1000:- it isnt! This is actually a policy for the closing crat - that they should consider the status of the votes rather than the number. Instead actually helpful advice over how to vote constructively on a RFA would be useful, rather than this constant infighting over what we call the process. Be it a vote or be it not a vote lets at least get good constructive comments c9oming in first.
203:
input into the bureaucrat's decision, along with other traditionally used factors such as (especially) strength of the arguments, facts brought out during the discussion, puppetry or lack thereof, relative standing of commentors, and in this case the bureaucrat's good judgement. So I think that as it
882:
Well, it wasn't before. I recall being a new upstart IP and convincing one of the admins (angela at the time :-) ) to undelete a particular article. Hmm! Well, that does explain some of the anomalies I've noticed in wikipedia guidelines. I guess we just need some sane admins (and sane ordinary users
752:
Yes, that does make sense (sorry for my brainfart). However if we'd simply had a guideline saying "RFA is not a vote" last week then we wouldn't have had an extremely rancorous debate over the fact that the bureaucrats didn't feel bound by a numerical count. I'm happy with the outcome so far; that
92:
Let me remind you that you are not authorized to make something a policy singlehandedly. Perhaps Jimbo is. But Tony
Sidaway thinking that this is a guideline that would benefit the community does not make this guideline automatically approved by consensus. Perhaps this is a tautological thought, but
469:
You could have asked me last week and I'd have agreed. The recent kerfuffle over the
Carnildo affair convinced me that many, many editors thought that RFA was a vote. Since it isn't, and the difference opinion seems to have added to the confusion, I think a more prominent statement is merited. To
425:
a vote, or at least it has always been so far. To attempt to change that is an attempt to manipulate the process to make it meaningless, to convert it into an ink-blot test where one sees whatever one is inclined to see. The end of this slippery slope is the transfer of admin-making power away from
243:
I agree that raw numbers should not be the last word. To my mind even a small number of well-founded objections should trump any number of I-thought-she-was-one-alreadys. Just so long as the guideline isn't interpreted as saying something else (i.e. retrospectively blessing the Sean Black thing), I
135:
I think this above stated in a more consiliatory tone is a better way to talk. To respond, the guideline in the form you propose looks arrogant. And without elaboration it sends a wrong message to the community. We may work out something from this, but that's just my opinion. Obviously there is yet
88:
Now, to change the subject, since discussing your attitudes and its overall harm to the community belongs to your talk and when necessary to policy pages, I will explain my edit. I don't see a consensus appearing under the guideline in its current form. While obviously a true statement as confirmed
1003:
As to the closing crats - how many go through each vote and consider the users standing and the relevance of their comments. I would hazard the guess that most simply consider the major issues raised and wether there has been large oposition based on that and then just count the votes. Essjay says
821:
The sad fact is that we have a number of things that are a vote. RfA is usually a vote, except in specific circumstances, and DRV is a vote. This is one of the few things I think I can stand with Tony on - if we need yet another guideline to make it explicitly clear that RfA is not meant to be a
797:
It could be seen that way, yes. However I see the obvious consternation of some editors at the
Carnildo result as symptomatic of a failure of understanding. It appears to me that those editors who objected believed that RFA was a vote. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to make more plain the fact
89:
by
Carnildo RfA debacle that will be sending waves here for a while, such guideline in this exact form is arrogant. And without elaboration it sends a wrong message to the community. I reserve my judgement for now on why this has become a true statement and what can be done about that.
161:
There is no consensus that it is good to have the guideline in this blunt and arrogant form. In fact, for now it is only your opinion that the curt and blunt statement of which no one but you spoke favorably yet is ready to be stamped as official. Wait for what others say. That's all.
52:
I agree with the statement you made. I do not agree with the statement becoming a guideline in the current form. Editors have yet to agree with the statement in this form not to be just true (or false) but to become a guideline. As such this form of the guideline is yet "proposed"
32:
I think it's probably more correct to describe this as a guideline. If someone wants to change this to a "proposal", perhaps some justification might be in order. It seems to me that in its current form this is a truism we can all agree on, and we can discuss how to expand it.
588:
This ignores the underlying problem of the RFA in question - the sudden change in deciding what a majority is (someone else pointed out that another RFA had garnered some 72% and failed vs. Carnildo's 60% majority) - and only serves to fan the flames of the controversy.
585:"policy", which is arguable more controversial due to the number of VFD/AFD nominations and extreme polarization. I think Aaron Brenneman said it best: "ad, bad, incalculably bad. Uncivil, unproductive, instruction creep, ignores underlying problem, bad bad bad."
848:
DRV is a vote, is meant to be a vote, and is treated solely by majority rule, ignoring any cognizent arguments about the process in favor of what gets more support. I'm happy to try and help you tear down DRV (and RFA, for that matter), but we're a minority.
479:
I think you're assuming that those who objected to how that was handled wanted it to be a vote. I haven't seen much indication of that. In any case, you've still given no reason for a seperate page rather than just a clarification on the existing page.
787:
and next time someone fails who has a reasonable level of support from some group they will try and beat people over the head with that guideline. This is a flawless case of
Instruction creep since you are trying to create a guideline to deal with one
632:
it got deleted. (also involved were Ignore all rules, Categories for speedy deletion, a reverted three revert rule, deletion review, Featured
Articles, the GNAA being out-trolled by wikipedians, and some measure of Steward intervention). Fun times!
273:
I've applied a light copyedit. It seems like a fair enough statement; but I wonder if one of the special IAR-type "subtle and important meaning" tags might not be more appropriate here than the default guideline/policy/whatnot boilerplate.
582:
436:
I fully agree. I think we're fooling ourselves when we use the computer-inspired term "!votes" to describe RFA votes. With such a narrow threshold of passing or failing, it cannot seriously be considered anything other than a vote.
172:
What makes it sounds arrogant to you? One of our official policies says simply "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining
Knowledge's quality, ignore them." Does that curt, blunt statement also strike you as arrogant?
757:
consensus for this (and many people are even saying they consider it so obvious that we don't even need to codify it). There probably won't be a repetition of the recent extremely ugly and unnecessary attacks on the bureaucrats.
1024:
I agree with Errant above that this really only applies to the closing b-crat. As I would hope that our b-crats already understand the difference between consensus and a straight vote, then this probably isn't really needed...
627:
Ah, this brings back memories :-) . I think I'm the only person to have ever applied "Kick the ass ..." in a fun episode of wikipedia history. It was as a submarine policy (fairly convincing poll) *after* the page
837:
RFA is not a vote, nor is DRV. If either *ARE* votes, then they need to be torn down immediately. I've had to deal with voting on wikis before, and it's never pretty. I should check out
Deletion review some more.
399:
I'm happy without it. I think it originated in my response to people asking, if it wasn't a vote, what was it. In this document we can probably expand a bit more and perhaps try to pin it down. --
312:
Meh. The whole "We're not sure what it is, precisely..." bit is a little too airily philosophical, in my opinion—despite (probably) being true. But maybe I'm just reading too much into this.
291:
Personally I'd rather not use such tags where the factuality of the statement is so clear. There's nothing subtle about saying that we don't just expect the bureaucrats to tot up the votes. --
136:
no consensus to stamp a tl:guideline on top of the page with this statement as demostrated above. I agree with the need of this guideline but not in the current form. More opinions welcome. --
506:
151:
Does the statement represent the consensual view of the community of not? If it does, it should be a guideline. I maintain that it does. We see as yet no evidence that it doesn't. --
230:
Yes, raw numbers obviously are taken into account. They're not the be-all and end-all, as would be the case if RFA were a vote. Perhaps this guideline should clarify on that point. --
260:
I've added this: "The numbers of people supporting, opposing and neutral on a candidacy are taken into account, but that isn't the be-all and end-all of
Requests for adminship." --
994:
Yes, raw numbers obviously are taken into account. They're not the be-all and end-all, as would be the case if RFA were a vote. Perhaps this guideline should clarify on that point
673:
537:
966:. Unfortunately, the consensus guideline has not been well maintained for a long time, and really has no description of how a consensus based poll works or should work.
567:, based on the reasoning behind people's comments not simply the number of comments themselves. I suspect that will give you the term you're looking to introduce.
533:
519:
366:
It's not a terribly useful thing to say, in practical terms—and not really the point of this particular page, either—so we may be better off without it.
81:
In no time, you threw two more accusations as if your recent contempt towards anyone who disagrees with you did not cause enough stir. This above and
426:
the community and to crats and arbs instead. RfA should be given a definition that reflects its reality: it is a consensus-based voting process.
64:
Could you explain why you think that this statement isn't authorised by consensus? The other stuff seems to be wikilawyering on your part.--
1013:
581:
This proposed policy, created in response to the controversial re-sysopping of
Carnildo, is overkill. It's tantemount to the failed
976:
though ;-). There's no point in describing pathological methods, except *as* pathological methods, even if many people apply them. )
106:
1004:
that 70-80% is the recommended guidline for promotion - is that not a vote????? That is what needs 'changing' if anything.... --
1033:
1018:
982:
943:
914:
891:
873:
858:
842:
831:
802:
792:
762:
731:
710:
693:
680:
665:
655:
637:
619:
610:
593:
571:
544:
487:
474:
463:
441:
430:
403:
370:
341:
316:
295:
278:
264:
251:
234:
224:
188:
177:
166:
155:
140:
129:
116:
97:
68:
57:
37:
907:
93:
your strange action made stating this tautology warranted. I will welcome more thoughts on the matter from other editors. --
105:
Third party opinion- I think this already reflects consensus too, but I don't see why we need this as a seperate page from
672:
I do know that it's not a vote. However there is a widespread misconception that RFA is a vote. Please see the debate on
651:
says nothing here is a vote. You of all people should know better than to create extra policy/guideline pages! --
125:
I think it might be useful, considering the number of times we get people moaning about percentages and whatnot. --
17:
866:
85:
absolutely bemusing accusation towards respected users you accused of "trolling" for not agreeing with yourself.
854:
827:
969:
You can't count on it to say what needs to be said, so please head on over there and work on that page too.
248:
74:
I ignore the accusation in wikilawyering. Before accusing others in Wikilawyering for a change compare the
911:
870:
799:
759:
707:
677:
541:
516:
471:
400:
338:
292:
261:
231:
174:
152:
126:
65:
34:
850:
823:
661:…And that would be why this one-line policy proposal is probably getting merged into the RfA details ;)
438:
220:
ought to be changed. Oh and also, putting up a page straight off as a guideline: NO! BAD! NO COOKIE!
869:
is a vote, an anomalous situation that it inherited from its predecessor, "Votes for undeletion". --
963:
648:
502:
367:
313:
275:
214:" Voting and expressing opinions... Who may vote... Who may not vote... To add a vote/comment..."
245:
616:
979:
940:
888:
839:
662:
634:
607:
568:
560:
484:
460:
221:
113:
1030:
1009:
939:, which effectively states that when sanity and the rules are at odds, sanity should win.
590:
146:
Could you explain what you mean by "looks arrogant". It only says that RFA is not a vote.
78:
to that of your opponents to the only non-wikilawyering space there is (that is "main").
44:
498:
427:
936:
887:
to drop by and just...like...be sane, do the right thing and give the right example?
453:
217:
209:
185:
559:
I was under the impression that all important wikipedia decisions taken outside of
184:
Imv it's already policy, and everyone (tm) knows it is. Except, apparently, Irpen.
652:
604:
481:
457:
110:
883:
these days... did I mention RFA is not promoting the right people?) .. well...
204:
stands it could be taken to mean that raw vote totals should not be considered
1026:
583:
Knowledge:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007
163:
137:
94:
54:
996:. But that works 2 ways! Plus how is this going ot stop people simply voting
496:
I agree that this could be merged/redirected with no loss of information. --
789:
728:
690:
452:
I still don't see that this serves any useful purpose that a sentence in
199:
I can't say I'm in favor of this page. I'd hope that raw vote totals are
935:
Of course sanity is against the rules at times. Duh. That's why we have
647:
Tony, Tony, Tony... We already know that RfA isn't a vote, and in fact
689:
Don't care. Delete two other guidlines and we can consider this one.
337:
Maybe that bit isn't helpful. Perhaps we could try removing it. --
208:(else why have this page), which I think would be a mistake. Also,
47:"A guideline is something that is... authorized by consensus".
972:
Remember: Descriptive, not prescriptive! (Do describe what
865:
Badlydrawnjeff is correct on this matter, I think. Sadly
599:
It's not overkill- it addresses the serious need for yet
515:
Okay, you convinced me. Let's try merge-and-redirect. --
216:, so either this page ought to be changed or rejected or
727:
oh but it does. it keeps the number of guidelines down.
586:
82:
75:
18:
Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship is not a vote
674:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter
603:place to argue about the Carnildo situation ;-)
534:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Front matter
8:
706:That doesn't even begin to make sense. --
532:I jumped in and added the wording to
7:
25:
536:, with an explanatory comment on
107:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
76:recent contribution of yourself
28:Guideline vs proposed guideline
1034:21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1019:21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
983:16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
944:16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
915:15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
906:Sanity is against the rules.
892:15:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
874:15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
859:14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
843:14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
832:12:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
803:15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
793:01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
763:00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
732:00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
711:22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
694:22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
681:05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
638:14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
666:21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
656:19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
620:18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
611:18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
594:18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
572:14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
545:00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
520:23:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
507:23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
488:23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
475:23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
464:22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
431:12:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
404:23:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
371:22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
342:22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
317:22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
296:21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
279:21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
265:21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
252:21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
235:20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
225:20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
189:19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
178:06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
167:01:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
156:00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
141:00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
130:00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
117:00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
98:00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
69:00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
58:23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
38:23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
555:Informed consensus, surely?
470:forestall reoccurrences. --
195:Not really in favor of this
1050:
442:13:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
212:includes material such as
244:have no problem with it.
822:vote, then so be it. --
962:I've added a link to
910:, dont-you-know. --
908:Process is important
964:Knowledge:Consensus
649:Knowledge:Consensus
565:informed consensus
1017:
992:Tony said above:
978:
857:
830:
798:that it isn't. --
643:Instruction creep
456:couldn't serve.
16:(Redirected from
1041:
1008:
970:
937:Ignore all rules
853:
826:
577:This is overkill
21:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1040:
1039:
1038:
990:
988:It works 2 ways
960:
867:Deletion review
645:
579:
557:
450:
197:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1047:
1045:
1037:
1036:
989:
986:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
897:
896:
895:
894:
877:
876:
862:
861:
851:badlydrawnjeff
835:
834:
824:badlydrawnjeff
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
699:
698:
697:
696:
684:
683:
669:
668:
644:
641:
625:
624:
623:
622:
578:
575:
556:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
525:
524:
523:
522:
510:
509:
493:
492:
491:
490:
449:
446:
445:
444:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
368:Kirill Lokshin
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
314:Kirill Lokshin
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
284:
283:
282:
281:
276:Kirill Lokshin
268:
267:
257:
256:
255:
254:
246:Angus McLellan
238:
237:
196:
193:
192:
191:
181:
180:
159:
158:
148:
147:
133:
132:
122:
121:
120:
119:
72:
71:
61:
60:
49:
48:
29:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1046:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1001:
999:
995:
987:
985:
984:
981:
977:
975:
967:
965:
957:
945:
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
916:
913:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
893:
890:
886:
881:
880:
879:
878:
875:
872:
868:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
833:
829:
825:
820:
819:
804:
801:
796:
795:
794:
791:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
764:
761:
756:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
733:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
712:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
695:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
682:
679:
675:
671:
670:
667:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
654:
650:
642:
640:
639:
636:
631:
621:
618:
614:
613:
612:
609:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
592:
587:
584:
576:
574:
573:
570:
566:
562:
554:
546:
543:
539:
538:the talk page
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
521:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
504:
500:
495:
494:
489:
486:
483:
478:
477:
476:
473:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
459:
455:
447:
443:
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
424:
405:
402:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
372:
369:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
343:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
318:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
280:
277:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
263:
259:
258:
253:
250:
247:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
194:
190:
187:
183:
182:
179:
176:
171:
170:
169:
168:
165:
157:
154:
150:
149:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
131:
128:
124:
123:
118:
115:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
100:
99:
96:
90:
86:
84:
79:
77:
70:
67:
63:
62:
59:
56:
51:
50:
46:
42:
41:
40:
39:
36:
27:
19:
1005:
1002:
997:
993:
991:
973:
971:
968:
961:
912:Tony Sidaway
884:
871:Tony Sidaway
836:
800:Tony Sidaway
760:Tony Sidaway
754:
708:Tony Sidaway
678:Tony Sidaway
646:
629:
626:
600:
580:
564:
558:
542:Tony Sidaway
517:Tony Sidaway
497:
472:Tony Sidaway
451:
422:
420:
401:Tony Sidaway
339:Tony Sidaway
293:Tony Sidaway
262:Tony Sidaway
232:Tony Sidaway
213:
205:
200:
198:
175:Tony Sidaway
160:
153:Tony Sidaway
134:
127:Tony Sidaway
91:
87:
80:
73:
66:Tony Sidaway
35:Tony Sidaway
31:
980:Kim Bruning
941:Kim Bruning
889:Kim Bruning
885:sane people
840:Kim Bruning
663:LinaMishima
635:Kim Bruning
569:LinaMishima
563:are infact
222:Herostratus
1010:Tmorton166
753:we have a
630:describing
591:Hbdragon88
439:YechielMan
1014:Review me
958:Consensus
615:ROTFL. --
561:WP:OFFICE
428:Everyking
109:either.
998:per xxxx
755:de facto
186:The Land
45:WP:RULES
617:Richard
601:another
43:as per
1006:Errant
653:SCZenz
608:(talk)
605:Friday
485:(talk)
482:Friday
461:(talk)
458:Friday
454:WP:RFA
249:(Talk)
218:WP:RFA
210:WP:RFA
206:at all
114:(talk)
111:Friday
974:works
788:case.
676:. --
448:Merge
164:Irpen
138:Irpen
95:Irpen
55:Irpen
855:talk
828:talk
790:Geni
729:Geni
691:Geni
540:. --
503:blis
421:RfA
83:this
1031:rex
499:nae
1025:--
849:--
758:--
423:is
201:an
173:--
162:--
53:--
33:--
1029:-
1027:T
1016:)
1012:(
501:'
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.