Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Krimpet

Edit stats
Krimpet's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC): Category talk:	 1 Category:	 2 Image:	        49 Mainspace	904 Portal:	         1 Talk:	       102 Template:	 13 User talk:	218 User:	       185 Wikipedia talk:	 37 Wikipedia:	527 avg edits per page	1.58 earliest	23:03, 2 January 2007 number of unique pages	1289

total	      2039

2007/1 	346 	2007/2 	674 	2007/3 	645 	2007/4 	374

Mainspace

35	Interstate 476 16	Schuylkill Expressway 12	Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania 11	Pennsylvania Route 73 9	QWERTY 8	Roosevelt Boulevard (Philadelphia) 7	Interstate 81 7	Interstate 95 6	Whitpain Township, Pennsylvania 6	Milton Street 6	Virginia Tech massacre 5	Interstate 676 5	Interstate 81 in Virginia 5	Pantyhose for men 5	Effects of nitrous oxide on the body

Talk:

14	Interstate 476 11	Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny 9	Interstate 95 6	Schuylkill Expressway 4	John F. Street 4	Pennsylvania 4	Schuylkill River Trail 3	Nitrous oxide 3	Virginia Tech massacre 3	Milton Street 3	Criticism of Wal-Mart 3	Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania 2	Zidane headbutt 2	Pennsylvania Route 145 2	Dead Man's Curve

Category:

2	Ducati motorcycle images Image:

2	Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg 2	Ht vatech cho 070417 sp.jpg 2	Us22 01.jpg 2	Milton Street Arrested.jpg Template:

5	CommonsEncouraged 2	3di 95 2	PD-USGov-HHS-CDC User:

82	Krimpet/monobook.js 29	Krimpet 14	Krimpet/CH2.js 13	Krimpet/Schuylkill Expressway 7	Krimpet/CH2beta.js 6	Krimpet/Pants in popular culture 6	Krimpet/Interstate 476 4	Krimpet/Sandbox 4	Krimpet/CommonsHelper Helper 4	Krimpet/CH2 en.js 3	Krimpet/Interstate 81 User talk:

28	Krimpet 4	Jmabel 3	70.224.59.158 2	Zscout370 2	Jmaron 2	86.14.22.102 2	Krimpet/Archive 1 2	Alansohn 2	Flavourdan 2	Stratosphere 2	Magnus Manske 2	Krimpet/CommonsHelper Helper 2	71.224.162.74 2	74.140.172.31 2	159.134.62.114

Wikipedia:

10	Good article candidates 8	Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7 8	Articles for deletion/List of unusual units of measurement 7	Articles for deletion/Greenlighting hoax (2nd nomination) 7	WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests 6	Good articles 6	Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture 6	Articles for deletion/Neurotypical 5	Articles for deletion/HQ9+ (2nd nomination) 5	Administrator intervention against vandalism 4	Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination) 4	Articles for deletion/Programmer Dvorak 3	Articles for deletion/Shawn Vulliez (3rd nomination) 3	Articles for deletion/Amanda Rishworth 3	Editor review/Krimpet

Wikipedia talk:

17	WikiProject U.S. Roads 10	WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways 3	WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways 2	AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage 2	WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons

On the format of this RfA

 * This discussion was moved here from the RfA's main page
 * Because I no longer find the voting system possible to use. The current climate at RfA regards discussion, beyond a few bare comments, as something to be avoided. I can't support a system that does such a thing, when the system is supposed to be a consensus building one. Further, voting has nothing to do with consensus. So, I refuse to participate in a voting system. I'd rather discuss merits of a candidate. Since I can't do that in this system, I've added a section. If you'd like to discuss the reason for this section, I'd suggest we take it to WT:RFA or at least the talk page of the RfA. We should be discussing the nominee, not the format. --Durin 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Discussion" header (at the top) is the appropriate place for comments like Durin's, isn't it? Xoloz 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That presumes I agree with the format in that I have no vote to make, but am engaging in discussion only. I'm not engaging in discussion only. There's no place on this RfA to engage in consensus building. --Durin 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would mind if you changed the name of that first heading to "Consensus-building discussion", although I though that property was implicit in every discussion on Wikipedia. At least in theory, we're always discussing with that purpose in mind. Xoloz 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted, meta discussion about the format of this RfA is best directed to WT:RFA or the talk page of this RfA. --Durin 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since, Durin, you have gone out of your way to make others participate in your RFA formats, and gone as far as to remove comments from those RFAs if they discuss the formatting, or if they add sections not envisaged in your formatting, I very much feel like giving you a good WP:PROD with a WP:POINTY stick at this stage. AKAF 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * cute. --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 16:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I have commented on the nominee in question, you would be completely out of line for doing so. --Durin 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you weren't completely out of line for disrupting this RfA to make a point? Durin...you are quickly losing your position on solid ground. I respect your position, but please choose a better way to represent it. -  auburn pilot  talk  17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as voting? Sorry, no. I'm contributing to consensus. That is the point of RfA. By the way, the accusation that I disrupted this RfA is utterly false. I impeded no one's ability to do anything on the RfA. Anyone who thinks voting is a good means of operating an RfA was completely unaffected by my addition of a section to the RfA. It also did not break any bots. What is the disruption you are referring to? --Durin 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the RFA already has a 'Discussion' section, I think it's not unreasonable to ask what you find so objectionable about that section. I'm being serious here, because I'm really just not understanding the need for a new section. AKAF 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (undoing move) AKAF stabs Durin with a WP:POINTY stick. AKAF 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And, re-undone. Meta discussion is inappropriate for the page itself. This is why we have talk pages. Thank you, --Durin 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion vs. consensus sections

 * Since the RFA already has a 'Discussion' section, I think it's not unreasonable to ask what you find so objectionable about that section. I'm being serious here, because I'm really just not understanding the need for a new section. AKAF 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (slight refactor) Ah, nice question. My reply to Xoloz above might help to answer. Let me expand a bit; The "discussion" section has never been about forming consensus. It's just people making comments without any real attempt at forming consensus. The section I made is, so far, a rudimentary attempt to do so. Frankly, I'm uncertain how that will evolve at the moment. But, it'd be nice to see it evolve. Also, I feel that by contributing to the discussion section, I'd be rubber stamping the format of the RfA, squelching my voice regarding this candidate. "Discussion" implies I am only discussing the candidate. I'm not. I'm seeking consensus, which is a super set of discussion. Hope this helps, and thank you for not continuing the reversions. --Durin 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will add that Durin's first paragraph intermixed comments on the candidate with comments on his dislike of RfA's form. If one wishes to enforce strictly the recommendation to go to the talk page with that sort of comment, his paragraph would need to be split somehow. Xoloz 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps yes, but that paragraph is partially to bureaucrats considering the discussion and also to contributors to aid in consensus building. It's not strictly speaking meta discussion. --Durin 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Question What is the purpose of an RfA? Is it (a) to predict which RfA candidates are likely to make successful admins efficiently, or (b) to hold an engaging discussion? Which would Wikipedians prefer, a process able to quickly predict admin success without any discussion at all, or a process involving extensive discussion that's ultimately inconclusive, hard to interpret, or fails to predict admin success accurately? Why exactly is there this need to have discussion? Is discussion desired because it helps us choose good admins and build an encyclopedia, or is discussion desired because there's this rule that says we're supposed to discuss things? If discussion and consensus are being advocated for their own sake and will make things worse, it's time to ask if this is really helping us or maybe its time to take a look at WP:IAR. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting this RfA
Or, more to the point, since you appear to have a burning need to disrupt RFA, why shouldn't your opinion be ignored? AKAF 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disrupting anything. --Durin 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)