Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Thine Antique Pen

Comment on process

Just a comment on the process we should use. Lets use the project pages to create fully developed proposals and discuss them and/or !vote on the talk pages. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. this should be done similar to most XfD or noticeboards (including individual RfAs). Comment on the proposal on the main part, and reserve talk for "other stuff"

I put the discussion in both places. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on this proposal

I would like some clarification. Under your proposal, would a group of bureaucrats and trusted admins grant Adminship access to editors? If they choose not to grant the access, it would be opened to community discussion, avoiding the cabal? Who would close the community discussion? It would have to be an uninvolved bureaucrat in my opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think that myself. The Bureaucrats and trusted administrators would have been elected. If they choose not to, but not for WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW, it would go to the community. ⇒T A P 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea has potential. Lets try to dive into this idea and develop the system in its entirety. How many bureaucrats on the panel, how many admins? Should we create a new userright? Do we hold a vote for who is on the panel? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Human nature being what it is, lines are likely to be drawn in the subsequent RfA due to the previous smoke-filled room discussion. How would we avoid that, and the unfortunatly all-too-common related drama? - jc37 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked you at Egg Centric's proposal (which is similar to this one) do you think this issue could be resolved with juries randomly selected from a pool taken from volunteers in advance if involved jurors were excluded from the second, smaller pool?