User talk:Kim Bruning/Refactoring RFA

How to read this page
I've used the page history to show how I've done each refactoring step. So the best way to read is to start at the first edit, and then step forward through the diffs, while checking out the edit summaries.

I'm thinking that a bureaucrat should promote if the ratio of passes to total statements is 85%. However, a bureaucrat may use his or her discretion to discount spurious requests for discussion.


 * Unfortunately, the link from your first edit to the second edit leads to an error from "deleted page". Fail - doesn't sufficiently test her own test. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because it was working before, I thought. It looks like some mediawiki bug?
 * is this a different link? --let's see
 * --Kim Bruning 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it does work. I'm mystified. It seems to be the same link? Maybe something just after logging in? --Kim Bruning 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inherent problem
The inherent problem with this is that it relies on some external party (e.g. a bureaucrat) to determine whether the "discussions" constitute valid arguments against promoting the candidate. In other words this system judges candidates by the opinion of the closing bureaucrat, rather than the opinion of the community. Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, this means you will not get community support for this suggested refactoring.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)