Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was wrong venue. If you want to change RfA, go to WP:RFC or somewhere. If you want to change the bot, go to User talk:Tangotango. This nom is fatally flawed. Martinp23 17:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report
Also included in this nomination: Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report and the condition that Tangobot will not recreate the pages. Everyone is constantly saying how RFA is not a vote. But guess what? They're all lying, because RFA is a vote, with the big bold "support" and "oppose" comments, the numbering, the different sections, the silly vote counters that no one updates, and most of all, Tangobot's RFA report. If RFA is not a vote, why does it count the number of supports, opposes, and neutrals and gives the percentage of support? It does not help RFA in anyway, and it makes even more of a vote. The crats are supposed to determine consenus, not look at the little box and see it's green, so it must mean they're a good candidate, or look at the little box and see it's red, so it obviously means they're not a good candidate, and consenus has been reached of course because there's no way an RFA could be in the failing range, yet still have consenus. That is not what it means, but some crats think it is. The only useful feature of the report is that the bot tells you overdue nominations. That can be kept if needed, but the rest of the table should go. This is the first step in making RFA less of a vote, and making it so that all crats actually look at the RFA instead of just at this table. If RFA is not a vote, then you don't need a vote counter and percentage finder, do you? -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination for deletion by  You've all heard someone say "RfA is a vote" and then 10 angry users rebut it with "RfA is not a vote; the latter 10 are wrong, even though their stance abides by policy. RfA has a long history of users not being promoted due to the percentages in these two pages: User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report and Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Decisions on enwiki are determined by consensus not votes. On WP:BN, if someone is promoted with less than 75% or so, people start to rant how that is against policy. However, they &mdash; and likely the closing crats &mdash; don't even care about consensus if reading the table saves them the time from reading the discussion. RfA even has percentage recommendations for the closing bureaucrats. This infuriates me &mdash; and users for whom there was consensus to be promoted, but not the recommended support tally &mdash; to no end. I'd also like to ask the closing administrator to actually do everyone a favor and read the discussion and not just look how many "Delete"s or "Keep"s there are. Thank you. —  «  A NIMUM   »  17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you miss the point entirely. The bot tells bureaucrats when a nomination is over its closing time by turning that row red. The bot also identifies double comments which may affect a tally (and yes, 'crats do look at the tallies and care about them). RfA doesn't despite our greatest wishes, run on consensus, and making a sensationalist nomination will not help anyone. If you want the bot to be stopped, or the page to be changed, speak to its author. MfD is not the correct venue. Martinp23 17:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Something this epic needs an MfD. We're not talking about how the bot lets the 'crats know when a nom is over, we're talking about how the crats shouldn't use the table alone. —  «  A NIMUM   »  17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - Shouldn't you two be disagreeing with eachother? ;) Martinp23#


 * Speedy keep - provide useful information - I don't usually contribute in RfAs with over 90% or less than 50% support. Addhoc 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean under an account that you forgot to sign in as? :) -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.