Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Consensus poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This poll has been closed, because it does not follow the polling guidelines

Important: Please read the talk page first, which holds discussion. This is a pure poll. Keep discussion of the issue on the talk page. This page is the poll, the talk page is discussion. Based on the numbers, and more importantly the discussion on the talk page, we should be able to gain consensus on whether changes to RfA and Durin's method of making them are supported.

Contents

[edit] Do you support making changes to RfA?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

  1. I do not think the problems in RfA warrant changing it. Captain panda 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not currently. Either we will form a consensus about what issues determine when someone should receive the admin tools and switch to a checklist type approach to RfA (probably a day or two after hell freezes over) or realize that growth in scale of the community and RfA participation means that we need to move to a pure percentage of legitimate opiners (note: editor is legit, not opinion) system. No consensus for either approach is likely to form in the next year. I think the latter will become necessary at some future date, but it isn't quite necessary yet. GRBerry 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. RfA works fine the way it is. If we want more admins we need to find better candidates. Kafziel Talk 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you support conducting experiments on live RfAs?

This refers to the way changes made on Moralis' and Matt Britt's RfAs. This does not ask if you support the changes. It asks if you believe testing new methods should continue this way.

Note: This question does not ask if the results of an experimental RfA is binding. Bureaucrats are charged with and expected to evaluate consensus. If, given an experimental format they can not, it is reasonable to expect they would return the RfA is incapable of evaluating consensus and thus close as such. I note that the Moralis RfA was closed by User:Warofdreams without too much trouble. I expect that there may be considerable difficulty in closing the Matt Britt RfA and if so the bureaucrats should return it as unable to close.

[edit] Yes

  1. Support: The experiments are not damaging in any respect to Wikipedia, are not binding on the bureaucrats to close, and are done in cooperation with the nominee, not against their will. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. --Durin 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Though I do not think RfA needs to be changed, that is no reason to disallow experimentation. Captain panda 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

[edit] Other

  1. Not the way these were done. The sphagetti approach to testing, in which we throw lots of things at the wall and see what, if anything, sticks, is the wrong way to do it; it is unnecessarilly irritating. There should be prediscussion, and experiments should be done if and only if all of the following criteria are met: 1) is designed to answer one or more questions to which we don't already know the answer; 2) has been pretested on a mock page and mock transcluded from page to get a reasonable layout and wiki-syntax; 3) is pre-approved by a significant minority that thinks they have a reasonable chance of being a good idea; 4) has an designated spot for people to say that the experiment is so bad that the 'crats should declare the experiment a failure and send the candidate through a standard RfA; 5) has an opportunity for people to opine in standard format if they really want to (but it would be okay to defer opening this section for up to 2 days after the clock starts, so long as that time is pre-announced); and 6) has a candidate that knowingly volunteered to be the candidate (preferably, is one of those in criteria #2 thinking it might be a good idea). GRBerry 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Each new format suggestion should be "alpha tested" in user space to get consensus, by running a mock RfA with the creator as the subject. If it can run on a small level without becoming a fiasco, users can agree to try it in a live "beta test" RfA with a willing candidate. If it's thought to be a failure, or that it won't improve anything, it should be scrapped. Kafziel Talk 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • My vote has been wiped out. My adding of clarification to this poll has been reverted. I am therefore backing out of this poll. I'm sorry, but forcibly silencing me by deleting my vote is rather harsh. Wondering how long it will be before this comment is deleted, --Durin 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed discussion since I wanted the page to stay pretty clean. However, I moved your comment here. However since the question is slightly different, I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I created this poll before you created yours, it is different. Please move this to the talk page. Prodego talk 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I refuse to vote, since I'm forcibly being silenced. (not that I could vote anyways, my vote was wiped out as soon as I made it. Good grief)--Durin 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah this edit. Edit conflict, I did not mean to remove your change, it was an edit conflict. I only meant to revert to my version. Prodego talk 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.