Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012
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.) 75.166.206.120 (talk) 01:24, 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)
- Should voting pool size be 20? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
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.