Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
clearer |
m sign |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*I've long thought RfA should be a two step process, with an apprenticeship period, say 9 months, during which the editor has limited admin tools, e.g. 12 hour block max with a required report to a watchlist. The apprentice would be expected to spend some amount of time in several of the admin areas. He or she would then be be judged on their record during the apprentice period and promoted, denied or maybe renewed as an apprentice for one more term. The criteria for entering the apprentice level would be more relaxed, e.g. some level of experience (e.g 2 years, 1000 edits) and no major issues in the past year. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
*I've long thought RfA should be a two step process, with an apprenticeship period, say 9 months, during which the editor has limited admin tools, e.g. 12 hour block max with a required report to a watchlist. The apprentice would be expected to spend some amount of time in several of the admin areas. He or she would then be be judged on their record during the apprentice period and promoted, denied or maybe renewed as an apprentice for one more term. The criteria for entering the apprentice level would be more relaxed, e.g. some level of experience (e.g 2 years, 1000 edits) and no major issues in the past year. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
*:Someone else pointed to your proposal in relation to my proposal. Please see it [[Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2012/Proposal_by_Jc37#Proposed new user-right group|here]]. |
*:Someone else pointed to your proposal in relation to my proposal. Please see it [[Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2012/Proposal_by_Jc37#Proposed new user-right group|here]]. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 00:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
*[[Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Ryan Vesey]] |
*[[Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Ryan Vesey]] |
||
Revision as of 00:53, 21 June 2012
This project will be for discussing RfA reform and proposals for 2012.
Problems that should be addressed
Minor proposals to address a problem
- Convert voting to randomly selected pool of uninvolved volunteer RfA voters eligible to vote for trustees.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.206.120 (talk • contribs)
Proposals to completely overhaul to process
- A proposal to give or remove adminship to any candidates based on a decision by 10 admins. Can be overruled by 100 admins.
- A proposal to have a specified board of trusted Bureaucrats and Administrators to review a RfA to speed up the progress. More details on the proposal page.
- A proposal to give up on RFCs and instead empower a small board to experiment for 3 months
- To create a new user-right package of enhanced editing tools
- I've long thought RfA should be a two step process, with an apprenticeship period, say 9 months, during which the editor has limited admin tools, e.g. 12 hour block max with a required report to a watchlist. The apprentice would be expected to spend some amount of time in several of the admin areas. He or she would then be be judged on their record during the apprentice period and promoted, denied or maybe renewed as an apprentice for one more term. The criteria for entering the apprentice level would be more relaxed, e.g. some level of experience (e.g 2 years, 1000 edits) and no major issues in the past year. --agr (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Someone else pointed to your proposal in relation to my proposal. Please see it here. - jc37 00:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- This contains two proposals, one for a change to the request for adminship process and one for a change to the beginning of an RfA. The proposal to change the process is designed to facilitate discussion and eliminate formal !voting. A board, similar to that in the proposal of Thine Antique Pen would review the case after the discussion occurs and make a decision. The second is also designed to facilitate discussion, but creates a Pre-RfA discussion process where questions and discussion can occur. No !voting should take place, but advice can be given to the candidate. At the end of the discussion period, the candidate can choose to formally start the RfA or wait until a later date. The discussion section would become part of the RfA should they choose to continue.