm leaving it especially difficult to follow arguments. 2)Leave the poor candidate in a lurch, without a centralized location from which to respond to objectors (if he can even find them. 3) Leave the community and b'crats in a haze, without a real sense of what points were left met or unmet in discussion. This is aside from the fact that I think involving 70 commenters in the discussion of a "non-controversial" candidate is a big waste of time and energy. These decisions should be quick and clear, shouldn't they? If we start drawing 70 opinions to these, we'll get 8000 in a hotly-debated one. So yes, I'm glad we experimented, glad we learned. I just hope you'll agree that doing it this way on a regular is basis would be a recipe for confusion, unfairness, and time wasting. That's what I meant earlier when I said that it is result here -- not the suggestion -- that I so strongly dislike. Xoloz 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• After the thousands upon thousands of words I've written on the subject of RfA in the last week I'm amazed that you could make a statement like that. I have no idea to what man of straw you refer, and I kindly suggest you re-think your own statement that Durin was either a discordian or in favor of bureaucratic totalitarianism. By your own admission, you made that statement because you couldn't understand the discussion at the current RfA. Who's being dismissive? Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I never called Durin anything, and I left open the possibility of his being something else. My point is that the only people I can imagine finding merit in the pile of confusion that is Moralis RfA are either discordians or b'cratic totalitarians. There may be other positions, but I don't know them yet. Please explain how a reasonable person can think Moralis' RfA (as it has turned out, not as a theory) makes any sense, because I sincerely do not grasp it. Xoloz 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • e/c I disagree with the comparison. An AFD, if sucessfully kept, can always be nominated again. An AFD which is deleted can always be put up for review and recreated by any of the thousand odd admins. In the case of an RFA, we are dealing with people, not inanimate objects, and giving a person the power to delete, block and much more. If this power needs to be revoked, a long red-tape process needs to be undergone. The aptitude required for judging consensus is much higher. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Which is why we are far more selective in promoting bureaucrats. You're installed for your judgement and wisdom. Furthermore, we're not asking you (yet, anyway) to remove abusive administrators. If an administrator is truly abusive and out of control a quiet word to a steward works wonders. In more marginal cases the Arbitration Committee has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it is prepared to rule on the acceptable limits of administrator behavior (I do hope bureaucrats are watching those cases) and de-sysopping when appropriate. Are you telling me that you can't read a threaded discussion and determine whether there's consensus to promote or not promote? Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    Very interesting. You attribute things to me which I haven't said. I have made no such statement that I will refuse to determine consensus. Using this threaded discussion would mean a more subjective outcome by bureaucrats, not to mention more controversial closings. Have you asked the community if they are prepared for it? Secondly, my reply to you above was to point out a flawed reasoning in your comparison between AFD and RFA, nothing as such in our capacity as bureaucrats. I suggest we stick to the topic on whether this new threaded discussion is really beneficial in determining "consensus" instead of going off topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    • • Of course we haven't asked the community. The community is now singularly incapable of agreeing to significant change. There are times when you have to kick the lemonade stand over. There's another RfA around the corner that's going to kick it over again. Nobody has to get approval to do this. Let's keep in mind that the inclusion of tallies on RfAs was done by a single user, without any community input. That change was done to ALL rfas back in February of 2004. This has affected a single RfA. What a radical change this is! --Durin 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

      You didn't say it but you implied it when you asked that the request be reformatted and complained about the present formatting. I apologize for interpreting that as an unwillingness on your part to handle such a request; if you're willing to do so then your request is moot. That the community is willingly participating in this RfA should be answer enough to your query. I think I've addressed the merits of the comparison between AfD and RfA in my responses to Xoloz; I brought up bureaucrats to point out that any increased complexity in RfA justifies the appointment of someone with greater judgement. As Durin has noted elsewhere, the very fact that this RfA, in this format, has generated vastly more discussion than an old-style RfA would have suggests that the community has thought a good deal harder about this candidate than they might have otherwise. Consensus should be determined from as a broad a base as possible. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    • I'll take that loaded question for NichalP-- I couldn't, and I'm fairly bright. That mess of an RfA is so very disorganized, I am still at loss to discover how anyone makes any sense of it. Xoloz 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Nothing loaded about it; I think the meaning is plain (and yes it's for Nichalp). There's one for you above. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Happy to answer it, if I could find it! :) Xoloz 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Solving or not solving problems

I realize that this is only one data point, but so far I must say I can't see that the mixing of support and oppose comments has made people discuss more and vote less. In fact, the individual oppose opinions stand out less, and do not receive all that much discussion. I also do not see how this format has anything to do with the problem that we do not promote enough admins per week, or indeed which problem of RfA it tries to solve (other than ideological "voting is evil" stuff). Kusma (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Kusma, fully agreed. I've long said that we have to analyze this situation rather than taking shots in the dark. Moralis' RfA is a shot in the dark. But, I preached long and hard about analyzing things, and few listened or cared. So, I started a page at User:Durin/What is wrong with RfA which has seen disappointingly low traffic. I figured, what the heck? Let's take a shot in the dark. At least we'll see how bad or good it is. If nothing else, we can say this has kick started the discussion. --Durin 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

nostalgia trips

<nostalgia>This is how I got promoted to admin too</nostalgia> --Kim Bruning 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So if the refactored approach was adopted, and we experience WP:100 on a regular basis these days, does that mean we would need more 'crats because their job of promoting potential candidates would require a lot more work? The Rambling Man 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Unless until now all the bureaucrats have been doing is looking at the counts and promoting accordingly. In which case we're in deeper shit than I thought. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• The recent track record seems to suggest bureaucrats have, for the most part, been looking strictly at numbers. --Durin 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry, your RfA didn't succeed because support was only 50%" goes down a lot easier than "Sorry, your RfA didn't succeed because I found your supporters unconvincing." You can't argue with numbers, but without them people are going to want more detail on why they failed. So crats will either need to spend more time giving in-depth explanations, or we'll start seeing requests for some sort of appeals process in the near future. Which will mean another separate page of endless reviews, and more crats to close those discussions. Hooray bureaucracy! ;) Kafziel ^Talk 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ah! Hey great then, let's go to a strict voting based system. Can't overload the bureaucrats. :) --Durin 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. Very few of the free world's government officials are elected by consensus, and somehow we've managed thus far. But I'd also be okay with leaving it the way it is (shooting for consensus, but having numbers to support the decisions) and I'd also be okay with having some more bureaucrats to deal with the additional red tape that will come with an appeals process. I'm flexible. Kafziel ^Talk 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a strict vote, too. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that the encyclopedia will benefit from this change? Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do. Haukur 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, that's the only reason for me to state that opinion. You may want to read my proposal at /Reform#Proposal by Kncyu38. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How and why? --Kim Bruning 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

?? Well, read my proposal. It's a proposal, you're most welcome to comment on it. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Kafziel, but the desire for (some level of) predictability can still be accommodated within a more flexible system. You just need a principled method for deciding when to depart from a standard or garden weight-of-numbers analysis. I've suggested here, for example, that in the context of AfDs, weight of arguments grounded in policies like BLP or NPOV can often displace weight of numbers. It's a little tougher to apply that idea to RfA, but we could easily develop a handful of broad principles that would act in the same way to give more or less weight to arguments. --bainer (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of a criteria-based approach to adminship would be that we could edit wardiscuss about these criteria in general, instead of punishing individual candidates who don't meet disputed criteria. The disadvantage is that some problems are hard to quantify as "criteria": Some editors try to please everyone and pass all "criteria", but partly for that reason won't make good admins... Kusma (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuck, a horrible format that is unfriendly to the casual participant. (Yes, I know we use this format for AFD, but those are normally a lot shorter discussions and have too many options for the RfA format to work on the long ones.) This format makes it harder to find the important parts of the discussion, discouraging participation. GRBerry 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The next step

The next step is to ween editors off these pseudo-vote tags such as support. Whether you support or oppose isn't as important as your rationale. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd thought of that too and toyed with removing support and the like from people's comments. But, I felt if I did I'd be lynched :) --Durin 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Deeper shit than I thought indeed. Perhaps the 'crats could be encouraged to make comment on their rationale for using the community rationale? Or is it easier to divide oppose by support+oppose and if the answer is around 75% then job done? The Rambling Man 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to steer away from changing other users' comments with the possible exception of removing blatant personal attacks or WP:BLP violations. -- Black Falcon 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Baby steps, Tony! Let's see how this current raft of changes pans out. I'll be particularly interested in seeing the bureaucrats' response to this and how it impacts on the closing process. --bainer (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Until this is done at XfD, it is way, way premature to do it here. -Amarkov moo! 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• At first I really disliked removing tallies, etc, but the more I think about it, I like it. Why not just ban people beginning their sentences with Support and Oppose and so on and so forth? Moralis RfA is a really good example of how it should be done, although it could do with being a bit neater. Of all the proposals to 'fix' RfA, this seems the simplest and the best. User:Veesicle 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ban? On what grounds? Do we really want to start down the path where we create policies or guidelines that dictate how editors can or cannot write their comments? We have policies that discourage or ban certain harmful behaviours, but hos is starting a comment with "support" or "oppose" on the same level (in terms of harmfulness to the project) as personal attacks and legal threats? -- Black Falcon 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• In other news, I've decided to move out of my modern home into a cave. The next step will be weaning myself off the use of fire. Everyking 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I'm sure before long someone will have figured out how to demonstrate that there is a consensus that you don't need fire. Dragons flight 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    1. Oppose, user has not demonstrated a need for fire. --Slowking Man 09:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support... I mean, rather, I think that this is a good idea. Ideally I'd like people to give their reasons for and against any particular candidate but perhaps that is too much candor to expect... Kat Walsh (spill your mind?)
• Strong oppose. But seriously, I think this is a bad idea and one that will be met coolly. We're not really going to disallow anyone from saying "I fully support this editor" are we? If we do and somehow determine that you can only say something on RfA if it contains a minimum of 4 coherent sentences and both arguments for and against a candidate, we're going to be drowning in confusion. Pascal.Tesson 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, we're going to remove the tally counters, mix up the support, oppose and neutral sections and deny contributors the ability to say either of those three words in their contributions? That would make each application an impenetrable mass of opinions that Bureaucrats would have to wade through in order to analyse and determine consensus. Not only the Bureaucrat, but each interested contributor and the applicant would also have to perform their own analyses in order to see that due process was carried out and that the consensus was correctly determined. I think that this would vastly over-complicate the system. Have people looked at long XfD discussions, which do appear in this format, and attempted to determine the balance of opinion and to see if one contributor has made a particularly compelling argument? It's a hard thing to do and opinionated contributors are always ready to call out the closer of such an XfD if the decision runs counter to their wishes. I feel that a reform that increases the signal-to-noise ratio on RfAs would be a step backwards. A Bureaucrat doesn't have to rely upon the tallies and clear divisions of the RfA/ RfB templates when closing and determining consensus but they are useful to show the trend of the discussions and any discrepancies between the final tallies and decision. (aeropagitica) 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And because of this "reform," should the 75-80% benchmark be discarded as pointless, since you need to calculate for that? This will invite promotions that previously would have failed miserably. This "reform" is idealism (RfA ≠ vote) going against practicality and reality (RfA = ambiguous mix between discussion and vote). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the next step is to ween editors off the mindset that "voting is evil" and onto the mindset that "voting is necessary in order to measure consensus of large groups of people in finite time". Since RfA discussions are finite time discussions, voting is necessary. GRBerry 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since when does voting measure consensus? --Iamunknown 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Current attempt at RFA reform

I have reverted User:Thebainer's removal of the tallies from individual RFAs. I have not reverted the same action at Template:RfA. I don't care one way or another about the tally, but don't think already open RFAs should be modified.

On a similar note, I'd like to express my ambivalence about the fact that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis was refactored in the middle of the discussion. I also do not find the current format to be very reader-friendly (lack of separation between "S", "O", and "N" sections). Images of RFAs looking like this are not exactly reassuring.

I have written similar comments at User talk:Thebainer, but am posting these comments here so that the discussion may be centralised. -- Black Falcon 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moralis's RfA is already being discussed in the thread above. A question: do you find it easier to form an opinion about a candidate based on how many people have already supported or opposed? That's what you seem to be suggesting. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this was a test formatted RFA, shouldn't there be a banner saying that this was a test formatted RFA? Real96 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see the existing discussion on my talk page as Black Falcon points out. The key reason why the tallies at the top are a bad idea is that, as the first thing anyone sees when they come to an RfA, they will undoubtedly have a psychological impact on that person when they come to voice their opinion, conscious or no. It's prejudicial to have the numbers up top - people should be exposed to the nomination and the questions first, and then the opinions people have expressed, at which point they can count for themselves if they find that useful for them; they shouldn't come to the debate with the numbers already in their head. Not to mention possible peer pressure effects.

It seems that the overall response has been positive so far, I haven't noticed anyone who disagrees with the idea per se (as opposed to the method) so if there's no more disagreement I don't see why we can't do this for all RfAs. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading your comment, I just had the admittedly bold idea to abolish voting and commenting in the RfA page altogether. The page could be reserved for the nomination only, while voting comments would be sent to an e-mail address and viewable only for bureaucrats. The normal thing should be to promote, unless convincing reasons are provided not to. Promotion would then follow (or not) at a b'crat's discretion (or two or more b'crats, if there are many responses), with a statement of the main concerns registered (if any) and on the decision being forwarded to the RfA page for everyone. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly disagree with anonymous commenting. Issues can and do come up that would immediately disqualify people from adminship in the eyes of many, but if these are somewhat hidden and aren't made public, then most voters will continue to remain ignorant of them. The discussion, at least, must always remain in the public eye and under public scrutiny. --Cyde Weys 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I disagree with the idea, in the strongest possible terms. Everyking 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't. In fact, I agree with it. --Iamunknown 05:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a very good idea to remove those sections. Moralis's RFA is a step forward. >Radiant< 08:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly disagree. The page is currently a mess, and makes it absolutely impossible for crats to decide one way or the other. Errabee 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the crats should be the judge of what they can make a decision on? >Radiant< 09:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm absolutely sure some crats would love it this way. No public scrutiny possible whatsoever, and if some form of protest arises (Carnildo comes to mind), one can always hide behind this poor structure. Definitely opposed to this experiment. Errabee 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Part of the motivation behind the proposal was to mess up the sections which made it easy to sort the supporters from the opposers, and thereby de-emphasize the support/oppose counts during the discussion. I am still in favor of letting the numerics count for something at the final close, but I don't think they should be so prominent during the course of the discussion. I don't think the RFA is any more messy than an AFD debate, although it is considerably longer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, putting the question of the sections aside for the minute, is there anyone else who has a problem with removing the tallies from the top of each RfA? The reasons for doing so are outlined earlier in this thread. --bainer (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I find that absolutely reasonable. Public scrutiny doesn't require it. Just to make my position clear. Errabee 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ironically, and just like the last time something like this was tried, the guy is now getting opposed because people don't like the change in system. >Radiant< 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Which any bureaucrat worth his salt will rightfully ignore (don't shoot the messenger). Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope not. The fact that Moralis consented to this experiment tells about his lack of foresight of the consequences of his actions, as everyone with some common sense could see that this experiment would turn the process into a right mess. Errabee 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Really? That's the platform in your RFB, which appears not to be finding consensus. In that case the bureaucrats have no mandate for ignoring what (per consensus) are valid votes. To clarify: I opposed in good part because the user clearly didn't understand that accepting was poking the ants' nest. I also don't like the formatting, but that was not the main reason for the oppose. There are several procedural reasons for opposing an RFA: Too soon after last RFA, failed to answer questions, poor answers to questions, badgers respondants, no acceptance etc. I see an oppose on the basis of the candidate's extremely unusual selection of formatting as being no different than these.AKAF 11:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • "Badgers respondants?" If you raise a point in an RfA you should be prepared to discuss it. RfA is a discussion, not a vote. Even when the totals are included it still says right at the top "Discussion." Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll leave the question of consensus to the bureaucrats–that's why they were appointed in the first place. However, we're talking about Moralis's RfA, not my RfB, and as several users have told you (including me) it's downright unfair to Moralis to conflate the two. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the reasons above are valid, just that if you look at other RFAs, you'll find opposers who use those reasons. I think that it's not unreasonable to expect Moralis to understand the effect of making this sort of proposal in his RFA, when he has the opportunity of observing the effect of you making a (different) proposal in your RFB on the same page.

As to "Badgers respondants", I think that there's a difference between a discussion and badgering which each editor can decide for himself. There's a limited amount of discussion that can take place in an RFA without it becoming repetitive, and everybody has their own line which they'll draw. The extreme end are of course editors who can't let anyone else get in the last word, and some people don't want them to be admins.AKAF 11:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate or irrelevant reasons for opposing may be ignored by the bureaucrats (see, for instance the Danny RFA). --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely rare for a vote based on one of the list above to be ignored as inappropriate or irrelevant. While it's true, as you say that the official lattitute of the bureaucrats is wide, custom limits them to about a 5% shift. In this case both Mackensen and Moralis had the option of a standard RF[AB] with an external porposal and straw poll. That they both chose not to use the more normal method, and to conflate the two. AKAF 12:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been no confirmation by the bureaucrats that Danny's RFA wasn't just a one-time exception. Until we hear otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume that there has not been a significant change in the way most RFAs will be closed. CMummert · talk 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Errabee, opposing Moralis because of the format of his RfA is in my opinion way out of line. If all you can find to oppose him for is the format of the RfA, then he must be a fine candidate indeed. Why not spend the time to actually evaluate him. Like, reviewing his edits, his messages left to other users, etc. rather than just opposing him for something that has nothing to do with him except that he agreed to let an experiment be run. The project is in no way harmed because he was willing to be a guinea pig. This is one of the ways in which we move things forward. This sort of oppose is wholly reactionary and has nothing to do with Moralis. If you want to oppose the experiment, fine. You can do so here on this talk page.
• It is a horribly bad idea to be opposing a person for helping to make change happen. This sort of behavior casts a very cold, chilling shadow on forward movement to better the project. People become fearful of making change because somebody will oppose *them* rather than the *concept*. Even if this experiment fails, it does not mean we gain nothing from it. We do not make our way forward solely by attempting only those changes we are certain will succeed and be uncontroversial. --Durin 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can see your point, it's not unreasonable to oppose an RFA for the reason that the candidate doesn't feel the need to do things the way everybody else does them. The question is whether the editor is for change or just against the status quo. One of the charges against Moralis is that he is too inexperienced to understand the way things are done on wikipedia. Thus I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that his acceptance of this unusual RFA is a strike against the status quo, whether intentional or not. AKAF 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The job of an administrator is not to maintain the status quo--if anything, rather the reverse is true. An editor's decision to adopt a new format has no bearing on his suitability to be an administrator. Such arguments will be discounted. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

@Durin: There is a big difference between attempting those changes we are certain will succeed, and attempting those changes anyone with common sense is certain will not succeed. With the former I don't have a problem if the experiment fails, but in my opinion this experiment falls into the latter category. Anyone who supports experiments that are doomed to fail is either not capable of evaluating the consequences of these experiments which casts a shadow about his or hers capacity to take well-considered decisions (best case scenario) or is actively trying to frustrate other editors. This raises serious doubts about adminship.

I also don't agree with AKAF, because an RfA candidate who doesn't feel the need to do things the way everybody else does them, is not necessarily a bad thing. Thinking out of the box may produce some beautiful unexpected results. If Moralis is too inexperienced to understand the way things are done on wikipedia, then he can never launch a strike against the status quo by accepting a request to do an experiment. Errabee 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• You presume that the only possible outcome of a format change is whether it is accepted or not. This is false. Sorry. --Durin 14:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know from Tony and Durin which other oppose !votes based on a change of format you think should be discounted? If a candidate chooses not to answer any of the questions, but only to answer in threaded replies, would you strike all oppose comments? If a candidate moved all text not "support" or "oppose" to the talk page, would that be an invalid reason to oppose? AKAF 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been refraining from commenting, because I don't necessarily feel that it's my place to involve myself in a discussion about my RfA. There is, however, one thing that I feel needs to be mentioned, and I don't intend to take part in this discussion again.

AKAF, your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that my choosing to allow the reformat shows that I A) support the change, which is no longer a subject of discussion as it has been established that I'm neutral on the subject, or B) didn't understand the consequences of my actions when I agreed, due to inexperience, poor judgement, whatever.

I think your position is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are opposing me because I failed to see that my actions would see my RfA opposed. In other words, you oppose because I didn't realize that if I did what I did, people would oppose. Please don't think that I'm being snippy here, because it is most certainly not my intention, but the only way I can think of to paraphrase this is:

"Mora shouldn't be an admin because he didn't realize that if he let his page be reformatted, I would decide that he shouldn't be an admin." I just don't see how that works.

As stated, I won't be commenting here again, as I feel I'm stepping out of line just by commenting now. I just wanted to bring that up. --Moralis (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your summary is a fair statement of my position. There were plenty of other options for trying out/getting an opinion on the new format, a straw poll on the reformatting of a closed RFA an an example. However I've realised that a large number of very experienced editors disagree with my position, so in the interests of consensus-building I've changed my !vote. AKAF 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with RfA is I believe that there are no consistent criteria about whom to pass and whom to fail. Mixing support and oppose comments makes things more confusing without making the process better, but otherwise is just a cosmetic change, unlikely to fix anything. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has made numerous suggestions aimed at reforming RfA, I suppose I'd be hypocritical to say something like "I'm too set in my own ways to change now". Whether or not this format can work, however, I simply do not know at this point. It is fairly easy to point out advantages and disadvantages to pretty much every single aspect of it — example: this format would make it more difficult for people to support/oppose "per User:X"; many will say that this is a good thing. On one hand, it can be. On the other hand, however, it can also be said that it takes away from the process in the sense that a key aspect of presenting a rationale and diffs/links is that if someone brings forth relevant information on the candidate, this will help to inform other participants better, and possibly people will make their decision taking into account the information/evidence presented; but if it becomes too difficult to find those key posts in a neverending string of comments, then a very relevant post will not serve the purpose of helping the larger community make up its mind on the candidate. But we can't really know which way it will go, not at this point at least. Like with everything that is new, it will take a trial run to determine whether it will work out or blow up in our faces.
As a Bureaucrat, my main concern is that in heavily commented on RfAs, for instance with 130 supporters and 50 opposers, the process of assessing the community decision on the candidate may become difficult, and for that matter, perhaps less transparent in the sense that it may not be easy for other people to realize how the decision was made without them having to go through every single comment themselves. But as I said before, it would take a test for this to become apparent, so I'd rather not make any judgement until I've been able to go through at least one RfA in that system (and preferably, close it).
I'd just like to make one thing clear, although most certainly already know it: if later on it is decided that the system doesn't work and it should be abandoned, that will not change the final outcome for any RfA closed that was run with this system. If the candidate got promoted, then it stands; if the RfA fails, then s/he will have to run again at a later time. Redux 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The format used for Moralis' RFA is just ATROCIOUS.Rlevse 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of comments above and I wish to respond to a couple of them.

• To Mackensen: No, I do not "find it easier to form an opinion about a candidate based on how many people have already supported or opposed". I do, however, find it easier to read a discussion when all "support" and "oppose" comments are in their respective section (it also cuts down on unnecessary repetition).
• Regarding anonymous commenting: I full agree with Cyde Weis. Comments on candidates (both positive and negative) should be made publicly so that others may view them and use them to make decisions.
• Regarding Moralis' RFA: All comments of the rightness or wrongness of modifying one active RFA without discussion at WT:RFA aside, I must agree that the format is nothing short of disastrous. The discussion is convoluted and also overly, excessively, redundantly, and unnecessarily repetitive. If the goal of this format was to get people to actually read the comments instead of just looking at numbers, I think it has been a spectacular disaster (think along the lines of the sinking of the Titanic or the Great Fire of London). Few if any will read through a discussion that already has 3 arbitrary section breaks; at most, they'll skim through parts of it and ignore the rest. -- Black Falcon 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This isn't a reform question, but a current procedural one. Should threaded comments be allowed on the project page? As in this example: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kzrulzuall. I would think discussion AFTER commenting or about someone else's comment should be done on the talk page, but I could be wrong. Anynobody 09:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I currently think it would be nice to have a threaded discussion section (where people make arguments that are then discussed) and a separate voting section (where no additional comments or threaded discussion is allowed). That might allow us to have simple voting by people who don't have anything to add to the discussion and useful discussion of arguments at the same time, without putting oppose and support arguments in different sections and without making a hard-to-read mess of the RfA like in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis (everybody who wants to comment but doesn't have a new argument will make the page harder to read; if these people participate at all, perhaps voting would be better than a comment that doesn't really add anything useful). Kusma (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a step in the right direction. A voting process on Wikipedia is very susceptible for trolling, and separating votes from comments would only make things more difficult. I would like to say that if you don't have anything to say, then don't express your support or opposition either. That's why I'm absolutely not a regular in this process. Errabee 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that discussion processes are much more susceptible to trolling than voting processes. "Not enough image talk edits" is a troll comment, "oppose" is not. Kusma (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple oppose without explanation is entirely unhelpful, as a support without explanation would also be unhelpful. Furthermore, it allows people to oppose or support every nomination, because they are opposed to the process of RfA. And finally, finding sockpuppets is that much harder to do when explanations are not required. So please no separate voting section. Errabee 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to have a meaningful "discussion" about whether somebody should become an admin if more than 10 or 20 people participate. If we do not turn to having a committee determine who should become admins, something resembling voting is therefore a likely result of all efforts that allow for wider community participation. I think we need to move in either the direction of wide bureaucrat (or other committee) discretion given some input from the community, or towards more pure voting without much bureaucrat discretion. The current state of affairs is just a mess that makes nobody happy. Incidentally, if we allow people who are opposed to the process of RfA to vote, and that leads to too many failing nominations, we can simply adjust the percentage necessary so we produce enough admins. The goal of any RfA reform needs to be to triple the throughput of RfA, and to promote admins quickly enough that we can tackle the backlogs effectively. How we do that I don't care, but I don't think making the process more confusing is going to help. Kusma (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for adminship is a consensus-building process. Threaded discussion is the primary means of building consensus on Wikipedia, and is encouraged. Treating a comment as a vote (or even a "!vote", whatever that is) is deprecated and will probably not have the effect you anticipated. There's no reason why 200 or more people shouldn't contribute to a discussion, if only to express their agreement with a good argument expressed by another editor. But it isn't necessary for 200 or more people to participate if they don't want to. Years of poor formatting of the RFA page has tended to foster the belief in some editors that RFA is a vote and that the sheer numbers alone matter. Once freed from that misapprehension, and seeing that their opinions are adequately represented in the discussion, it's quite probable that they'll wander off and find something else to do instead of contributing to useless pile-ons. --Tony Sidaway 12:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you how many times I've seen RfAs fail because the nominee dared to respond to the opposition. You just have to sit there, shut up, and take it. If you disagree, you are "whiny". If you provide diffs with your disagreement, you are "argumentative". And even more oppose votes come rolling in because of it. Very, very, very few people are interested in having their opposition questioned by others, and even fewer will actually change their minds. As long as it's considered valid to oppose a person for responding to doubts (or even attacks, which are common) in his own RfA, it will never be a consensus-building discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the manner of addressing opposition matters. On my RFA (admittedly about two years ago now) I systematically identified those whose opinions, in my opinion, could be swayed by further discussion, and discussed matters with them on their talk pages. A significant number of people changed their opinion in my favor. I don't recall anyone reacting in a hostile manner to my personal and very polite approach, but if they had I would not have pressed the matter. I would have been prepared to wait for another month or two. --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But tiptoeing around like that isn't conducive to consensus building. The people who oppose you don't worry about being honest, so if you have to treat them with kid gloves then it's not a real discussion. Kowtowing to the opposition is not the same as working toward a fair decision. Kafziel ^Talk 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of showing that you're administrator material is demonstrating the ability to persuade. I did that. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Persuading people to support you is still just campaigning for votes; there's no honest discussion there. We don't expect administrators to be obsequious, so we shouldn't expect it from administrator hopefuls, either. Nominees can participate in real consensus building if we stop allowing oppose votes based on their arguments. If we don't let everybody participate equally (including the nominee), then it's just a vote. Kafziel ^Talk 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building is almost impossible in a format where everybody is allowed to say aye or nay without explanation. When a candidate applies for adminship, we should all assume Good Faith and the default action should be to give the tools to the candidate, unless severe enough objections have been raised that have not been answered to satisfaction. This means of course that objections have to be discussed, and anyone objecting to a candidate should be prepared to discuss this objection with the candidate or others. Consensus is then achieved when all objections have been answered to satisfaction. Errabee 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All discussions on Wikipedia are run this way. Someone can just say "I agree with this." It helps to build consensus, but obviously it helps more to engage in proper discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that whenever someone supports or opposes something without an explanation, he simply agrees with anything previously said by other supporters or opposers. We shouldn't discourage someone to voice his opinion because he can't come up with something original. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If he can't come up with anything original, why even participate at all (except to add a tick mark to the tally)? The point he agrees with has already been made, and it should have the same weight whether one person says it or 100 people do. (Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, so that's not the case. Bureaucrats are only human, and they will tend to side with the masses. Which is why I think the tally should stay; if it matters how many people agree on a certain point, then it's a vote and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.) Kafziel ^Talk 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Although agreeing with another's argument might not weigh as much as the original argument in the bureaucrat's discretion, it's still helpful in establishing consensus — whenever someone thinks that a certain argument is satisfying or not, he may explicitly illustrate so by either answering him in an opposite action, or doing the exactly the same without a further comment. I concur this isn't a vote, but we don't want ending up with an RfA consisting of one oppose and two supports. Bureaucrats should be affected by other people's judgment towards the arguments. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree an RfA with 2 supports is not something we want, but I wouldn't object to an RfA with just 1 oppose (and no supports). If the objection is rebutted satisfactorily, then the candidate should be sysopped because there are no objections. See also my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Errabee 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely matters how many people think a certain way, regardless of whether they have something original to say. This is why sockpuppetry is a big problem. In measuring consensus, there is a huge difference between one person saying something ten times and ten different people saying something once each. The former is just one person's opinion shouted many times, and the latter represents ten people. Sockpuppetry prevents us from recognizing the difference. RfA is about whether the community trusts someone with the tools; knowing how many members of the community do or don't trust is critical to the decision. GRBerry 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That's why I support a straight vote in RfA. Consensus and debate has its place in articles, but when trying to gauge how much of the community trusts a person, all we need to know is how many people do or do not support the nomination. It's nice to have lofty ideas about consensus, but in the real world, in the end, it has to come down to numbers, not arguments. Kafziel ^Talk 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't trust the canidate, all you really have to do is give your argument for why, and the B-crat reads that. "xxx is an editwarrior on articles yyy and zzz as a result I cannot trust him with the tools", etc. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it works fine. But what if my concern is "I don't like when yyy made this decision xxx against consensus, and I don't trust them to not keep doing that", but most people like that decision? Assuming we don't have a voting model, either we give bureaucrats the power to unilaterally decide that a decision was bad, which is not a good idea, or my lack of trust has to be ignored. -Amarkov moo! 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my question, I had pictured something like this:

Support

1. Support - Great editor Editor 1 00:01:01 (UTC)
2. Support - I have seen mostly good decisions from him, plus his knowledge of x is outstanding Editor 2 00:10:17 (UTC)

• [[Wikipedia talk:RFA/Nominated Editor|Editor 3 has a question or comment]] about your statement, please see the talk page if you wish to answer.

The discussions can be valuable for various reasons so they should be allowed, however they can get in the way of the voting/comment section. This is especially true for new editors, so logically it stands to reason that said discussions be carried out on the talk page (after all discuss/talk are synonyms.) Anynobody 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, even without the wording of the comment, that encourages only discussing your reasons if you feel like it, instead of discussion being part of the process. We have enough of the mindset that people don't have to respond to challenges of their votes, it doesn't need to be encouraged. -Amarkov moo! 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Bureacratship

Is it possible for anyone who isn't an admin to RFB? Or is this only reserved for admins? Simply south 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there is no technical restriction against that, but in practice, RfB for a non-admin, no matter how long contributing, would be completely impossible to pass. -Amarkov moo! 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Each RfB candidate is expected to adhere the highest standards in order to be trusted with such tools. Being an administrator beforehand is very improtant. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that in Mediawiki the user rights for a bureaucrat are a superset of an admin's. Therefore, a bureaucrat has all the permissons of an admin plus a few more. An RfB for a non-admin would essentially be a combined RfA/RfB. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ChazBeckett 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am certain. A burocrat hasn't automatically admin rights in mediawiki. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Depending on how the software is configured, adding +bcrat might be essentially adding +sysop, but if it's configured the way most people do it (which I would expect), then it would only add access to Special:Renameuser and Special:Makesysop, not adding the other permissions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to have a Bureaucrat that is not a sysop, but a Steward would have to promote, Bureaucrat's can promote user -> admin : admin -> crat : user -> admin/crat, nothing else. Crats don't automatically have admin rights, at least by default. Prodego ^talk 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In MediaWiki (on a different wiki using the default setup) I was able to give a regular user the bcrat flag w/o having sysop flag. This user was then able to give themselves the sysop flag. This would make me assume the same is true on Wikipedia since I dont think the devs have really changed much in the way of how flags are applied (just merely created more flags).  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• User permissions in MediaWiki are additive; however, as ^demon brings up above, it depends on the site configuration. The only way to know for certain is to actually test it in Wikipedia, which is probably not very likely to happen. We can't look at the LocalSettings.php file for here, as it contains database passwords and information of that type, so my intuition tells me that it is configured in an additive fashion. (For example, oversight users are not bureaucrats by default.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible for a non-admin to run for bureaucratship, afaik :-) --Kim Bruning 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But that is the point, it is possible, but it is very unlikely that they will pass. Cbrown1023 talk 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who could pass an RfB could pass an RfA. Anyone running for RfB who is not an admin first would only be making some sort of vapid political statement. —Centrx→talk • 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As a trivial but possibly interesting point, on another wiki I made for myself, I made my main account a bureaucrat without making myself a sysop, not realizing it wasn't automatic. Go figure. So, assuming WP's is the same way, that's the technical answer. Not that it has any impact on the way it works in practice. Heimstern Läufer 17:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would that be a vapid gesture? If a retired admin wants to now run for bureaucrat, that shouldn't be a problem, should it? It's a different set of responsibilities. You'd think people would welcome less "conflict of interest", or what have you. :-/ --Kim Bruning 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the question has been answered. It is technically possible to give an account Bureaucrat access without giving it admin access as well, but only a Steward can do that. Bureaucrats cannot promote like this. We can only set Bureaucrat rights only if the account already has admin access, otherwise it would result in a "double promotion". That is because the Makesysop tool for local Bureaucrats was created as a simplified version of the Makesysop tool for Stewards. It would be possible to conjecture that the configuration of the tool would indicate that it was never intended for anyone to be made a local Bureaucrat without having adminstrator access first, but that's just speculation. The bottom line is that policy does not require that only admins can request Bureaucrat access, but from the practical point of view, it is indeed unlikely that the community would ever bestow this access level, which is widely considered a more sensitive set of responsibilities — but mainly due to the technical ability to grant admin access to any other account — to anyone that thus far hasn't been trusted with any kind of restricted tools. Redux 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of a retired admin? --Kim Bruning 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Instant ratification, obviously! (if their first name has a K or an M or an I, at least!) El_C 20:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the retired admin not get back admin tools first? What is the point of not having admin tools? They don't put the person into some special existential class where he would suddenly have a "conflict of interest" with the tools, and no conflict of interest without them. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because not everybody wants admin tools. -Amarkov moo! 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? You are perfectly free to not use them, and I don't see why you would not want to be helpful if you come across some attack page on Special:Randompage or rampant vandalism on an article, by deleting or protecting. Having admin tools does not create an obligation to start clearing backlogs. Usually the reason cited for people not wanting admin tools is they don't want to go through the onerous process of RfA, but an RfB would be no less onerous. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they just want to limit themsleves to those particular functions; I really see no reason for any restrictions for them. El_C 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the point though? If you happen to come across some vandalizing IP, why create additional work by reporting it somewhere and then waiting for the IP to get blocked while he continues vandalizing? —Centrx→talk • 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire some of the ideas of Cincinnatus (though not his ideas on plebs, I don't think). People should only take on those responsibilities they intend to fulfill right now, and release any others. This also allows one to avoid David Gerard's law, by only maintaining a small subset of duties. --Kim Bruning 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC) "On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs" --D. Gerard

In the default configuration, the only right that bureaucrats have (in addition to the standard ones) is "userrights", the ability to edit user rights via Special:Userrights. The local configuration here is certainly different, since only stewards can access Special:Userrights here, and bureaucrats use the lesser Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot instead. --bainer (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A Problem

I have noticed that someone (I do not know who) removed the vote counters on the RfAs of TonyTheTiger and Byrlcreem2. If this was done with the consensus of the community, then I guess I am worring about something that I should not worry about. However, I appear to not see anything that would suggest that anyone was allowed to do this. Just letting people know about something I noticed. Captain panda 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They were created when the template did not have vote counters. -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for clearing that up! Captain panda 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just for perspective; tallys were added to RfAs without any input from the community. It isn't a matter of being "allowed". It's a matter of attempting to do what is right for Wikipedia. --Durin 23:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The tally isn't very helpful to me, I look at an RFA monitor... but removing it in the idea that it makes RFA less vote-like seems kind of silly to me. You really think b'crats don't do some kind of calculation? Obscuring what's going on doesn't change what's going on... it just makes the learning curve steeper for new people. --W.marsh 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The tallies were removed for a number of reasons:

• The main reason is that having the tally as the very first thing that is visible in the RfA is surely a significant psychological factor. Rather than reading the nomination and the statement/questions and then the expressions of opinion with an open mind, with the tally there, people read them with the numbers already in their head. It's certain money that this has some prejudicial effect on people.
• Another reason is that the tallies promote the misconception that RfAs are only pure votes. That the weight of numbers is an important part of any analysis of consensus is not doubted, but to quote SlimVirgin, "The numbers incline but do not necessitate, to paraphrase Leibniz."
• Finally, the tallies are available elsewhere for those who wish to seek them out, and manual counting is of course possible if people find that useful.

I have seen no reason why the tallies should be kept as they are and exposed to everyone whether they want to see them or not. I would invite anyone who wishes to address the reasons I've offered, or suggest some reasons of their own why the tallies are necessary? --bainer (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Ben Aveling 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I object to is the idea that this kind of obfuscation really changes anything... RFAs will still be closed the exact same way, which is usually based on the numbers. All things like this do is give people a false sense that things have changed, just because we've obscured some of the evidence. --W.marsh 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly agree with W.marsh. Moreover, I know that people promoting change have the best of intentions so I don't want to criticize them too much but I do believe that making the changes and then arguing that anybody questioning the changes is opposed to evolution towards "what's right" is the wrong way to go about the whole thing. The whole debate around Danny's promotion has instilled a false sense of urgency into RfA reform that's not going to help us make good choices. I have already been very critical of the Moralis experiment (and, at the risk of repeating myself, this has nothing to do with my evaluation of Moralis as a potential admin) and however frustrating the slow nature of change on Wikipedia might be, it's something we have to deal with. There's an irony here: while the proponents of the changes feel they are moving RfA towards more productive discussion and less vote count, they are trying to impose them without proper discussion. Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The tallies are not necessary, but removing them solves little. Yes, it does make it so people can't just vote with the crowd, but it's still a vote, and will still be closed as such. You have to attack the problem to solve it, not just the obvious evidence that it exists. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not doubt that weight of numbers plays a part in any determination of consensus, and I don't pretend that removing tallies will change how bureaucrats close RfAs. But if you concede that it will make it less likely that people will simply vote with the crowd, and use their brains when approaching an RfA, then what is the problem in removing the tallies? That's all I'm setting out to achieve. --bainer (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note however that you've been reverted three times by three different people in the last couple of days. Perhaps you could give {{RfA}} a break for the time being, or try to talk things out more. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the changes were undone by people who were concerned that it hadn't been discussed enough. Several discussions ensued, in which only Everyking disagreed and he didn't provide a reason. Many other users responded positively. I then repeated the change, but it was again undone some days later, by someone actually offering a reason (convenience) and so I've discussed it again. --bainer (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we want to stop people from voting with the crowd, we should stop asking people for their oppose rationale. I haven't seen pile-on voting occur that didn't use other people's rationale, so it might well be that the "discussing" is as harmful as the "voting" bit. Oh, and ceterum censeo we need to redefine "consensus" to be 66% so more people pass RfA. Kusma (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not really into trying to regulate how people make decisions... e.g. make trying to make the masses use their brains. Actually that seems like an assumption of bad faith to call them mindless, but whatever. I mean we can do all kinds of silly tricks to supposedly discourage people from being mindless, like require !votes to be delivered in riddles or use a minimum of 150 words and all kinds of silly stuff... but it is just window dressing and like I've said, fools people into thinking something has changed, when nothing has changed, or things were just made more confusing and less accessable. So I continue to oppose these non-solutions. --W.marsh 13:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just came in on this discussion & have had a similar one with bainer on his talk page. I suggest a simple solution - Why don't we have a straw poll? We had one for changing the Main page & this obviously involves a lot of people. There's lots of arguments on both sides, so I don't see why we can't settle this once & for all in a legitimate & obvious solution to this argument? Thoguhts? Spawn Man 08:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no not again. You don't use straw polls in this situation. (Both the guideline/policy/tag of the day pages (both pro and con) explain that that's a bad idea.). I mean fine. Learn things the hard way once, but isn't this about the umpteenth time? And it hurts everyone else who already *has* learned their lesson too. :-/ So No. I'm not that much of a masochist, thank you. --Kim Bruning 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll? Does anyone else see the irony in using a straw poll to decide whether RfA is too much like a straw poll? -Amarkov moo! 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

not a vote: hypothetical example

Just a hypothetical for people who really want RFA to not be a vote. 100 people participate in an RFA in a fantasy non-voting Wikipedia where even using the word "vote" is liable to get you a community ban. 96 people express support (of course not using the word support, but in long, well-reasoned, non-mindless comments) because the candidate has written FAs, been active on policy pages, and so forth. 4 people express opposition on the grounds that the candidate didn't use edit summaries enough. Now, as we know, some people really think edit summaries are critical to being a good Wikipedian, and if you don't use them, you aren't fit to be an admin. As it happens, the first b'crat along shares that opinion, and closes the RFA as a non-promotion, as he didn't think consensus was that the candidate would make a good administrator.

Is this really what we want? Does that kind of thing, day in an day out, really sound like a better system to you? Because I think it's all in line with people wanting the numbers to be unimportant compared to the opinions expressed, as weighed by the b'crat. --W.marsh 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoting someone becuase of low count on edit summaries is a weak argument. Are summaries important-yes? but hardly what makes a good admin. A good admin is someone who is dependable, knows policies and looks up what they don't know, and applies them fairly. The poorest argument for not promoting someone is to say "he/she" doesn't have a need for the tools"...no one needs them, but wiki needs people who have them and the more admins we have the faster our backlogs will be cleared. If an admin only uses their tools once, wiki will be better off.Rlevse 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's my point though... the b'crat is really just another Wikipedian, and we might totally disagree with them on some things. Certainly we've seen people oppose even the most respected Wikipedians merely over edit summaries, so there's precedent here. Is closing RFAs really something we want to let people basically just do whatever they feel like on, as long as they can talk the talk and say consensus was for them to do that? --W.marsh 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be firm guidelines and the closer should follow them. Personally I like the current system with the % standards. People who zoom in on only something like edit summaries just don't see what really makes a good admin. Rlevse 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict.... re w.marsh)

You started out great, up to the point where you made assumptions as to how the Bureaucrat would act. Closing as not promoted doesn't have consensus here. You said it yourself already: "Is this really what we want?". Well no, so a Bureaucrat worth their salt won't do that. :-P

Rough consensus in this case is to promote already, so a bureaucrat should really close it as such.

... but hey, that's interesting, all the opposers are in a cluster. Perhaps we could enter into discussion with them, perhaps before the closing date of the RFA?

So... Perhaps they know something we don't, like that the editor in question is doing something really scary and hiding them with false edit summaries... in which case everyone should switch opinion to oppose.

... Or perhaps the candidate can promise to use better edit summaries in future, in which case we actually have everyone supporting, and the whole thing could even be closed unanimously! :-)

Now here's the interesting thing... haven't RFA's always been conducted like this?. What's the discretion zone? Why do people strike out their opinions and take a different one? And perhaps you have noticed people discussing... typically in "oppose sections" (though I've sometimes seen supporters being challenged too) ? Now why do they keep doing that? Hmmm... think about it :-)

--Kim Bruning 14:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Any good idea stretched to ridiculous proportions will appear ridiculous. That being said, 'crats do have discretion, they just don't get much opportunity to use it as RfA's are more often clear cut. The recent Danny case shows they don't just vote count, but they also don't stretch this discretion to ridiculous levels. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's ridiculous... but then again I thought of the Danny RFA quite differently. To say that consensus is an objective thing is not correct... everyone thinks consensus is something slightly different. My point is that we might not really be realizing what it means to give one person so much power to just declare what consensus was, since that basically is just what their opinion on the whole RFA was most of the time. --W.marsh 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A single person gets to judge consensus all day long here, see the AfD's for example. The fact is that even 'crats are responsible to arbcom and Jimbo. So if they truly abused their powers(such as using their opinion of the case instead of judging consensus) we have something to do about it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Though to answer your question, if 100 people voted support without good reason, and one person had a good reason(not edit summaries, but more like abuse of trust), then I think in a perfect world that oppose should out weigh the supports. But I have never even once seen such a bizzare ratio of reason to foolishness. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's easy to say that b'crats are just perfectly following consensus as long as you agree with them (or assume they'll act in the way you agree with, i.e. of course they won't care about edit summary usage because I think that would be a bad idea). But when you're one of the disenfranchised whose opinion doesn't count because the b'crat doesn't agree with you? It's a lot harder to agree with the claim of consensus. Ultimately, the more people involved with an AFD, RFA, whatever, the more your opinion of what consensus was is just your opinion in general. --W.marsh 14:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel disenfranchised at all, something may have gone wrong. Is it indeed the case that you feel disenfrnachised in some certain situation? --Kim Bruning 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone's going to feel disenfranchised if they know they could express their opinion and it won't count if the b'crat doesn't agree. --W.marsh 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)People can feel disenfranchised even when everything goes right. Put enough people together and someone will feel disenfranchised no matter what happens. The point is to get a good admin, not to make people feel good about how effective their vote was. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And some people think a good admin can't be one who doesn't use enough edit summaries. I guess this is turning out to be about as productive as any discussion on this page... now I remember why I took this off my watchlist. Ah well. --W.marsh 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This hypothetical falsely assumes that there is no ground between a pure vote and a pure do-I-like-this-argument-or-not situation. --bainer (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, to go from the hypothetical situation to the real world (so off-topic to this discussion), some people do get pissed off if the candidate does not use edit summaries (I do!). However, I have not seen people continuing to oppose after the candidate promised to use them in the future and changed his preferences to that effect. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Per HighInBC, "such a bizzare ratio of reason to foolishness" is unlikely to occur, so the hypothetical situation is a bit suspect. Nevertheless, if a bureaucrat genuinely believed that there were compelling reasons not to promote despite apparent numbers to support a promotion, a number of outcomes are possible. Already listed have been:

• 1.) Go with the votes. The bureaucrat should count votes, and a clear supermajority has spoken. Promotion must occur.
• 2.) Go with your reasoning. The bureaucrat was chosen by the community to exercise judgement and determine consensus. Promotion denied.

Neglected, however, have been a number of 'middle ground' options. The following two have already been used on occasion; I expect that they will appear from time to time when a 'crat is uncomfortable imposing his sole judgement on an RfA.

• 3.) Extend the discussion period. If a critical argument has come to light near the end of the normal discussion period, the discussion can be extended by a day or two to allow the participants to weight the new evidence.
• 4.) Open a discussion with the other bureaucrats (on- or off-wiki). Establish a consensus among bureaucrats before making a decision on promotion.

In either case, it is no longer a single bureaucrat making the call. Both allow for the community to see and understand the reasoning at work, and 'crats are supposed to be among the community's most trusted members. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reformat fails to go far enough

1 boldface, 17 Comment, 1 Endorsed, 1 Fnord, 1 Further comment, 9 Neutral, 38 Oppose, 1 Oppose Neutral, 1 Opposse, 1 Quick return, 1 Reply, 1 Strong Oppose, 2 Strong Support, 30 Support, and That took less than a minute. I think this comment speaks for itself. --Random832 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the fnord. >Radiant< 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You ain't seen nothin' yet :) --Durin 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the contents of the comments/opinions, how many of them actually speak of the candidate's suitability for adminship? :-)

How many comments are answered/challenged but remain unreplied/undefended?

--Kim Bruning 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Hmm, actually allowing a challenge to negate a comment if unanswerd might be an interesting rule for future rfas, and also might reduce (allegations of) bureaucrat bias...

Oh, and most importantly: what lessons can Moralis learn for future RFA's? I think that a 2nd RFA in a month or two will pass, right? What should Moralis be doing before then? This might be a useful question to ask on future requests for adminship too. --Kim Bruning 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the good things that has come out of the reformat is that the support !votes (and I feel able to use the exclamation mark when referring to RfA for the first time since I've joined Wikipedia) suddenly seem more reasoned on average than before (before, many support votes gave effectively no reasoning; now, the support !votes often say something useful). Even if the negative consequences from this one-time (so far) change mean that it isn't eventually adopted, this is something that should be encouraged somehow. (Strangely, opposing votes - in the existing system - almost always used to give their reasoning, and ones that didn't were objected to.) One of my biggest complaints about the current RfA/RfB system is that it effectively compares the size of a pileon (the support section) to a random number (the oppose section in an RfB, and to a lesser extent an RfA), rather than looking at the arguments; this reformat neatly avoids that trap (although it may have other problems, as indicated by the discussion above). --ais523 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny analogy

I ran across this article today and couldn't help thinking it was an apt analogy to the current state of RfA. The old 10,000 monkeys bit doesn't work as we're not writing anything here. Just a bunch of furry, cute mammals running around dropping pellets everywhere :) --Durin 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do Behave! :-P --Kim Bruning 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that people are acting more intelligently than that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess so --Kim Bruning 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy. The RFA talk has turned into a joke room of sorts. bibliomaniac15 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Would these current admins still be accepted today?

We all know that RFA standards are improving all the time, so our admins are just getting better and better. Right? So, by edit count, would you support these users?

John Doe #1

Username	John Doe #1
Total edits	2823
User groups	<hidden>
Image uploads	6 (3 cur, 3 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	1098
Edits/page (avg)	2.57
Avg edits/day	1.28
Deleted edits	103
First edit	2001/03/27 20:47:31
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	585
Talk	420
User	168
User talk	1185
Wikipedia	283
Wikipedia talk	114
Image	13
Image talk	3
MediaWiki	12
MediaWiki talk	7
Template	8
Template talk	2
Category	4
Category talk	19

Comments

Comment here.

• Comment - Well, is this a trick question? I ask because I note the 250 deletions, 52 Blocks, etc. I'm guessing that this person is (or was?) a current admin? - jc37 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, these are current admins, and I'm wondering if we'd still support them today? Let me remove those sections, to reduce confusion. --Kim Bruning 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, lack of experience with images. >Radiant< 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Refuse comment per my comment for #3. -- Black Falcon 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's not hard to tell who this is - Yeah, I can't !vote because it's pretty clear who this is anyway. This probably isn't such a good example, due to the fact that <cough> <cough> <cough>. The ones below are better. // Sean William (PTO) 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Well, I might get bit for saying this, but I think that this user has too few Wikipedia edits for my liking. Captain panda 02:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jane Doe#2

Username	Jane Doe #2
Total edits	7460
User groups	(hidden)
Image uploads	85 (78 cur, 7 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	2071
Edits/page (avg)	3.60
Avg edits/day	4.19
Deleted edits	202
First edit	2002/06/02 17:22:30
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	2451
Talk	1001
User	901
User talk	1703
Wikipedia	858
Wikipedia talk	329
Image	166
Image talk	2
MediaWiki	25
MediaWiki talk	11
Template	9
Template talk	1
Category	1
Category talk	1
Portal talk	1

Comments

• Comment here
  • Appears generally qualified, but not enough portal talk edits. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Not nearly enough Image talk or Category edits to work well as an admin, but I'm sure that's not important ;) Majorly (hot!) 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't believe I had any of either one of those either. Amazing that I squeaked through. Newyorkbrad 15:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, not enough featured articles. >Radiant< 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Refuse comment per my comment for #3. -- Black Falcon 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose, this one is Karmafist, who we all know went on to become a terrible admin. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I had better tell the truth here: if Cyde Weys had not mentioned who this user is, I would have supported without question. (And yes, I get the point this is trying to make) Captain panda 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jane Doe #3

Username	Jane Doe #3
Total edits	44266
User groups	(hidden)
Image uploads	42 (32 cur, 10 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	23103
Edits/page (avg)	1.92
Avg edits/day	29.20
Deleted edits	2312
First edit	2003/02/20 20:21:23
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	19026
Talk	1731
User	1634
User talk	6321
Wikipedia	11170
Wikipedia talk	2395
Image	549
Image talk	20
MediaWiki	282
MediaWiki talk	134
Template	803
Template talk	111
Help	14
Help talk	2
Category	56
Category talk	12
Portal	6

Comments

• Add comment here
• Storng oppsoe has bda speling and note nouhg edit smumaries. >Radiant< 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you also notice ... 0 portal talk edits! That's just shameful. This person is clearly not suited for admniship. -- Black Falcon 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Refuse comment. Insufficient information is provided for me to make a decision. Firstly, there are no responses to questions; secondly, I have no idea what their actual contributions are (just a summary of them); and thirdly, there is no information about the distribution of edits. Maybe all 2800 edits were accumulated in one month? Maybe they're all vandalism? If they are, what does it say about Wikipedia that a person can accumulate 45000 vandalism edits and still not be blocked? ;) As I said, a breakdown of edits by namespace is simply not enough (for me) to come to a decision. -- Black Falcon 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Good points. Is there an edit counting tool that can provide such a distribution to your satisfaction? --Kim Bruning 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I never pay any attention to the count that gets posted on the talk page. I look through the user's actual contribs myself. It's time consuming, so I don't participate in very many RfAs, but when I do I've done my homework. Kafziel ^Talk 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Interiot's "wannabe kate" counter provides a distribution by months (and also other information like most edited pages). Of course, a more advanced summary of edits is still not enough to make a decision. The distribution of edits is not a factor I use in judging RfAs, but rather serves as a rough indicator of whether closer inspection may be needed (e.g., if all edits are made within the last week). Finding out that an editor has made 1000 edits a month for 20 months is not of much use without having a general idea of the content of those edits (e.g., maybe half of those edits are insults to vandals or the like). -- Black Falcon 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure. These questions are mostly for folks who purely use edit counts as their criteria. --Kim Bruning 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd say anyone who solely uses edit counts probably isn't involved enough in RfA to bother with reading this talk page. Kafziel ^Talk 19:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We get that people have edit counts. Already. We get that they contain useful information only when viewed in a wider context. Already. Splash - tk 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Unless, this user is some banned user, I would support due to obvious experience. Captain panda 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  Heh, she's definitely not banned. // Sean William (PTO) 03:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  So ... would someone please share the identities of #1 and #3? I've already run 30 or so usernames through the edit counter and ... well, I'm hoping we can avoid any feline casualties. -- Black Falcon 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  GodKing, Karmafist, Angela.

John Doe #4

Username John Doe #4
Total edits 8125
Image uploads 13 (13 cur, 0 old)
Distinct pages edited 5043
Edits/page (avg) 1.61
Deleted edits 302 (browse)
First edit 2004-10-08 01:50:15
Edits by namespace Namespace Edits
Articles 3943
Talk 559
User 302
User talk 1070
Project 1714
Project talk 207
Image 31
Image talk 3
MediaWiki 7
MediaWiki talk 14
Template 152
Template talk 36
Category 39
Category talk 2
Portal 46

Comments

• Who cares? These random edit counts are a pointless exercise, unless you really want to say that edit count is the only factor that should determine adminship. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Need more then edit counts

I'm not sure what has started this, but I've never used a number of edit-counts only to determine my !vote on RfA. While they are useful to determine what areas somone is active (or inactive in) more information can usually be garnished from edit summaries! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alot of people do so, or are perceived to do so at least, in ways that can seem capricious. One user is currently opposing a candidate partly for a lack of edits to WikiProjects, for example. --bainer (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly I find this exercise a bit silly since I never look at those edit counts on RFA to begin with. >Radiant< 08:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Methods of finding consensus

I was reading our consensus decision-making article today and found some interesting stuff in the tools for consensus section. While of course it is not possible for us to hold up cards and wiggle our fingers during an RFA discussion, there are some ideas that parallel our current processes:

• Tools are used to speed up and ease the process.
• It is important to be able to point out breaches of procedure.
• It is important to have the ability to clarify points or answer questions.
• When using color cards and hand signals, there is a simple way to denote consent/reservations/objections.

Is it really possible to make RFA (and other processes) any more like consensus decision-making processes? I frequently see people say "consensus is not a vote", but what we're doing now seems to be the textbook definition of consensus. If our processes don't work, perhaps consensus is not what we really want? --- RockMFR 15:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It takes time to explain how our consensus finding systems work, and people keep coming and going. Some folks get frustrated at having to explain each time... but at the same time, our project namespace is being camped by people who (as a self-defeating aggregate) don't want to see accurate descriptions of our processes. It's quite frustrating. :-/ --Kim Bruning 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me that people talk about "finding" or "determining" consensus when a better phrase would "forming", "developing" or "seeking" a consensus. This is not just being picky about words. Consensus is a process as well as a state. It's not nearly as important what the current state of opinion is as what the final state of opinion is.

When the majority of people want something but there are a significant number of holdouts, the question is whether the holdouts will give in to the majority or the majority will decide to respect the opinions of the holdouts. The decision of which of these two options will prevail is determined by the process of forming a consensus and that can only be done via discussion and persuasion. This is why voting is evil but surveying to determine consensus in advance of and after discussion and persuasion is not. !voting is OK as long as the process doesn't fixate on the precise numerical outcome while ignoring the consensus formation process. You can see consensus formation at work in RFAs where people change their !votes based upon the discussion.

--Richard 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if we all dropped this silly jargon term "!vote". There is a very good English word to use in its place: opinion. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that! Furthermore, in a lot of contexts, people writing "!vote" actually mean "vote". Just say it, for crying out loud - nobody is going to block you. :) Kafziel ^Talk 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I try to carefully keep a distinction (for instance, see my comments a few sections above). A 'vote' is something that's merely counted and used to come to a decision by seeing whether there's more of one type of vote than another type of vote (something which should probably be avoided on Wikipedia, but which is seen all too often on sectioned and tallied RfAs). A '!vote' is something that superficially looks similar, and generally has a bolded statement at the start, but whose content ought to be read when coming to a decision, and the arguments it's making considered rather than just its existence. 'Opinion' has a similar connotation (and is a better word than 'vote' for AfD, for instance), but carries with it less of a sense of the importance of the point the !vote is making. Of course, this distinction is pretty useless if people don't know what '!vote' means, and the fact that it isn't a real word with a well-known meaning may be reason enough to deprecate it. --ais523 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I always thought "comment" was much better. Kafziel ^Talk 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "!Vote" can be more clearly expressed as "argument" or "comment". In AfD discussions, people should not "vote" or "!vote", but rather argue for an article's deletion or retention. If "argue" brings up negative connotations of an argument between argumentative editors arguing various arguments, then "comment" works just as well (although I usually reserve "comment" for neutral posts, where I make no recommendation). RfA, I think, should be part-comment, part-vote. A comment is useful only as long as someone can judge its validity; my personal opinion is that bureaucrats should not judge the validity of RfA comments (except for obvioius vandalism, of course). If a bureaucrat finds certain arguments to support or oppose a candidacy unconvincing, he or she should not wait until the RfA is over and then discount those vote-comments. Instead, he or she may participate in the RfA and, if desired, try to convince people to change their positions. -- Black Falcon 18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus forming it is then :-) --Kim Bruning 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

Like the Moralis RfA, this RfA has been refactored. However, in this case it has been refactored to be more like an RfC. The refactoring was done with the knowledge and consent of User:Matt Britt. The intention here is to break away from the obsession with vote counting and focus on discussion and relative merits of the nominee. Please keep meta discussions about the format of that RfA here, rather than on the RfA itself. Thank you. --Durin 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting experiment. I believe this one will turn out to be ok but I'm not sure we've got the right guinea pig. I have a hard time believing that this format for a more controversial candidate would not rapidly turn into an incoherent mess whose interpretation will be difficult. B'crats are supposed to evaluate consensus and it would be nice to have a format where we have some sort of confidence that different b'crats won't make different decisions. Pascal.Tesson 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Finding a guinea pig for this experiment is harder. It's a very radical change, far more so than Moralis' RfA. If another user wants to be an additional guinea pig for this format, who might be more controversial, feel free to ask :) --Durin 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad, bad concept, an application for a North Korea travel visa would be simpler than this. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I can't see any advantages in this model, and I can't figure out how is a bureaucrat going to determine any community consensus with so many parameteres.--Húsönd 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good notion, but I think the format is entirely too byzantine. A Train^talk 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Readily granted. I admit having a bit of a time getting my head around this sort of format, and coming up with a reasonable formatted RfA in this form. It can probably definitely :) be evolved. --Durin 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I believe that the candidate has all five or six of the favorable qualities listed, what would have been a "support" with a comment becomes five or six separate entries. Multiply that by the number of supports, and then similarly with the number of opposes, and one envisions the page quickly becoming unwieldy. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not unlike some RfCs :) --Durin 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• On those, it's sufficient to endorse the "Outside view by Newyorkbrad" and then move on. :) Newyorkbrad 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has hit this nail on the head. The structure of the RfA requires discursive answers from contributors over several measured dimensions. What are the advantages and the practicalities of this structure over the current model - I know about the vote-counting and the pile-on issues. This model is obfuscatory. I might support in three areas and oppose in two areas or any combination of the same, as well as the 60+ other regular contributors to the RfA articles. 60x5=300 comments to read through and balance out. The result would have to be issued as a Supreme Court ruling, showing the Bureaucrat's working out of the answer as evidence is weighed up. I'm not convinced that this is the best way to establish consensus and measure the opinion of the contributors on the evidence in-hand. (aeropagitica) 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this format quite a bit better than the one chosen for Moralis - that one had the advantage of making it less "vote-y", but also made it very difficult to follow the discussion. I'll be interested to follow the development of this RFA. JavaTenor 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The only word that comes to mind is "idiotic". No offense to whomever decided upon this format for an experiment (as I have no idea which editor(s) decided upon it, and I would not hold it against him/her/them, anyway), but this is the worst possible way to run an RfA. It's one thing for an RfC, when there are only a dozen people expected to contribute to the outcome, but it's another for an RfA, where there could be hundreds of opinions. It also doesn't leave wiggle room- with an RfC/arbitration/whatever, there are findings of fact; with an RfA, everything is opinion. Everybody has a different answer to "Is this person experienced?", "How much do I trust this person?", "Does this person need the admin tools?", "Will this person abuse his/her newly-found powers?", etc. An RfA should never be about agreeing or disagreeing with pre-written statements. It's about looking at a candidate's background and arguing for why or why not someone should be an administrator. There is no reason to make the page this long and unwieldy, and there's no reason to expect half a dozen comments from a single user when one would be sufficient. I don't expect Matt's RfA to get much action, and that's a shame, but I know that I, for one, am certainly discouraged from contributing under this format. -- Kicking222 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the blithering idiot. For proof, see the upper right of my userpage. :) --Durin 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another interesting idea, thanks Durin for these experiments. This one may provide a challenge to the closing bureaucrat as the head-counting heuristic will be difficult to apply, but it should also be more useful in exposing widely-held concerns about the candidate, if they exist. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the discussion is already in full swing. :) I was coming by just to say this version needs another category: "Nomination is the craziest dang thing I ever saw and I hardly know where to begin." Users who support this view: Kafziel ^Talk 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea is fascinating, and good luck to the candidate, but I really feel that in some cases it is going to be totally impossible for the closing bureaucrat to determine consensus. If this format is adopted we are going to fail to promote an unknown number of potentially good candidates. I assume that the policy of >80% promote, <70% no (except User:Ryulong), between the two is bureaucrat discretion is going to go, because when opinions are given seperately on seperate parameters this percentage calculation will become wholly meaningless. For the record, in the light of recent applications, I would suggest that if this same format were to be applied to bureaucrat selection we would never, ever select any. And if it were not to be applied across the board, would that not be discriminatory? Tell me I'm wrong - I don't mind.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, well I've had a good go at using all the features of the new format. To summarise my experience:

1. Best bit - I like the way the discussion focuses contributors on the various skills of the candidate, it feels like a more in depth process
2. Worse bit - amount of time it took me to understand the template enough to create my own section for the comment I wanted to make
3. Concerns - judging the consensus may be difficult. But more importantly I think there's a risk that we can get too focused on a candidates lack of experience in one are- it took me a while to consider the candidate as an overall package rather than as a collection of skills that were present or absent.

I'm not sure its enough of an improvement on the present model to justify losing the convenient elements and it is horendously complicated. That said its an interesting experiment. Perhaps we should have another go at making the first X days of RfA discussion only and then the !vote happen for the rest? WjBscribe 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The first time I read the idea of formatting RfAs as RfCs it felt like a good idea but once you actually see it, it's hard to really like much about it. As WJBscribe notes, this will make the candidate a collection of skills and non-skills. As I said earlier, the guinea pig is pretty solid so we might not get to see how disastrous this can become but WJBscribe's new section on "no XfD experience but not a problem" is (definitely not taking a jab at WJB here) a mild example of perverse effects of the format. People who feel that the summary of others is not quite right will keep adding sections with slightly tweaked formulations and there won't be much to conclude in the end. Also I'm afraid we'll arrive at impossible situations where pretty much everyone agrees that the editor needs the tools, does great work but, say, is uncivil. Unless we have two sections that are "the positives outweigh the negatives" and vice versa, it will be the b'crats job to assess that balance. And if we do have these sections, well, we're just back at voting. Pascal.Tesson 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Why do you think that large-scale surveys are of the 'Choose to agree or disagree with A,B,C,D' and not 'Give us your opinions about A,B,C,D'. The former is easy to analyse, the latter nigh-on impossible. This might just work with a dozen-or-so contributors but with the numbers that regularly participate the discursive nature of the RfA will not serve its subjects in the long run. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm all for modifying and experimenting with RFA, but this format is just awful. RFA's fundamental issue is whether a user has the community's trust or not, and this format is not conducive to gathering consensus for that. It is useful for gathering evidence for an eventual lynching, but its layout is in many places liable for self-contradictions. I can agree with a user, for example, about the nominee not having enough experience in the Portal talk: namespace; that doesn't mean that I agree it is a substantive issue. If, as Pascal brings up above, we are going to end up with sections like "No XfD experience but not a problem", "No XfD experience and it is a problem", "No XfD experience but there are more relevant issues" and "No XfD experience but nobody cares", then this experiment will fail to scale and will throw no usable results. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The results of this format.

Durin, I beg you, please stop these experiments before you accidentally invent a virus that wipes out the human species. I commend you on not taking the criticism by Kicking222 personally, but also intend to add to that criticism. As I see it, the only effect of this format change was to make turn RfA from one clear yes/no semi-vote into half a dozen overlapping, convoluted votes. Also, by discouraging many people from participating, I expect it will reduce transparency.

That's the practical side of the issue. I am also morally opposed to this format (for this, see my comments here). This format not only increases bureaucrat discretion, but does so in a way that accountability becomes impossible. What would we do with an RfA with this format that has 150 participants and 40 overlapping subsections? -- Black Falcon 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll need to institute a whole other bureaucratic process to try to figure out what the bureaucrats were thinking, like a wise man once said! Kafziel ^Talk 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not quite done with the virus that wipes out humanity. I'll let you know right before I release it. You might have time for a quick lunch at the local pub, and maybe hitch a ride with a vogon.
• Ok jokes aside...come on, it's just an experiment. There's no damage to the project being caused by this. For far too long, RfA has wallowed in a complete inability to come to any agreement on whether RfA is broken or not, whether we should reform it or not, what that reform would entail if anything, and etc..etc..etc.. The amount of discourse on these subjects could fill a small library. It's really rather absurd.
• So, I got tired of hashing these endless debates out. Instead, I decided to DO something about it and actually try doing something different for a change. Unless someone can show me how these experiments constitute some threat to the project (especially a threat that's worse than the normal, already damaging RfA formats), then I intend on trying others if I can find willing guinea pigs.
• In the very least, you have to acknowledge these experiments are fostering a considerable amount of discussion on actual attempts at reform rather than theoretical notions of how something might work. --Durin 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • After you patent the virus, will you at least donate some of the proceeds to humanitarian causes? ;) Yes, I'll agree that there's no damage caused by these experiments ... as long as they are limited to just a few instances. And I do have to admit that your bold actions have stirred debate considerable debate. And you are right that the existence of almost 90 RfA talk page archives, many about "RfA reform", is ridiculous. However, there is a simple solution ... something about "if it ain't broke" ... but I digress.
  • Here's the thing: I don't see that the current RfA formats as damaging and I don't view RfA to be broken (also, I really do find this format to be exceptionally terrible ... no offense). Of course RfA isn't perfect, but then, what is? Yes, some candidacies fail for reasons you and I consider trivial (e.g., too "few" talk space edits). So what? We can't always get our way! Just because we consider those reasons to be trivial does not mean we should try to impose our standards on everyone else.
  • On the whole, about half of RfAs succeed. RfA usually sees 10-15 nominations per week, of which 5-8 succeed. If you feel that we need more admins, just nominate more people. Instead of 10 nominations a week, let's have 20! -- Black Falcon 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please believe me when I say that this is meant with no arrogance; I, more so than probably anybody here at RfA, know about the history of RfA. 50% promotion rate is absolutely absurd, given the history here. I'm not going to argue, yet again, whether RfA is broken or not, whether we need more admins or not, etc..etc..etc.. ad nauseam. If you truly want my opinion on this subject, along with the opinions of literally hundreds of other contributors to RfA, read the archives. I'm not saying this to be hostile. I'm pointing out that this is very old ground. This is precisely one of the reasons why I embarked on these experiments. --Durin 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this format is a huge improvement over the previous experiment. Problem is of course that it is still a vote, and the decision can be very difficult to reach if some of the views pass and others not. Another (bigger) problem is that anyone who finds a new ground on which to oppose has to write a new view. That means that constant vigil is required from people who want to express their opinions, because after they have done so, a new view could have been added for which they feel the need to endorse or not to endorse. Furthermore, I worry about the quality of the views. In this RfA, a couple of views have been worded badly. E.g, User has no experience with XfD: if I don't endorse this view, does this mean that I think the user has enough experience with XfD? Furthermore, if I agree with some, but not all the points in a view, would I have to say I don't endorse, and write a view of my own? It all becomes very fragmented this way. Errabee 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harakiri

Oh great! Instead of just one vote, we now have several and, indeed an unlimited number. Discussion may occur within each voting section, but that's blatantly the case with current, sensibly-arranged RFAs. So would both i)the nominator and ii) the nominee please explain to me how this is better than before?

Once they've done that, I'd like them both to tell me how they think that presenting a series of leading questions for people to vote on (oh hush, they're discussions like its snowing in Africa) is in some way going to demonstrate consensus. Would they have people i) oppose the leading questions, ii) write opposing leading question or iii) do both? If not i) alone, then ii) is just comedic since people will oppose and support with opposite meanings both of them.

If you're going to wail at the altar of consensus, and whip yourselves on the back with a nine-tailed whip called "RfA is broken", please try not to put entertaining make-up on before you do so. (Copied here because someone invented some rulecreep where I'm not allowed to discuss this on the discussion page of the RfA. Heaven forbid we might actually have a negative statement anywhere near it). Splash - tk 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Abort?

In all fairness to the candidate, I believe we should abort the experiment before it blows out of control. Now I understand some will disagree and say it's too early but I'm not sure this is very helpful for Matt Britt. Pascal.Tesson 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. It's turning into a foundering morass in here, making it very tedious to look at every view and endorsement, not only for an evaluator but for a bureaucrat. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The amount of text in the nomination at the moment is much less than any contentious RFA in the normal format. What about this format makes reading less text so tedious? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You realise it's been running for all of about 2 hours, right, when you make that calculation? Splash - tk 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and comparing to other RfAs at the two hour mark, and the difference is not significant. Moreover, as time goes on the fact that there is less need to repeat similar reasons/conversations over and over may allow this format to save space; we don't really know. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll pile on as being this seriously opposed to this format. This is far worse than the Moralis format, which is itself far inferior to the standard format. What is completely missing from the format are the sub-sections for "I think this view is reason to promote" "I think this view is reason to not promote" and "I think this view should be completely ignored because the issue isn't relevant". And of course, since these are almost independent of whether the view is agreed with or not, everyone gets to vote again in this sub-section of each view. This doubles the needed effort level from the horror stories described above. GRBerry 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with GRBerry that more nuance than "support" and "oppose" is needed to avoid an excess number of views. JavaTenor 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

green card --- RockMFR 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose aborting, unless Matt Britt wants to. You don't abort an experiment just because it seems to be going badly. We're just a few hours into it. Let it run. What's to lose? --Durin 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with Durin. Although I don't think format is likely to be the solution to our problems, we are discovering a lot of reasons why it doesn't work so next time someone says "Why not have RfC style RfAs?" we'll have something to point to rather than just discussing it in the abstract. And good ideas may yet come of it. Unless Matt Britt wants to end it/change the format I don't see the harm in letting it continue. WjBscribe 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it is Matt's call although he should be made aware (if he isn't) that this is definitely an option. Sure it's nice to have a "see, it doesn't work" example but this is his RfA and he should be able to make that decision. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I favour aborting this particular experiment, but think deferring to the candidate is appropriate. I also don't want dislike of the format to be mixed with sentiments about the nominee, who is an excellent editor. -- Black Falcon 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please abort this. It's a nice idea but the result is a complete mess. >Radiant< 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There isn't any reason to abort. The nominee has not asked for it to be aborted, and it's not causing harm to the project. It's not as if people are being put to a torture rack and made to edit the RfA. Nobody's time is being wasted against their will. Contrast; the experiment is producing helpful feedback.What reason is there to abort? --Durin 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• I oppose the reformatting of this RFA. I'm willing to let it continue for one simple reason: Matt Britt is a highly qualified candidate, well beyond the average, and he's likely to pass regardless of the format (unless he climbs the Reichstag). My main opposition is per Newyorkbrad. The standard RFA format is extremely user-friendly. You type in your vote and your reasoning, and that's it. You know exactly where all the comments belong. In this RFA, everything is confusing. I had to slog through endless lines of "noinclude" and "includeonly" and fully spelled-out diff links until I could find the section for voting on proposition one, then again for proposition two, and after that I gave up. More than any considerations of bureaucrat discretion, voting is evil, etc., an RFA must be user-friendly. I oppose the Moralis format for other reasons, but at least we can agree that the Moralis RFA is user-friendly.

Durin, I congratulate you on you boldness and good intentions. I hope you can find a more user-friendly way. For example, what if there were sections for "support" and "oppose" for people who just want to leave a single general comment, and a "discussion" section where the specific issues can be hashed out? It's probably worse than the current system, but at least it's reasonably user-friendly. YechielMan 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• If we did that, we might as well have the current RfA format. The idea in this format is to get away from voting, not support it.

At least we now know what course of reform we should not take. And, of course, we shall thank Durin for pointing this part out, whether it was intentional or not, and I mean it with all sincerity. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Of course its intentional; this is just one of the potential outcomes of the experiment. We do these things not because we necessarily expect them to work, but to see if and how they will fail. That's what an experiment is all about. --Durin 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My impression from looking at this format is negative, there are altogether too many locations where we need to enter our opinion, and I don't think that is truly needed. But the experiment is well-intentioned, and are a better way of realizing possible benefits and drawbacks with the proposed system than a priori guesses at the significance of the pros and cons. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This method of RFA is so confusing that I am unable to participate.

Editor's note: I have move this view from Matt Britt's RfA to here, as meta discussions regarding the format of the RfA are inappropriate for the RfA and are better directed here. --Durin 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The number of varying opinions is very low, and the whitespace very high. I have a fairly high screen resolution, but I'm unable to see even one opinion on the screen at a time. I would encourage this user to re-apply immediately with a standard-formatted RFA.

Editors who endorse this view

1. AKAF 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Black Falcon 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Not that it's completely useless, but clicking "voice your opinion" leads you to a huge amount of text, full of <noinclude> and <includeonly>. You'll have to open the subpage first, and edit separate sections. And even in that case you'll encounter overzealous amount of formatting. This is very close to WP:BITE, because novices and users not experienced enough with wikitext will find participation in RFAs close to impossible. MaxSem 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Mailer Diablo 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC) - Exactly. In fact if I weren't to add any additional comment but to just endorse with ~~~~, it still ends up more like voting to me.
5. It might be better if commentary were restricted to a few categories (you could have an "other" if you wish) but there are way too many dimensions being explored here for any kind of consensus to clearly emerge. The result of this will be that every section becomes a "!vote" instead of just one big one, as Mailer Diablo said above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
6. It's kaput. —Anas ^talk? 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. 'fraid so. >Radiant< 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors opposed to this view

1. I have had no difficulty participating in this RfA. I'm curious, however, to see how a bureaucrat might approach it, as it would involve the weighing of a number of disparate views. JavaTenor 08:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this view

• Comment (Just realy didn't feel the need to create ANOTHER viewpoint for this comment). Although this format is esoteric, I've been able to participate, though it has been dificult, and would likely be even more so to editors wanting to add viewpoints that are not well versed in formatting. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea

Since it's apparently experiment week at RFA, does anyone want to run for adminship with my idea, which is an arbitration-workshop-like structure (proposed principles, findings of fact, etc) with the discussion divided into comments by bureaucrats/by candidate/by others. Anyone up for it? --Random832 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes it incredibly hard to analyze support and oppose, which is what bureaucrats have to do until there is a consensus to change that. If it's just intended to be an experiment, though, with no actual effect, then I'll do it. -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• RfA is not a vote. RfA is not a vote. RfA is not a vote. Bureaucrats are not expected to count votes. They are expected to evaluate consensus. --Durin 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps RfA should be a vote, though. It is very hard to get consensus about a "yes"/"no" answer, and we should think about promoting based on numbers in non-consensus situations with 66-90% support. Kusma (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. But I can say that it's going to be even more convoluted than the current standard template, though. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I need a victim guinea pig volunteer, though... --Random832 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Choose a suitable one from the Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls list. Note the emphasis. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am considering accepting your offer, but I would like to see an example of this method of gaining adminship first. Captain panda 03:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do suppose it could limit the amount of obviously unqualified candidates with an "opinion on hearing this request" type of thing at the beginning. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I am interested in trying out with this method. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

shudder... that sounds even more complicated than the Matt Britt experiment. And I don't mean that as a compliment! :-) Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm in trying. At least we know what doesn't work so that said unworkable ideas won't come up again. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well my gut feeling is that this is a step in a direction which is not turning out to be too convincing. Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also share the same sentiments, as I have indicated above, but if people want solid proof of the unworkability of this proposal, might as well show it to them via hand-on experience. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahem...

I've seen quite a few people (including myself) voicing the opinion that the current format is fine, or at least that there's no suitable replacement at this time. How come our opinion is just being ignored? I have no hard evidence, but I'm willing to bet there are more people who support the current version than there are people who support any one alternative. So if these alternate versions don't have significant support beforehand, why all the disruption? I know eventually (once there's support for them) we'll want to give these new versions a real-world try, but couldn't they at least go through some peer review-type troubleshooting sessions before being forced on us in a real RfA? It seems to me that in the stampede for "consensus building", you guys are actually trampling consensus by throwing these other formats out there almost unilaterally. Kafziel ^Talk 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• For three+ years, your opinions have been listened to. The opinions were not in any respect ignored. They were talked about, hashed out, lathered, rinsed, repeated, spindled, folded, hung out to dry, shat upon by passing seagulls, sent back to the laundry, re-washed with a few applications of a stain stick, rehashed, then put through a conventional dryer, put in a laundry basket and dumped in a closet somewhere. If you doubt me, have a look at the archives. Shockingly, somebody decided that...*GASP*...we've already had enough talking :) and decided to try something different for a change. Of course, Jesus was crucified for suggesting wouldn't it be great to be nice to people for a change too. Not equating myself to Jesus here, but the reluctance to change... --Durin 13:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one saying "wouldn't it be great to be nice to people". If you have an idea, don't make some other guy be your guinea pig, with his own actual RfA on the line. Do it in your own space, with your username and history, without dragging anyone else into it. It's not binding (obviously), it's not disruptive, nobody is forced to participate, it can weed out the obvious bad ideas... there's no down side to it. Kafziel ^Talk 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Except of course less participation. This has been done Kafziel, with little result. --Durin 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... these are intended to be real RfAs, with a binding result? That's stupid. Are we going to start running AfDs with weird formats and then declaring the results (which can't be interpreted well because the process is different) binding? -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Why not? It's not as if an admin can cause irreparable harm to the project. If he is not trustworthy, it'll still show up in the RfA. What's the big deal? --Durin 13:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so keen in trying to stop experimentation. No one is disrupting anything here. I am of the opinion that the current system does not work, except all the other systems are even worse (in short, there is nothing wrong with the current system). Just as long as there are willing volunteers for this, let it go. Obstructing new ideas is only going to cause more "overthrow the current regime system" agitation. Rather, let these ideas come to reality, and when we see the abject failure of these proposals, we shall be able to prove that the current system is really the best we can get (so far). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is disrupting anything? Have you seen the Moralis RfA? I haven't seen such a swarm of disorganized input and pissed-off editors since... well, maybe since one of my own RfAs.

I'm not saying experimentation is impossible, but it shouldn't be so wanton, either. If you come up with an idea, set up the format in a subpage of your user space with yourself as the "nominee" and give it a week to see how it goes and get feedback on the talk page. Kafziel ^Talk 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. Could you please point to some negative effect on the main namespace because of the Moralis RfA? A few diffs would suffice. Let's remember the goal of this project is the encyclopedia, not RfA. The project is not being harmed by this. --Durin 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Moralis' RfA is pretty awful but I tend to agree that it could be a blessing in disguise. That is, of course, if the few supporters of that format are willing to recognize that it has created more problems than it has solved. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But what about the next one, and the next one, and the next one?

A similar result could have been had in a test run on a user subpage. It wouldn't have gotten quite the same level of response, but we would have seen a similar pattern. If someone comes up with an alternate format, he should be willing to put his own dignity on the line for his experiment, rather than someone else's. If things seem to be working out after a week or so, then he can go looking for a willing test subject for RfA. If not, no harm done to anyone. Kafziel ^Talk 04:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt that to be the case. A subpage experiment lacks the ruffled feathers and "they moved my cheese!" effect we're seeing by having these be actual RfAs. Subpages get considerably less attention. --Durin 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem: historically, RFA tests on pages away from WP:RFA receive little attention, if any. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone on this talk page will know about it, and given the recent activity here, that should be a decent number of people. We can keep a list of links at the top of this page to the various test pages, so people dropping by can see where to go. Kafziel ^Talk 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of people here right now is not drastically different from the number of people that watch it routinely. However, why should I (to pick an example) care to go into a test page, when I could spend my time better in other community matters? At least when a real nomination with a potential promotion is concerned, there's an incentive to comment. Again, if the part is any indication, until someone is bold and breaks the window, no one bothers to comment. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should you? Well, that's kind of my point. Whether you care to go to a test page or not, consensus appears to hold that the current format is better than any other format, so these new versions shouldn't be forced on the community by one or two people. It's similar to moving an article to a different title when consensus has already held to leave it where it is. Being bold does not include being reckless. Kafziel ^Talk 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• You do know that a recent survey had a large majority of people indicating RfA was broken, yes? Your estimation of consensus might need adjusting. --Durin 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with experimentation per se, but I'd like to see the list of alternative RfA structures proposed to-date, along with their pros and cons listed alongside too. Are the alternatives just Moralis' and Matt Britt's? It's brave of them to try but it's clear that it is much harder to interpret the balance of opinion in them compared to the other running RfAs following the established structure. Is this the way that a new structure is to be drawn up, by performing live experiments and rating the comments on WT:RFA? I'd like to be able to read the rationale behind each new structure as it is field tested, I think that this would be useful to see the method that the proposer is using to attempt to establish consensus for the candidate. A link to this on the RfA would be an excellent idea. (aeropagitica) 05:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The hypothetical discussions went on forever. The pros and cons were very difficult to evaluate without concreate examples. --Durin 13:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Support. I support the current format, and see no need for change.AKAF 06:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The cure is becoming worse than the problem. Wild experimentation isn't helpful. >Radiant< 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  But as you know experimentation is sometimes the only way to effect change. Haukur 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PROD didn't disrupt AFD. It was tried out on a separate page, people were (and still are) free not to use it, and it didn't wreak havoc on anyone's chances at adminship. Kafziel ^Talk 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The experiment isn't disrupting RfA. No animals or plants, or even other RfAs were harmed in the making of this experiment. And, whether or not it wreaks havoc on Moralis' of Matt Britt's chances at adminship is irrelevant. They agreed to the experiment; the consequence is for them to decide, not for us. Personally, I think it's patently absurd to hold the format of an RfA against a candidate. --Durin 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wouldn't say the current experiment is wreaking havoc with Matt's chances, though. If the experiment goes to the dogs I'm sure he can file a regular RFA and pass with flying colours. Haukur 13:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah Matt Britt is a very good candidate by current RfA standards. It perhaps makes him less of an ideal candidate for the experiment :/ Still, we're getting lots of discussion on the format, and it's less than a day old so maybe it's fine. --Durin 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)