Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2/archive 1

Support/Oppose/Neutral section headings
I'm going to add these headings now, and try to formulate something to prevent people from actually voting early. The reason is: Tangobot (used at WP:BN/R) is handling this by saying "Parse failed" in the S/O/N section, which is OK I guess, but SQLBot (which is used at WT:RFA and the actual WP:BN page) doesn't pick up this RFA at all. Particularly since this is somewhat experimental, as many people as possible should know about it, so there are no cries of "sneaking thru under the radar" later.

If someone can come up with a cleaner way of having this show up on both bot reports, feel free, but I strongly feel this RFA needs to be on both reports to ensure legitimacy. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know that'd happen :S. Something that needs to be addressed if this becomes widespread practice, then. Ironholds 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't either; this is just a temporary fix. If this becomes an accepted method, we'd probably want to pester the bot owners. --barneca (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it, barneca. Garden . 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did go for it once; Ironholds nuked them accidentally, while answering questions. Re-done. --barneca (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deliberate, actually, to reduce the chance of people voting pre-saturday. Ironho<b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, if you can come up with a better way to have this show up in the bot report, fine. But you're probably asking for complications and complaints later if your RFA doesn't show up on anyone's radar screens during Q&A time.  Still, now that I know you did it on purpose, I won't re-add if you want to nuke it again. --barneca (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right, no, what I meant was I had removed the S/O/N headings deliberately, but my intent was not to screw with the bot. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: It may be too late now, but would putting the S/O/N headings in an html comment work? Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently people can't handle having them there, so we either need to accept the bot output not being correct or ask their owners to update them to at least still list the RFA with no tally. Please don't add the sections back until it is time for them. - Taxman Talk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I can't help but feel that about 10% of the responsibility for the pre-voting voting idiocy below is my fault.  Sorry, was just trying to help. --barneca (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

New format
I hate change, but this may actually be better than I expected-- with more time to consider the candidate before !voting. Dloh cierekim  21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just hope it doesn't lead to "oppose per random question 16b" or any other answer that may not read "perfectly".  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My only comment is that this would seem likely to end up very intensive for the candidate. One would think that it would be far better they could continue productive work rather than answering a mass of questions that may not, in actual fact, generate more understanding than a review of contributions would. I'm not against the idea and I applaud Ironholds for making a stab. It will be interesting to review the total number of questions asked against those of a traditional RFA. Pedro : Chat  21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My hope is that rather than the traditional oppose one would normally see, with a broad argument and supporting diffs, that the same information was presented as a question to the candidate instead. That way, the contributor (and others) can select their stance based on both the statement and thee response from the candidate when the debate phase completes at the weekend. With this style of RfA, I'd consider it pretty poor form to keep reasons for opposing until after the debate has completed - if you have a concern, air it now! Many thanks,  Gazi moff  21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that was to myself or Wisdom, but I don't have any concerns that are likely to be ameliorated by asking a question, put it that way. Pedro : Chat  21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, this raises a concern I have. If I have a reason to oppose, and I have not looked at Ironholds so this is purely hypothetical, I'm worried about the poison question, which is really a comment.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the way I envisaged this working was to have a question/statement phase. So you could either ask a question or make a comment, as it's all part of a debate. Then, when you move over to the !vote, you just ref questions or comments in the debate phase. No badgering, no fuss. As it is this is a kind of "halfway house" setup. I agree that it will force people to think, but I'm also concerned that it won't mitigate the problem of the early tenuous or tendicious oppose that can torpedo an RfA. The trick is to design a mechanism that provides the candidate with the opportunity to refute or respond to these types of opposes before a dozen "per X" opposes pile on top without any review or fact checking taking place. Hope this makes sense.  Gazi moff  23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At least it's better organized than before. And everyone should have a clear idea of how they feel before the !voting phase starts. I hate it when something comes up I had not seen before that would cause a position change. Has anyone else been interviewed for a job by a panel. That's harrowing. But that was only half an hour, not 4 days. Any limit to the questions?   Dloh  cierekim  22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've a small question: is discussion then discouraged after the "discussion" phase? In other words, would one just type "Support"/"Oppose"? As an aside: I was interviewed by a panel, once. Everyone had their pet questions (I felt that there was a sort of air of superiority, too). I emailed them afterwards to indicate I would pursue alternate employment. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to be a tough sale on this process. I really think it highlights the worst aspect and least meaningful aspect of the RfA process---questions.  90% of the questions asked are garbage questions that shouldn't be asked and I think this is just going to make the process a lot more tedious.  That being said, there is one aspect that I do like... it forces people to wait.  I've always been highly critical of people who !vote immediately after an RfA begins.  It's ridiculous that somebody could have 40 supports within 2 hour of transposing an RfA.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that it has plusses and minuses. Whatever the outcome of this RfA, I think it's important to do a post-mortem on it then feed the findings into another test case. It's like any new process - you hav to run through it a couple of times in order to work out any pitfalls and pinch points.  Gazi moff  23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I love this format. It will help to get people to actually review the candidate before jumping right in. The candidate has the right to not answer off-topic questions. Erik the Red  2    22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be able to buy into a 24 hour period, for the simple reason that it gets rid of the immediate !votes. I don't like the 4 day question period that is way too long for this period.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it the new format so far. The wait seems to be making people finally do their own research into the candidates. I hope it will help the pile-on votes that add no additional constructive comments/criticisms for the candidiate.  - Jameson L. Tai  <sup style="color:#660000;"> talk ♦  contribs  23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just got back from a long Afk. The entire idea is to do a detailed post-mortem that would simply ask (If people aren't tired of questions at that point :P) "Do you feel this would work? If not, why not? If so, is there anything that should be changed?" At the moment I'm thinking a shorter questioning time just because with the number of questions that've popped up in 3 hours I can't see there being anything left to ask after more than 2-3 days. A notable advantage of this version; by presenting possible opposes as questions to be answered it removes any accusations of badgering when a user tries to defend his or herself, and issues with the concept of badgering was one of the few things the RfA debaters agree on.<b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 00:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to hold it against this candidate, but I absolutely detest the new format. The traditional one is much better. The idea of artificially cutting off questions to the candidate after a particular date is extremely objectionable. It may be that everything is OK in the case of this candidate, but there may easily arise situations (which usually come up when people start voting and commenting), when follow-up questions or questions on topics that have not been asked yet, are needed. It is very counterproductive (not to mention undemoctratic), both for the candidate and for the voters, if such questions cannot be asked and answered. Moreover, as mentioned above, the new format actually increases the number of questions that the candidate has to answer (not really such a great idea) and, by reducing the time of the actual voting, increases the pressure on the candidate and introduces a greater element of randomness and instability in the process. Please, shelf this misguided idea and get back to the traditional format. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's let it run for now. If it works, great. If it needs tweaking, OK. If it becomes a dismal failure, we will celebrate its passing and move on. It would not be best to halt it or change it now that it's running.  Dloh  cierekim  02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care for the new format. The candidates are liekly to be swamped with questions before voting opens. Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet, I found the complaint department. This new format is in no way an improvement on the traditional format, and is regrettable in the way it cabins and stifles discussion.  Rules like these are the reason WP:IAR exists. Townlake (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the intention is to cut off questions after a certain point, then I too will never buy into this. Questions can and should arise throughout the process.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussed that happened on WT:RFA, additional questions and discussion are permitted after the voting period begins. Useight (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the SOB that proposed this change. My hope (not working out so far) is that people would ask questions like the one I did. I went through the contribution record, and found some things that troubled me. Instead of putting a !vote in, I've asked three questions so that I can understand his perspective on these issues. My concerns haven't got an enthusiastic userbase, so it's unlikely that I could have torched an entire RFA with one !oppose, but I've seen it happen. One guy votes !oppose, and 7 more say "!oppose per the first guy". If first guy asks a question, maybe there will be an answer. Maybe not. Can't hurt to ask.

If it turns out to be a pile of hypothetical questions with little relevance to the candidate and questionable relevance to Wikipedia in general, the experiment has failed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this encourages a pile-on of questions, which in reality we should be trying to avoid. I mean, if he starts getting "oppose per Q 2x", then that would be symbolic of a failure. I'm willing to give this method a shot, though I have no clue what's going to happen in practice. Granted, I've never been a fan of questions. Wizardman 05:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Move

 * Does anyone have a problem with me creating a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship to move this to and act as a venue for post-mortem evaluation? Since it's already started here we may as well keep it all together, and I can see from the posted comments that some useful changes can already be implemented in the second of the three runs. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting before voting is supposed to begin
 I moved this here from the main page as it's not related to Ironholds  naerii  01:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 

I'm confused as to why RMHED has !voted neutral with this new format. The reason we are refraining from doing so is because we don't want to set a precedent for others without vetting the candidate adequately first. RM, could you elaborate for me?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC) < > Assuming that the Crat's are OK with this, then I'd say it's up to them to weigh the comments. It seems to me that we have two premature comments as acts of protest against this experimental format. We'll probably have more of them. My hope is that this does not lead to disruption and some sort of three ring circus. It is unfortunate that they have chosen this means to express their views. Far better, IMHO, to discuss views here than to make protest votes. I note their right to their opinions and move on. It saddens me that editors here are becoming overly heated. Dloh  cierekim  02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess from the edit summary and his response on the talk page is he wants to see what we do in the 100% likely outcome that someone ignores a flashing red edit notice, a big sign, a section header and a giant crocodile and votes anyway. Do we remove it?  Indent it?  Ask politely?  Ban for life?  Move to voting early as people follow the leader? Protonk (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That very well may be - but now that the stance has moved into the oppose section when it explicitly requests that all editors should wait until the question and answer period has lapsed to cast their vote, I'm failing to see the motive behind it...especially since it reads "for now". If you are likely to change your mind, then you support or go neutral at the proper time. Even if someone has made up their mind already, why not just wait? I just don't see the point.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see the point either, but people do that in normal RFAs too. Is your issue with the 'for now' or the 'voting early' or both?  naerii  01:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Naerii, yes, I realize it's a fairly regular action in the normal format. I'm actually taking issue with both. 1.)I don't understand why (especially given this format) one finds it necessary to cast a tentative/mutable position and 2.)Why, if everyone participating is well aware, are people finding it necessary to respond so early? Your voice isn't going to be lost at any point during this process.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's been removed again. I'd feel better if RHMED did it himself, not another user. Also, this should probably be moved to the talk page.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just let people !vote if they are ready too. I've missed the discussion that lead to this ridiculously tedious process, and I'm glad that I did.  I do not need a Q/A forum to decide how I feel about an RfA on Wikipedia.  I get enough debate talk from CNN.  If users take the time to review an editor, as they should as a responsible community member, this dog and pony show is unnecessary.  I'm sorry for the folks that feel a panel needs to be engaged in a discussion before the motion, but this is bureaucratic beyond belief.  When are we going to institute Robert's Rules of Order in an RfA?  We used to complain about people asking too many questions because most are unrelated to adminship or are rhetorically unsound.  Now we are encouraging it?  Good grief.   Keegan talk 01:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah, change is hard, suck it up and stop bitching.-- Koji Dude  (C) 01:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll say all I want and when I please, this has nothing to do with change but once again an inadequate solution to a problem that barely exists. If you bother to read my comment with respect and esteem rather than a knee-jerk "blah blah blah" rude answer, you'd see that my point is that format elevates a process of questions that has inheirently been the source of most discord in RfA over the past...at least 2 1/2 years, since the questions moved to the top.  Don't be a dick, KojiDude.   Keegan talk 02:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about reading your last post, but then I remembered how much of a gigantic time waster your last one was, and how much I wish I could have the 3 minutes of my life back that I used up processing that steaming pile of shit. I dunno, I have to go weigh my options here. This is definitly a mental road block. I'll sleep on it and get back to you. :-) -- Koji Dude  (C) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that was an attempt at a joke or sarcasm, and it failed at both. If you're looking for the line to cross, it is waaaayyyy behind you.  In my five years here I have never been talked to with such disregard for communal civility.  Congratulations on ruining any respect I had for you with that one post.   Keegan talk 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do what I can.-- Koji Dude  (C) 02:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the respectful reply, Dlohcierekim. One of the few lessons that my hippie mother taught me that I actually listened to was that the time to protest is when something is underway and still a tennis net- once it has passed, you are protesting against a wall.   Keegan talk 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I actually opposed the idea till I saw it running. This is the first major proposed change in RFA since it was done by mailing list. I have a lot of hope for it. Please, be patient. If it turns out to be a bad idea, we need not embrace it. Cheers, and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, now we have one early support, one early oppose, and one early neutral. I say we leave it at that :P In all seriousness though, this is an experiment. We must let it run at least once, just to see how it turns out. Let's not jump to conclusions right away. CL — 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just cool down
This is an experiment. It was undertaken due to consensus on a board that isn't exactly the WP watering hole. We should expect not a small number of people to be rightfully confused or angry at the change. It doesn't mean they are right. It also doesn't mean they are wrong. They aren't just supposed to suck it up and we aren't just supposed to accept all frustration as constructive criticism. I haven't been here long enough to see a major change to RfA but I have to imagine that this will be rocky. We may discover that these problems are real and insurmountable. We may discover that the response to the RfA hints at a lack of consensus to change the format. We may discover that we can solve these problems and that this RfA is basically an improvement.

While it is ongoing we don't do anyone any good by either reacting strongly in protest or to protest. If we visibly shit on "Oppose per format" votes we could very well sink Ironholds' RfA in general. We could also lose out on what might be valid, actionable complaints.

Let's try to hash out real solutions to this problem. Options:


 * Just make a note that says "if your vote is stamped in prior to X date, we won't count it"


 * Indent votes in order to stop people from following along and voiding the purpose of the experiment.


 * Accept this as a necessary sign of displeasure.


 * Remove votes immediately. (Probably not the best idea).

There are other ideas. We just need to take each wrinkle as it comes and not accuse people of WP:POINT for testing the bounds of an experiment. We do have a responsibility to Ironholds to make sure that he doesn't become collateral damage but we also have to respect that this isn't the Main Page. Experimentation and testing of boundaries (especially in an experimental setting) is less problematic here than elsewhere. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since editors at RfA often have a penchant for piling-on (it's easier to let other people do the homework/vetting/research), we should probably remove them with a note on their talk page informing them as to why.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to vote again once we're allowed to; I voted support just for the sake of balance. Of course, if someone else decides to vote early then we do have a problem [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] However, I do agree with implementing the first and second options; this way, we still get to see what the early voters have said and it says that this won't be allowed. CL — 02:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave be. Removal will probably lead to more disruption and hard feelings. Since the start time is not till Saturday, their votes would probably not be counted-- depending on how the Crat's feel about this. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This experimental RfA is poorly thought out. Any new process that reduces the time people have to vote is a retrograde step. It also has no consensus and therefore the removal or negation of anyone's vote as suggested above would be akin to vandalism. The 'crats do not get to decide RfA process, the community does. RMHED (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * RHMED has a valid point. The voting time should be kept the same. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He does but we also need to allow for some flexibility. We can let this monumental RfA review process come to a conclusion and see some approximate consensus, but what if that just shows people are upset about the RfA process but have no agreed solutions? This is experimental and if we want to move forward with an actual experiment we can't just say "only ask questions, please, or just vote instead", because that is just another RfA. I don't have a problem keeping the voting time about the same (7 and 7 is too long for questions). This is a little different from WP:BRD but we have to think about what we want this RfA to be rather than just saying that it doesn't have consensus, revert it. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I fully support the removal of !votes cast early, how are we supposed to see if this method is viable if a few editors blatantly disregard the instructions? In the end the real voting period will be seven full days so they reviewers are not being cheated out of time. Icewedge  ( talk ) 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Visibility of this discussion
Considering the importance of issues brought out here, should mention of this discussion made on other notice boards? Dloh cierekim  03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Early "votes"
I'm removing them since now isn't the time. They are perfectly appropriate for commenting though, so here is a good place. - Taxman Talk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-added them, you don't get to remove user's legitimate votes. The default RfA process is still operational this experiment is fine for those who wish to follow its rules, but there is no requirement to do so. RMHED (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...as all hell breaks loose. Great. CL — 03:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have choices about how to go about things. One is to consider the calmest course of action that will most likely help the articles of this encyclopedia improve. And then there are others that are more inflammatory and less likely to tend toward that goal. In my role as bureaucrat I am tasked with helping to make sure RfA runs smoothly and I'd like to make sure everyone has their say and that consensus is achieved. The old format is not sacrosanct and no one has a right to vote a certain way. I submit that the best course of action is for everyone to take a deep breath and consider the path that most directly leads to improving articles. Spread some wikilove instead of inflaming the situation by making emotional edits. - Taxman Talk 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support
Please do not voice a "support", "oppose", or "neutral" opinion until the question/discussion period is over; see disclaimer at the top of this RFA.
 * 1) Just to balance the early oppose and neutral votes. What the hell, apparently anything goes. CL — 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I started to, but overcame my rationale exuberance for the candidate. LOL. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Please do not voice a "support", "oppose", or "neutral" opinion until the question/discussion period is over; see disclaimer at the top of this RFA.
 * 1) For now. RMHED (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
Please do not voice a "support", "oppose", or "neutral" opinion until the question/discussion period is over; see disclaimer at the top of this RFA.
 * 1) Screw the idea of "vetting" a candidate. This is politics at the worst, and I do not feel this format is in the candidate's best interest.  Do not remove my !vote.   Keegan talk 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome
Please voice an "awesome" opinion at any time.
 * 1) For always. --NE2 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Ready Dloh  cierekim  03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NE2, I believe you have been using this awesome smiley ever since I directed a comment containing it to you. At the same time, you have been inconspicuously absent from editing Utah roads. Is this a new, secretive NE2? [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] CL — 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for process
If you feel this request needs to be properly processed, please vote below.


 * 1) Requires proper submission to the RfP committee. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Something needs to be done to get an enforceable decree, regardless of who's favor it's in.-- Koji Dude  (C) 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing
I continue to believe that early support, oppose, neutral opinions should be removed to the talk page. I don't believe in revert wars though so I'm not going to revert them out right now. It appears most people are comfortable taking them out so far, but some time for discussion is ok too. - Taxman Talk 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking suggestions

 * I think the questioning period is too long. It could be shorter. RHMED is right-- the voting phase should be no shorter than before. The new format seems to separate discussion from voting-- how does that work? Consensus building discussion has taken the from of point-counter point voting. Separating them seems awkward. Dloh  cierekim  03:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. For a 2 week total time, how about 3 and 11? Protonk (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, or, more in line with 2 weeks voting time, 3 and 14? Although I don't see what is sacred about 14 days.  It's just a number. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think with the shear volume of questions, it would be easier to navigate if each question poser created a new sub section. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could end up a bit silly for those users who post one question, though. Besides, with that and the discussion we'd end up with a contents box page the size of my arm. Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL-- looks like the answer was a break every ten questions.  Dloh  cierekim  15:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop
This is about to turn into a wheel war-- please stop before we all regret it. Dloh  cierekim  03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Premature support and oppose votes were removed by a bureaucrat. Have some respect for the attempt that is being made here to investigate a potentially superior alternative to the current system that many describe as broken. Don't sabotage this unnecessarily because you personally don't believe this is the best method. It may not be, but it may turn out to work better than the method we're currently using and I think it takes courage on the part of the candidate to be the guinea pig of this experiment. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe one editor has such contempt for the process that they are willing to willfully and stubbornly revert users to the stone-age. Have some respect for the candidate who politely requested this alternative.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) <ec>::Would it not be better to not partake at all? Surely it could not be worth the aggravation. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  04:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot insist that these new rules are followed, you can follow them voluntarily if you wish, but others are free to stick to the default RfA process and vote normally. RMHED (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do what you propose, RHMED, that defeats the purpose of having an experiment. How do we see if this new process is effective at all if we're not even fully implementing it solely for this RfA? CL — 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)that's not the point. The point is that this is an ostensible change in format and style that was initiated by the candidate and discussed with many editors. You are disturbing the process made in good faith by willfully disregarding these wishes.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As intimated above, how on earth do we look at this objectively as an experiment when editors choose to pay no heed?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Icewedge and I have been having a lovely chat about the candidate here. Would anyone like to join us?  Dloh  cierekim  04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * RHMED, I understand your point but I don't think we benefit from being stubborn. Arguing that the removal of the vote is in violation of the rules and that you haven't seen the rules change is pretty confrontational.  The local consensus at the RFA talk page was to try this experiment.  In order for it to be worth anything (although arguably this whole discussion is valuable), early voting can't happen.  Otherwise it is just another RfA.  In saying that you want to keep your vote there, you are saying that the whole discussion at WT:RFA was not worth anything.  I don't want to browbeat you into changing your mind but I invite you to consider it.  Please.  There is a real risk of the RfA process being frozen in place if this is the sort of reaction to changes undertaken as an experiment.  Let's try this and discuss it.  Let's not actively try to make it worse. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity..."
 * If a large number are in agreement that a process has problems associated with it, and then we as a community are vehemently opposed to even minor change to that process, then surely we resign ourselves to the rising trend of discontent and disillusionment? Let it run its course, and we can debate its futility afterwards. <b style="color:#FF0000;">haz</b> (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Note
I tweaked the wording of the pre-vote discussion (though it's not a vote?), removing the "many fine" preface to contributions. I have been vocal on this RfA talk page, but this edit was strictly procedural and one I would have made to any RfA. Just a heads up that this had malice toward none. Keegan talk 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. I just wanted a line between the procedural discussion and the candidate discussion. Just too tired to get it right the first time. cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on format
(As distinct from opinion on Ironholds which will come when I'm allowed to.)

This sucks. You get a week to look through a candidate's work, and there's no requirement to vote in the first half hour of the RfA (despite what some people will tell you). If you really can't judge a candidate in seven days, there's a problem, but I don't think it's with the RfA system. Giggy (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. This really sucks! AdjustShift (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why four days are given to ask questions and review candidates? When a candidate is editing, we can review her. We can decide what she is doing right and what she is doing wrong. Two days are enough to ask questions and review candidates. AdjustShift (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then suggest that, don't just go "this all sucks". We're planning on doing a post-mortem and one of the common suggestions so far has been shorter questioning time; if that's your sole complaint then there's no need to go "this whole format sucks" when that's something easily fixeable in the future. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the respectful reply, I've strikeout "This really sucks!".   AdjustShift (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Random thought
If the crats want to enforce "no voting" here perhaps the acceptance/nom, Q&A and discussion sections should be transcluded in the middle, and the RFA itself (including the voting section at the bottom) protected against editing until it "opens"? I don't see how else you'll stop people voting. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

trick question
TimVickers brought up privately something i'd been thinking about xenocidic's question; admins aren't meant to do anything with their own blocks; isn't this a bit of a trick question? <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically admins aren't supposed to decline unblock requests from their own unblocks but they can certainly grant them... – xeno  ( talk ) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You get the point, though. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why the question is phrased "how would you respond...?" rather than "would you grant/deny the unblock request?" FWIW I don't believe many people fault candidates for not knowing that admins should not decline their own unblock requests - it's something most people (this writer included) learn(ed) on the job. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm constantly learning new things anyway (although mainly cute little syntax commands). <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support both the experiment and the nomination
One of the best things about this experiment is that the use of the RfA talk page is being encouraged: RfA talk pages tend to be frequently and woefully underused. I will also support the nomination as before: I think he'll be a good admin when he gets there. — Athaenara ✉  20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I've no idea if, if this catches on, the talk page will continue to be used as much as it is here (much of the conversation is this is a good idea/this is a bad idea and related topics) but it makes a change. It could possibly in future be used for the "discussion" section if that's expected to become massive. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting comment in that I think it could help in determining the way to go from each RfA that's held in this manner. It might end up that we need more than 2 RfAs to continue tweaking the process. I personally disagree with the "discussion" section being moved to the talk page, as that is oft what happens to contentious arguments that break out on the main page. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable question
Is it just me, or is this out of bounds? Has this shown up in his editing here-to-fore? If no, I think this question is unreasonable. Dloh cierekim  01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a bit border-y, but I don't mind it being asked. It is at least related to my ability to edit, which is more than some questions I've seen in my time. I think in future, however, this should be one of the ones candidates can bow out of (rather than the current "you don't have to answer, but the unwritten rule is we'll oppose if you don't") form of "bowing out". Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this not in the context of a single RFA-- I liked your answer-- but in the broader sense. This crosses a line that should not be crossed. If it does not affect one's editing, it should not be an issue at RFA. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My general thought is that if someone has rapid-cycling manic depression or similar and is subject to wild mood swings every couple of months we'd see it in the contributions. And another issue; if someone's perspective is distorted, do you expect them to not just lie? Nobody can really check; heck, it's only due to my mentioning it dans la userboxen that it even became semi-public knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the question was out of line. This is the first RfA I have participated in. My question involved something that he brought up on his user page, I referenced a specific essay dealing with POV, and it seemed relevant to his ability to contribute to the project. I read through the list of issues not to bring up in RfA, and I didn't see anything that would indicate this was off-limits. I was very impressed by his answer. Wronkiew (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I personally didn't find it out-of-line, but then I've always been fairly open to people about being a slight nutjob. I think it's probably something that the majority of candidates would find offensive, though (although I don't expect the majority of candidates have addled brains). Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to post personal information on your user page, it's fair game. If you don't want it to be fair game, don't mention it on your user page. The question is completely fine; it is also optional, and the candidate could have declined it. Townlake (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that's a general comment rather than one directed as me as a candidate in particular, since my opinion in the matter is along the same lines as yours. Ironholds (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct; that was meant to be a generic "you." Apologies for any confusion. Townlake (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No confusion per se; I'd assumed from your point of view that it wouldn't be a specific one, I just wanted to make sure. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. If as it was something posted on his user page, it is fair game.  It would be quite a different thing to post, "I've noticed that your editing pattern seems to be erratic, do you suffer from multiple personality disorder?"  But since he revealed it on his page, it is fair game.  Plus, would the response be different if he said, "Yeah, it was a joke, perhaps in poor taste?"--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Or "yeah, when the moon is full I tend to act erratic and take it out of people for no reason, thus am likely to go on a blocking spree during a full moon?"--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Giggy
This is a response to Giggy's good question on WilliamH's comment. Firstly, I think comments and questions in this format are brilliant - they're open and fair, but they also allow the candidate a chance to respond fairly, as well as accomoodating views or follow up questions from other contributors. I really think that on this RfA, we've already got a much better picture of the candidate and their views than possibly any other RfA participant - and that's before we've started the next phase. That, I think, is a great step forward. Yes, we can look at tuning timings and so on - maybe fewer question days would be better.

To respond to Giggy's specific question, could this have been done in a normal RfA? Yes, it could. But traditiionally it would have been an oppose or neutral with the comment attached. Before the candidate even has a chance to respond, other contributors would have more than likely piled on further responses "per WilliamH". This way, WilliamH has been able to make a valid comment and Ironholds and others have been able to make valid responses. This, in my opinion, is how it should work.

It's this whole pile-on before a response or refute happens (and I know it happens on both sides) that happens in a "fire and forget" manner that concerns me. Even if an initial detailed support or oppose !vote is later retracted or removed, many of the "per x" pile-ons will remain in place. This doesn't really do the process any favours and should be something we work toward removing. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Navigation
As a simple enhancement from a logistic point of view, I think it would be favourable to adopt a manual of style for section breaks for easy navigation, presumably with different level headers? WilliamH (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After The RfA
when we do the post mortem on this RfA, I think we need to announce it at wp:an and the Village Pump. Let others know about the experiment. I don't think we should announce it there yet... if people aren't watching RfA's then I don't think we need to have them come DURING the RfA, but I think this needs a wider audience AFTER the RFA when we analyze the results.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd actually encourage announcing it now. A good number of people stop watching RfA because it is annoying, but they are still very much involved in the project. Since the experimental nature of this is being so heavily emphasized, it seems that the experiment would yield more useful results if we cast a wider net for those who walked away from RfA a long time ago. I think a big part of "fixing" RfA is bringing the wider community back to it. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it would distort the results making it meaningless.  People can review the process, the RfA, and comment upon it AFTER it is finished.  If we announced it elsewhere now, then we will have a lot of people coming here who haven't participated in an RfA in months/years.  If those people then start asking questions/!voting, then it corrupts the results.  I mean, right now we have 36 questions, which is way too many already.  If we announce it at WP:AN and Village Pump, and that number doubles, then we lose the integrity of the experiment.  Similarly, if there are 60 people who would normally !vote in this RfA, but we double that to 120 by getting people who don't usually participate, then the results again become skewed.  Who !votes in the experimental RfA should be the same population that would have !voted in a normal RfA.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, and perhaps for this particular RfA I am inclined to agree because of the late stage, but I think we need to aim at bringing people back to RfA, rather than limiting ourselves to the current crop (as the numbers indicate that we are not cutting it). There are countless admins and long time editors who are still quite active who don't want anything to do with RfA, yet their opinions would often be of great value. Otherwise, we are just creating a more complex process that will end up turning this thing into even more of an RfA bubble than it already is. If someone has been actively editing for five years, but has ignored RfA for the last year or two they have some real value to jumping back in. Maybe we just need an existing admin to put him/herself up for this experimental RfA with the understanding that it is non-binding. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thoughts then: Bring people in for the post-mortem, and if those people are interested in the idea they'll participate in the second and third. Maybe if nothing else (which seems to be hammersoft's opinion of this experiments viability) this might help make RfA results more valid by increasing the pool of voters. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the assumption that there will be a second and third experimental RfA? At least I hope not, if it's anything like this god awful mess. RMHED (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will there be further experiments? Probably. Will they be identical to this? Highly unlikely. The whole point of holding a post-mortem is to review what happened the first time around and work out how to overcome any problems or make changes before running through it again.  Gazi moff  00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any further experiments should require a community wide consensus before proceeding, not just a few users on the RfA talkpage agreeing to give it a go. RMHED (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Unless those experiments would fundamentally alter how the community comes to consensus on candidates, it would be a train wreck to get a complete community consensus before even going ahead with an experiment.  Inertia is deadly.  We should be free to test out new formats or new rules without asking all and sundry for permission.  That way we can come to the community and say, "we have ways A, B, and C, which each resulted in different outcomes, how should we proceed?" Protonk (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Protonk. If we had to wait for community wide consensus before trying something, that would go against the spirit of being BOLD.  Sometimes we have to try something to see if it works.  There are things I like about this RfA, and things I don't like.  If a candidate has an idea they want to try, so long as it doesn't violate the basic accepted methodology, I have no problems with TRYING something new.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means test out your "new formats and rules" just don't expect everybody to follow them, no community consensus = no validity. RMHED (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)