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(a)gmail.com> wrote: a _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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(a)gawab.com> wrote: 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(a)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.