Wikipedia talk:RFA as RFC/Werdna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Guidelines

  • If three people have not yet certified, the only thing that can be done is a certification from somebody who wants the nomination to go ahead.
  • If you endorse the nomination, sign in the appropriate section.
  • If you have a reason to oppose the nomination, add in an opposing note. The candidate must then respond. You may sign under the opposing note to state that you believe the note significant and relevant enough to stop the person from becoming an admin. It is good form to wait for the response, first. If you believe the candidate's response is adequate, sign to endorse the candidate's response.
  • All discussion goes to the talk page (i.e. this page).

— Werdna talk criticism 13:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • A certification is the same as an endorsement, you can list your name in both sections, but there's no real need to do so. Three certifiers are needed just to make sure that RFAs without a snowball's chance in hell don't go forward. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, one of the objectives of this system is to avoid heated threaded discussion. Avoid it. With prejudice. — Werdna talk criticism 13:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

The first problem I notice with this process is that it doesn't (seem to) have a section for asking the candidate questions. >Radiant< 13:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This talkpage? — Werdna talk criticism 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If we're trying to be like RFC, the talk page is definitely the right place (and is more important to check than in the current RFA). --ais523 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a combination of oversight, and trying to remove confrontational parts of RFA, it should have questions, but I'd hoped for questions that were applicable to adminship. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok, here's question... Werdna, I am not familiar with you, but this is your fourth RFA; could you please explain what has changed about you since the first three? >Radiant< 15:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The question is ambiguous. Which RfA in particular are you referring to. There are three different answers that I would give. — Werdna talk criticism 11:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Mostly the last one (and I note that Hoopydink's question below is similar). I note the first one is mostly based on experience; I'm sure that sufficient time has passed to alleviate that concern. >Radiant< 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I really think that my answer to hoopydink's question applies all the way back to my second RfA. I've kept myself more in-control, but at the same time become more blunt. — Werdna talk criticism 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about...

Encouraging people instead of simply signing an endorsement, to add a supporting statement with examples of behaviour they consider shows fitness for adminship? While we're making this a !vote we might as well go the whole way :-) Guy 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the improvement I would make to it. Currently it seems to bring out the nasty side of RfC without allowing for "good" comments. Basically I think people should be free to show the positive element in verbatim, with objections to positive comments being separate to responses to negative elements. Ansell 05:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I like encouraging more "good" details to come out, but also I think the burden of evidence should be on opposing, which is why it was designed that way. In any case, this trial run is both to see if this is viable, and to fine tune this into a viable replacement for the current format. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand why you say the burden of evidence is on people stating why they should not have the extra tools, however, I also see the opposite, where people affirm the candidate in terms of their demonstration of maturity in preparation for being given more responsibility. Not sure how the current structure allows for that. Ansell 08:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random diffs

Random diffs from last 1000 edits

For some reason, the computer I'm on runs out of memory when I try to analyse the last 2000. --ais523 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optional Question from Hoopydink

It seems as if this is the place to list optional questions for the candidate, so here's mine:

What do you think has changed about you as an editor and more specifically, your abilities as an administrator since your last RfA, which you withdrew from rather early despite having a lot of support (if you'd be willing to shine some light on why you withdrew or provide a diff of an explanation I might have missed, please feel free to do so here)?

My last Request for adminship ended early because I had argued somewhat heatedly with some of the people who opposed me, and I recognised that this was the sort of hot-headed attitude that looked bad to those who oppose, and was bad for an admin anyway. I forgot to write a note regarding my withdrawal later on. As for what has changed, I believe I've become more level-headed, but I will recognise that one of my failings is that I have a tendency to use strong language to describe strong emotions, and be a lot more forthright in my criticism. I do not, however, believe this is a major issue, only a trend. — Werdna talk criticism 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not really working

The problem with treating RFA as an RFC is the assumption that RFC is working fine, whereas in fact it is in worse shape than RFA is. The layout of this page will encourage supporters to rubber-stamp all "rebuttal" sections, and opposers to rubber-stamp all "objection" sections, in effect making four or five different voting sections instead of just one. The problem with RFA is not in the system, but in the unbased opinions of (some) people who participate in it. >Radiant< 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to objections

How about putting responses just under the corresponding objections, like this:

Objection
Users who believe the concern is legitimate
Response to objection
Users who believe the response satisfies the objection
Objection2
etc...

Or even:

Objection
Response
Users certifying objection
Users satisfied with answer

This would improve two things:

  1. Users wouldn't have to scroll through half of the page to compare an objection with how the nominee handled it.
  2. Make it easy on the 'crats, who (beore making a decision) still have to do some basic summing up like: which objections raised were deemed valid by rough "vote count".

Just my $0.02 - the idea in general seems good to me. Misza13 11:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the current layout is a little confusing and I like that second suggestion above. That way it is easy to see the support for both sides of the 'argument' without too much thinking :D As has been pointed out easier for crat's. Another point is who would be allowed to put in responses - obviously the candidate should respond but will others be allowed to comment there too. It would make sense as a 3rd party response can (IMO) be more substantive than that of a candidates. On the other hand that might end up with a whole host of people making responses - so I see the fall down of that idea. It's a point for discussion anyway!
A further point is that of positive discussion - I understand the concept of RfC which is to assume good and produce negatives if possible (we'll that's a generalisation but you get what I mean). However in cases like this positives of a person might get overlooked both by the candidate and the nominator. What about a separate section right above the 'endorse application' section where other people can make supportive statements. Rather like co-noms now but with more substance. I don't mean in sections with support and oppose as the objections are organised but just a straight list of statements. With RfA I don't generally vote unless there is either a good reason to oppose or support. If I can see that reason or find it myself then fine but if not then I wont vote. Usually in cases where there is not particular reasons to oppose I will vote support based on small things; like he was really courteous to me during our dispute. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

I'm sorry. I'm not sure if I am supposed to be talking about the trial RFA/RFC here or if this is the place to talk about this trial process. My post is about the latter, so if this is the wrong place, please move my comment to some more appropriate location, and just let me know. I think that more needs to be done to provide instructions about the usage of this page, specifically to repeat or not to repeat the instructions in each section. Objections 1 and 2 contain the italic text and objection 3 does not. I think it doesn't need to be there, because it is above all of them and I see it as a general comment for all, but once a large number of objections and/or signatures get posted, maybe it will be obscured? --After Midnight 0001 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drive-by objections?

What exactly is in place to prevent "drive-by" objections from !voters? The format as is can encourage piling on rather than discussion. In my trial contribution to the discussion, all I did was sign under the objection; in a classical RFA I would have been compelled to add a comment at the very least to the discussion explaining why I object. Borisblue 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeout

Unfortunately, I think it is fair to say that this trial failed due to lack of community interest. >Radiant< 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it your position to claim that the trial "failed". Is that helping the current problems at RfA? Ansell 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not sure what brought the need to respond like that. I think that Radiant's note was a fair assessment of this experiment hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)