User:Bibliomaniac15/Straw poll on straw polls

This is meant to be a straw poll on RFA straw polls.

Do you think straw polls are helping us gain consensus on reforming RFA?

The polls are making it very clear that there is no consensus on what should be done to reform RfA or whether it should be reformed at all. Captain panda 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Polls are a good idea. If a vote doesn't come out with a conclusive result, then it isn't the vote system which is at fault; it simply shows there isn't any consensus. Walton^One 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Supported Not even divine intervention could save RfA. —Animum (e t c.) 01:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is helping RFA, and the verbal circus/es that is/are going on on WT:RFA and elsewhere in relation to RFA is certainly not doing anything. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Too divided at the moment. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Denounce All polls are evil, especially straw polls. Nothing can and should replace a good discussion, even a heated debate with slanders flying like crazed bats, with morons putting in thoughtless "yes" and "no" comments. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- So why exactly are all polls evil? Rather than just regurgitating standard Wiki catchphrases, you could try and construct a rational argument as to what's so wrong with voting. It's the only way that every good-faith opinion gets counted equally, and the only way to really determine the strength of opinion. The reason we've got nowhere with RfA is because there simply isn't any consensus on any of the proposed changes. Walton^One 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if I had to vote, I'd say no. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the irony is not lost on me. If I had to vote, though, I'd actually say that the polls seem to be helping a bit, as we get a rough number estimate of how many are in favor of reform. GlassCobra 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I see one... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I probably haven't participated in all of them, but I think that I have participated in a good deal of them. Captain panda 03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally go once every few weeks and comment on them all, but have had a blitz lately since I've been on vacation. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I participate at WT:RFA every so often. GlassCobra 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
At the moment I can't be bothered to edit very much, but I used to be a fanatical peruser of WT:RFA. Sad, I know. Walton^One 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussions have shown that there is no consensus concerning RfA reform. However, no reform is not reform so I guess I am in this category. Captain panda 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, although many people participate in the reform discussions, it seems to be going in circles. GlassCobra 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Rudget _{Contributions} 12:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Saying no seems very silly in this category. We have quite a bit of eternity to go before it is all used up. Captain panda 03:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm really hoping so, as Wikipedia is always in need of more manpower. GlassCobra 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We already have the best way to promote admins. What we need is an easier way to demote them. This would then have the collateral effect that RfA will become less unpleasant, because people would be less cautious in their voting if they knew that we, the community, could remove bad or uncommunicative admins at will. Walton^One 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% guaranteed because there is no "best way", some ways are better than others all methods even the current should be looked upon as needing improvement otherwise we'll become the proverbial crusty old encyclopedia sitting on a bookshelf gathering dust. Does that mean a fantastic solution is just around the corner maybe but until we look we'll never know. Gnan garra 02:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)