114:. In all three cases, a number of possible issues concerning oppose votes were brought up. Although a number altered their votes or justified them in response, a few did not. Twice, when the candidate attempted to address the issues at hand through discussion on the talk pages of the voters, he instead garnered more oppose votes, ostensibly for "campaigning".
32:
117:
Often, voting in an RfA is a stab in the dark, with little more to go on than the various edit count statistics, and the nominator's comments. When the oppose votes start pouring in, the new information might have altered the decision of previous voters. Likewise, when the candidate, nominator, et al
121:
There is a justifiable concern that this process will add more instruction creep just to handle a minority of "wedge cases" when most RfAs don't require such a process. Suggestions on how to remedy this would be naturally welcome — one idea might be to allow candidates to choose between RfA and DfA,
180:
Well, no process is perfect. But there are a number of possible solutions to this — why not think of some? Just through brainstorming, you can come up with workarounds like getting bureaucrats to notify all voters of new developments. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that new information would be
139:
The discussion phase lasts for a week; the RfA subpage is transcluded as normal, and the nomination process is the same. However, each subpage will note prominently that voting has yet to commence, and those with comments on the user can add them to the talk of the
118:
attempt to address the oppose votes, it is not uncommon for the voter(s) concerned to be unaware of the discussion. Attempting to bring the discussion to the voter's talk, on the other hand, risks accusations of campaigning.
169:
vote changes by ensuring everyone has the facts beforehand. In the same way, this new process will probably encourage greater debate of a candidate's merits and encourage greater consideration of your vote on
145:
When the discussion phase conclues, voting opens and continues as it would on a normal RfA. The prominent link to the discussion subpage is retained, advising voters to sift through the information prior to
103:
201:
111:
50:
107:
165:
We aren't. We're just shifting the focus of changing one's mind from during the voting period itself to prior to voting. The idea is to reduce
196:
54:
39:
86:
49:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
130:
To foster a situation whereby voters have as much information as reasonably possible available to them before they vote:
89:(RfA) process. This is still in progress; please be bold and edit this page if you have ideas of your own.
181:
brought up after a week of turning over every stone; how often does this happen with RfAs currently?
46:
63:
177:
Once the discussion period concludes, and a new piece of info is brought up, what then?
122:
although running parallel processes does seem to provide much overhead for little gain.
190:
17:
162:
We shouldn't be discouraging people from changing their minds.
26:
71:
134:
An RfA is divided into a discussion and voting phase.
93:
RfA is not broken - this is a proposal to improve it.
85:
This is a proposal to make some minor reforms to the
8:
202:Matters related to requests for adminship
102:Let's have a look at just a few RfAs:
7:
25:
30:
1:
158:(incomplete; please expand!)
218:
197:Knowledge failed proposals
61:
104:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters'
53:or initiate a thread at
87:requests for adminship
154:Counter-arguments
82:
81:
16:(Redirected from
209:
74:
55:the village pump
34:
33:
27:
21:
217:
216:
212:
211:
210:
208:
207:
206:
187:
186:
156:
128:
100:
78:
77:
70:
66:
58:
31:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
215:
213:
205:
204:
199:
189:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
174:
173:
172:
171:
155:
152:
150:
148:
147:
142:
141:
136:
135:
127:
124:
99:
96:
84:
80:
79:
76:
75:
67:
62:
59:
45:
44:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
214:
203:
200:
198:
195:
194:
192:
179:
178:
176:
175:
168:
164:
163:
161:
160:
159:
153:
151:
144:
143:
138:
137:
133:
132:
131:
125:
123:
119:
115:
113:
109:
105:
97:
95:
94:
90:
88:
73:
69:
68:
65:
60:
56:
52:
51:the talk page
48:
43:
41:
36:
29:
28:
19:
18:Knowledge:DFA
166:
157:
149:
129:
120:
116:
101:
92:
91:
83:
37:
167:unnecessary
191:Categories
112:Joturner's
98:Background
38:This is a
47:Consensus
42:proposal.
140:subpage.
126:Proposal
108:Ec5618's
64:Shortcut
146:voting.
72:WP:DFA
40:failed
170:RfA.
110:and
193::
106:,
57:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.