Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DFA and comment on it. I guess people didn't like us suspending RFA before discussing, so we made a different page, where you can tie up the whole thing in discussion until the cows come home. Please inform me of any obvious contradictions in the pages.
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
What was wrong with the existing method at RFA? We don't need hard and fast suffrages. Anyone with too low an edit count or too little experience, won't survive the request anyway. All it adds is a lot of bureaucratic (please forgive the word) crap.
Mgm
On 2/5/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DFA and comment on it. I guess people didn't like us suspending RFA before discussing, so we made a different page, where you can tie up the whole thing in discussion until the cows come home. Please inform me of any obvious contradictions in the pages.
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem, as I've explained before, is there may be one of the following situations:
- Vote tally is (20/0/0) and someone raises a very valid concern that may make the person unsuitable for adminship. - Someone raises a concern, vote tally becomes (0/20/0), and then it turns out it was a sockpuppet doing it.
We want people to only vote once they've gotten the whole picture after discussion.
As an admin, I'd perfer having this instead of relying on a handful of encounters with said user, or having to research 20 users in-depth. As a bureaucrat, it makes it easier to tell whether or not to promote in borderline cases.
Finally, I don't think we should use voting as the main medium for discussion.
On 2/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What was wrong with the existing method at RFA? We don't need hard and fast suffrages. Anyone with too low an edit count or too little experience, won't survive the request anyway. All it adds is a lot of bureaucratic (please forgive the word) crap.
Mgm
On 2/5/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DFA and comment on it. I guess people didn't like us suspending RFA before discussing, so we made
a
different page, where you can tie up the whole thing in discussion until the cows come home. Please inform me of any obvious contradictions in the pages.
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
Ilya N. wrote:
The problem, as I've explained before, is there may be one of the following situations:
- Vote tally is (20/0/0) and someone raises a very valid concern that
may make the person unsuitable for adminship.
- Someone raises a concern, vote tally becomes (0/20/0), and then it
turns out it was a sockpuppet doing it.
We want people to only vote once they've gotten the whole picture after discussion.
As an admin, I'd perfer having this instead of relying on a handful of encounters with said user, or having to research 20 users in-depth. As a bureaucrat, it makes it easier to tell whether or not to promote in borderline cases.
Finally, I don't think we should use voting as the main medium for discussion.
I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our current consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]] where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors. AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else has noticed!"
I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our consensus-determining mechanisms.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 2/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our current consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]] where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors. AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else has noticed!"
I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our consensus-determining mechanisms.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________
FAC has a lot of the same problems. People oppose before things are fixed without coming back to change their vote. I'd be happy to see a x-day discussion implemented before voting starts, but at most that would require a change to the rules of RFA (which is requests for adminship - not votes for adminship). I don't see the need to make an entirely new page.
If this idea was discussed before changing anything, I'm sure there'd be less opposition.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 2/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our current consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]] where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors. AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else has noticed!"
I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our consensus-determining mechanisms.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________
FAC has a lot of the same problems. People oppose before things are fixed without coming back to change their vote. I'd be happy to see a x-day discussion implemented before voting starts, but at most that would require a change to the rules of RFA (which is requests for adminship - not votes for adminship). I don't see the need to make an entirely new page.
If this idea was discussed before changing anything, I'm sure there'd be less opposition.
Mgm
That's effectively nullified by people posting to user talk pages to remind objectors that things have changed. This is a lot harder to accomplish on RfA and AfD, where, due to the large number of people, it's a logistical nightmare and an easy way to be labelled a Wikilobbyist campaigner.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
But that's exactly what we're doing. An x-day discussion period.
The reason there's a different page is that we were originally going to suspend RfA and put this procedure where RfA is located right now, but some people complained, and then Demi suggested we make a new page.
On 2/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our current consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]] where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors. AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else has noticed!"
I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our consensus-determining mechanisms.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________
FAC has a lot of the same problems. People oppose before things are fixed without coming back to change their vote. I'd be happy to see a x-day discussion implemented before voting starts, but at most that would require a change to the rules of RFA (which is requests for adminship - not votes for adminship). I don't see the need to make an entirely new page.
If this idea was discussed before changing anything, I'm sure there'd be less opposition.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
On 2/5/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
But that's exactly what we're doing. An x-day discussion period.
The reason there's a different page is that we were originally going to suspend RfA and put this procedure where RfA is located right now, but some people complained, and then Demi suggested we make a new page.
How wide was this discussed before someone tried to suspend RFA and put this in its place? I never heard about the idea before today, and I think the opposition was mainly due to a lack of community-wide discussion before implementation was tried.
Mgm
Ilya N. wrote:
The problem, as I've explained before, is there may be one of the following situations:
- Vote tally is (20/0/0) and someone raises a very valid concern that
may make the person unsuitable for adminship.
- Someone raises a concern, vote tally becomes (0/20/0), and then it
turns out it was a sockpuppet doing it.
We want people to only vote once they've gotten the whole picture after discussion.
As an admin, I'd perfer having this instead of relying on a handful of encounters with said user, or having to research 20 users in-depth. As a bureaucrat, it makes it easier to tell whether or not to promote in borderline cases.
Finally, I don't think we should use voting as the main medium for discussion.
Sometimes a bureaucrat has to be willing to override a majority vote. Most of the time this won't happen. Bureaucrats do not yet have the power to de-sysop, though it would be handy in borderline cases to have a sort of probation system where if the new admin soon becomes a problem the status could be withdrawn without a fuss. On Wiktionary I do become extra careful before I promote someone, and if I go against the majority I better have good reasons for doing that.
Ec