View source for Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012

{{nutshell|This is a collection of suggestions for a proposal for '''reform of the admin selection process''' in the year 2012 and links to its discussion pages on the various aspects of possible reform suggested by various editors|shortcut=WP:RFA2012}}
This project will be for discussing RfA reform and proposals for 2012.
{{Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Problems}}

==Minor proposals to address a problem==

* Convert voting to randomly selected pool of uninvolved volunteer RfA voters eligible to vote for trustees.
::Should voting pool size be 20? [[Special:Contributions/75.166.206.120|75.166.206.120]] ([[User talk:75.166.206.120|talk]]) 01:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I am sorry, but this confuses me.  Are you saying that only a randomly selected group of 20 voters could decide an RfA?  Which problem is this addressing?  It seems to be a major proposal to change the process.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::::A pool of 15 is very likely to reflect the will of the community to the accuracy inherent in the width of the closer's discretion. 20 should be even more accurate, and would allow for the possibility of no-shows. The problem being addressed is [[Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Problems/RfC consensus difficulties]]; specifically avoiding the possibility of pile-ons (which imply wasted time by the voting pool, from the operations research perspective.) I believe this plan is simpler than all the overhaul proposals below. [[Special:Contributions/75.166.206.120|75.166.206.120]] ([[User talk:75.166.206.120|talk]]) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::This proposal reduces the extent to which off-wiki canvassing could influence votes. [[Special:Contributions/75.166.206.120|75.166.206.120]] ([[User talk:75.166.206.120|talk]]) 08:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Any proposal should have an N month trial and then there should be an RFC about whether to go back to current practice.
::This addresses the risk inherent in any change. I suggest N=6. [[Special:Contributions/75.166.206.120|75.166.206.120]] ([[User talk:75.166.206.120|talk]]) 02:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

::Sounds like something that could be easily abused. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 09:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:::How? [[Special:Contributions/71.212.226.91|71.212.226.91]] ([[User talk:71.212.226.91|talk]]) 11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I believe something like this would lead to [[WP:TINC|a cabal]]. The pool, which would be populated by "popular"  members of the community or "unsuitable" ones (and I can't see away around that, except by forcing editors who didn't want to do it - wholly against the voluntary nature of the community), would therefore be given a larger voice in the community. Editors who wanted to oppose would need to persuade this pool. If electing a friend, natural bias will creep in. Basically the whole thing is inherently against discussion and consensus. And most importantly - I don't like it. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'><font color='#000'>'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 08:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree; this is in fact a cabal and as such embodies the fear that IMO gives rise to a lot of the unpleasantness at RfA. It also would not have a hope of reflecting all the varied concerns that go into people's choice whether to support or oppose at RfA. A statistical approximation is not the same. Not minor and a move in entirely the wrong direction, I think. --[[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 11:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

==Proposals to overhaul the process==
{{Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposals to overhaul the process by editors}}

{{Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Participants}}