Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Egg Centric

Simple proposal

Find ten admins who all agree a user should be an admin, and have the consent of that user, and they can become an admin. Find ten admins who all feel an admin ought to be desysopped, and they are. Either proposal, however, can be resisted by finding one hundred admins who disagree. In that case the ten admins behind the proposal are instead desysopped themselves. Bureaucrats can also override any or all parts of this if they feel it is in the interests of the project and/or fairness.

This implements every requirement. It is an exceptionally simple system. It will result in a lot more reasonably adequete (and reasonably adequete is fine if adminship really is no big deal) admins and a lot less drama. Egg Centric 20:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - admins shouldn't become a sort of smoke-filled room/star chamber cabal. - jc37 20:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How do you feel about juries randomly selected from a pool taken from volunteers in advance, assuming involved jurors are excluded from the second, smaller pool? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• OpposeHere is a problem, how many times have we seen RfA's in which ten admins may !vote in support but 20 or 30 may oppose. It is highly unlikely that you are going to find 100 admins who care enough to oppose, especially knowing it will result in the desysopping of ten admins. In addition, why should the opinion of those 10, or 100 admins be any more important than my opinion? This tends to be a bit cabalish. In fact, ten admins would have the power to grant sysop tools to 100 admins who could then control the entire encyclopedia. Highly unlikely, but those are the problems that I see. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• But I support restructuring an RFA2012. Can we move this to Wikipedia:RFA2012/Cabal? Or something similar. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. If adminship is really no big deal then anyone who can't get a hundred admins against them should be given it. Otherwise the guidelines should be updated. Egg Centric 20:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll preface by saying that I'm inclined to oppose this proposal on its own for the sake of non-cabalism, but the following is only a procedural question for the sake of discussion. How would a prospective administrator get the attention of ten administrators without appearing to be canvassing? Would there be a venue for administrators to review editors potentially qualified to become administrators themselves and subsequently support giving them the tools? Also, the 100 administrator number for overruling the ten administrators' decisions, although probably arbitrary at this point, seems a bit high. And lastly, could this process possibly coexist with the existing RFA process? Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the number of admins required to overrule just 10 of them, and I can hardly agree with desysopping those 10 original admins just for disagreement. They could always be desysopped later. I'd also like to note that WP:INVOLVED would have to apply greatly and that a particular group of 10 admins should be limited to at most 1 action per week to avoid "lynch mobs".--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)