Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012
Appearance
This page in a 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 |
This project will be for discussing RfA reform and proposals for 2012.
Problems with the requests for adminship process which need to be addressed
- Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Problems/RfC consensus difficulties
- Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Problems/Snow and NOTNOW candidates
- Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Problems/Finding qualified candidates
- Change is risky. Any of the proposals below could go wrong due to unforeseen circumstances.
- Refusal to change is also risky. The existing system could be in the process of going wrong.
- Off-wiki canvassing may unduly influence votes
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? 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. Ryan Vesey Review me! 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. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 08:37, 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. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- This proposal reduces the extent to which off-wiki canvassing could influence votes. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Should voting pool size be 20? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 01:13, 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. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that could be easily abused. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- How? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I believe something like this would lead to 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. WormTT(talk) 08:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- How? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that could be easily abused. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposals to overhaul the 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
- 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)
- 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.
- This postulates an entirely new method for requesting additional editor rights. It kind of borrows a little from other proposals, so do not be too surprised if some of it sounds familiar.
- Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Leaky Caldron
- Leave everything as it is, close these (some ridiculous and complex) proposals quickly and require anyone wasting an excessive amount of time pontificating about them to complete 100 hours of Wikipedia community service. Leaky Caldron 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- The community, via discussion on the respective talk pages, constructs the cases for and against the candidate as two coherent essays, followed by a community vote. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- To introduce an optional one to two week pre-RfA process that is transincluded in the RfA page, where editors can obtain feedback on their suitability to be an admin. Pre-RfAs can be withdrawn at no penalty, and any pre-RfAs that have decided to proceed to RfA will enjoy a more lenient outlook by the B'crats. Those who skip the pre-RfA shall retain the existing standards. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Active participants
List of editors who are willing to contribute in this process, in addition to those who already have: