Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What has happened

What happened to this project, IMO, is what I feared from the beginning. We would acquire a massive membership list, and our task force would consist of editors signing off on the "cause" with no real interest in contributing to the project. My own contributions admittedly fizzled out after I sent a message to every single member of the task force requesting feedback, and no one responded. That was supposed to be an effort to engage the task force, revive this project and move forward, and it utterly failed. Our members flat out didn't respond. Meanwhile, multiple (two? three? four?) users continued to leave Wikipedia after failed RfAs, including My76Strat, whose original RfA was a major motivator in starting this project.

Anyway, I think we're at a point in this project where we need to decide what we're going to do- 'we' being the coordinators and any users watching this page who are still actually interested in accomplishing something. If we've grown complacent to the point where we're willing to let this fall into the ash heap of failed RfA reform initiatives, so be it. I know I'd rather try and be rejected by the community than let the project die out, though. Anyway, users who want to revive the project should step forward so we can decide what to do. Coordinators who are unwilling to help should step down. And, if the first step needs to be a reform of the task force itself, I say we do it without hesitation. Make them all reconfirm their membership. Remove those who don't contribute. Do what we have to. But the original goal was a small, dedicated task force, not a bloated, semi-active WikiProject. The dedicated users are definitely there. I'll start by notifying the coords about this message (though Pyfan has become inactive); hopefully we're all still interested and we can start discussing how to move forward. Swarm ^{u | t} 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My plan of action:

1. Nominate this page for deletion, with the rationale "Net negative for the project".
2. Inform the user whose words led to this course of action.
3. Reignite this discussion.

The only thing that is stopping me is a belief that I would risk a WP:POINT block. —WFC— TFL notices 04:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, that both this page and this change have been direct results of this project. We may not have actually put any proposals forward to the community, but we have made progress.Worm^TT · (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this 'project' was the planning, there was no timeline, no goals, no proposal, just a hazy, emotion-driven outcry because some decent editors (who were admittedly over-devoted to becoming administrators) left in a huff. Anyone who questioned the precise direction of this project were slapped around with the 'horrible and broken process' quote. To me, the broken aspect is editors wikiworking for wikiyears with the sole aim of one day obtaining administrative tools.

Finally, plucking any given topic from WP:PEREN is doomed to fail in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Those spearheading this project should accept that some awareness has been raised about the 'harshness' of the process, some of those !voting appear to have taken it on board, now drop the WP:STICK and step away from the carcass Jebus989^✰ 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we have two decent proposals which should go before the community, but they are not yet in a ready state. Unfortunately, real life and adoptees have got in my way and I assume other members are having similar issues. These things take time, but I don't think they're dead yet. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm a bit busy in real-life currently, I will more than happily help wherever it may be needed. Having said that, I do like the idea of gauging the interest of the members of this task force; what we really need is a small group of fervent users, not a bloated group of users, many of whom have only shown tangential interest/involvement with the task force. Change is a slow phenomenon and, although we must encourage its occurrence, we mustn't be overzealous. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The answers are in this thread (collapsed below) that recently took place on my talk page. I am rather fed up of people joining or commenting on this project just to tell us what we already know is wrong with RfA and complain about the way we're going about instigating change. For lack of reading the project properly (it will take about 2 hours to go through and understand the vast amount of research have made). They don't realise that those who 'spearhead' this project and many of the members of the task force are already admins and have nothing personal to gain by bringing change about. The downside of this - and any other Wikipedia project - is that we can't be selective about who signs up with the apparent intention of wanting to helpbecause of the need for transparency and so called consensus; anyone can come here and leave their thumbprint and/or add their name to the list of task force members - in fact several of the original task force signees have already been blocked, banned, or retired.

The answers are here

I've initiated a new thread at WT:RFA2011 regarding the next course of action of the task force and RFA reform in general that might interest you. I'd suggest we notify the members of the task force to get further input. Hopefully, in lieu of endless discussion, we can begin putting some verbs into our sentences and make RFA a bit more inviting. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Good luck with it :) I know I'd love some forward movement, but I'm just that bit too busy to do the pushing ATM. WormTT · (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I would suggest using the MessageDeliveryBot to inform the members of the task force of the impending discussion on the next course of action; however, I don't necessarily want to flood the thread with discussion, thus losing track of the original objective. If we could get a good representation of the various opinions of the task force members pertaining to our next course of action, that would be great. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) When I kick-started this RfA reform project, I never imagined for a moment that change would come overnight, and I was well aware that it would be a relatively slow process. What we do have now, however, in contrast to the endless chat at WT:RfA, is a structured reform project; the first of its kind, and packed with research and statistics. Most of the issues needing reform have been identified and addressed, to the extent that some really possible solutions have been suggested and it's now up to the task force to set the priorities, and come up with some drafts for proposals that we can hone and then put to the broader community at RfC. A quick look over the trend in RfA candidacies over the past few months needs no sophisticated statistics to lend some credence to the predictions WereSpielChequers published in Signpost in August last year: Although the right candidates generally pass, the number of candidates of the right calibre is down and still dropping. In a year or two, we will be short of admins. The solution is not one of unbundling the tools. The reason why experienced, mature editors generally will not run for office, is because they are not prepared to enter the hostile environment of RfA and be humiliated, :::*This project seems to have slowed down, mainly for two reasons: RfA has slowed down We have an RfA reform task force of nearly 40 editors. The motives of some of them for joining are not apparent. Very few have actually contributed significantly. The coordinators have been sending spam per MessageDeliveryBot to all the task force members roughly every 14 days or so to keep them up to date with new developments. Perhaps we need to coordinate the coordinators, but like me, some of them are also busy ATM pushing other major Wikipedia reforms forward, some of which are now going into effect. Let's keep the pot on the boil, but let's not overcook things either. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the reply, Kudpung. I share your concern, it being the reason that I said that I didn't want to flood the project with discussion, but I do think that it's worthwhile to consider possible courses of action. I'm not a proponent of quick change, but one mustn't forgo the consideration of that change, and that's my motive for initiating the thread that I linked to earlier. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply, since most of that was aimed at me. It's great that admins are involved, I realise you are one. But of course, that's nobigdeal, and admins have no special status as far as community discussion is concerned. I have posted in discussion of the project several times, we have even had a discussion in the early stages, if you 'read the project properly' you'll find it. The problem here isn't really that a lot of people put their name down, the problem is that this road is a dead-end. What's more, it's a well-traveled dead end with a sign that tells you as much before you turn in. Can you, or anyone, give one short-term, specific and achievable goal of this discussion? Jebus989^✰ 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jebus, I'm sorry you feel that this is lost cause. I've kept a counter on my userpage for the past several months to keep track of how long we can go without a user retiring after an RfA. I believe it's only gotten to one month once. That's why I contribute to this project; it's certainly not emotionally driven. The people who have taken time to collect intricate data, create detailed proposals, and discuss things at length are certainly not emotionally driven. We know that RfA reform has always been a dead end in the past, and frankly, we don't give a damn in the least. We believe we can accomplish something, and I don't think you're going to convince any of us otherwise after four months and a shitload of work. So unless you're interested in helping us, please keep the comments to yourself. I'd like to keep the focus on the thread's topic.

I'm happy to see the support expressed in this thread. I'll send one message out to the task force about this discussion. I'm confident that we'll continue to move forward. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question. I'm not commenting out of ill-feeling or some desire to see this fail, just taking part in a community discussion, as is everyone's right here. We don't exclude people from discussion just because their opinions don't agree with ours. Best of luck with the reform Jebus989^✰ 17:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late returning to this. Worm, to reply to your response to me, those things are progress, but very small things. My understanding is that we are ultimately aiming for root and branch reform. Kudpung, it is extremely dangerous to imply that those who disagree with a particular viewpoint are standing in the way. I hope that was not your intention, but on a first read that was my impression. I agree that we need to streamline this thing, and that we probably need to restrict the number of editors that participate in the creation of the new system. But representation of all views is crucial to our hopes of ending up with something that has broad support, and which is less controversial than what we already have.

There is a delicate balance to be struck here. On the one hand it is important not to rush, nor to be perceived to be rushing. On the other, we must retain a "when not if" mentality at all times. We need a road map/timetable, and IMO the end of the year has surely got to be the finish point. —WFC— TFL notices 18:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for having been massively tied up with RealLife draaahmaaahhhhh ..... I've been away for a while (from commenting, anyway) but have tried to keep up with reading. We do have some sensible suggestions, and clerks, in my view, should be not far off ready to roll-out community-wide for tweaks to make it roadworthy. Yes, we need some time-structured goals, but we do need to agree that radical changes (and, in some people's view, any kind of RfA reform constitutes a "radical change") take time. We just need to ensure that we don't fizzle out in the process. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, that the closing beaurracrat should not only look at the percentage (which I agree should be lowered) and carefully study the reason which led to each support and oppose and possibly even make their own judgements if they haven't already done so. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To an extent, that's what bureaucrats already do; that is why they are expected to have a superb understanding of consensus and the process of obtaining it. This is why bureaucrats are permitted, actually encouraged, to discount !votes (particularly opposes !votes) which do not specify a rationale. This, to an extent, is also done when considering pile-on oppose !votes for a like reason that can be easily addressed by a candidate (a signature or userbox, for example). Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree! this oppose was counted but was given for no reason. They may have had a reason, but didn't even state it. Their reason may be un helpful but the closing person counted it anyway. Reasons need to be provided otherwise there is no way of telling if your reason is correct or just bias. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a 'crat would give any weight whatsoever to such an oppose vote. Swarm ^{u | t} 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we the US Congress

10 August 2011. JW is already well aware of this RFA reform project.

This RFA reform process is reminiscent of the American Congress battling over the symantics of every argument. If we continue on this path we will simply exhaust the process rather than fix it. Jimbo if you ever read this its in your hands to fix this impossibly broken process my man. It should be clear at this point that this ship needs a Captain. The crew cannot continue to run the ship without supervision or the this ship. This HMS/USS Wikipedia will soon find itself bashed upon the rocks! Signed--Someone who gave up long ago of being an administrator. --108.18.194.36 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Jimbo is pretty much our captain :) . I think though that RfA should be no different from Requests for Permisisons.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC) And we're all in the same party here. Wait 'till this goes to the community and the anti-reformers get their say. :) Anyway, yeah, Jimbo basically said he was going to do something and utterly failed to back up his words. Swarm u | t 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Maybe someone should poke him and get him to make a comment / reply here? Just for fun? See if anything happens? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)  Done He has been notified of the ongoing discussion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC) You realize, of course, that you have blindly directed Jimbo to a 340k discussion page, with no instructions on where or on what you'd like him to comment. I wouldn't hold your breath for a comment. —SW— spill the beans 02:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I would make the suggestion that his intelligence is high enough that he ought to be able to chime in where he sees appropriate, and it's not in my position to tell him where to do so. Assuming he's quite busy (which is a safe assumption, I'm sure), I doubt he's been following the discussion as closely as we have (which is understandable). I will go ahead and guide him to these last few threads. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think Jimbo has to read and comment on our long, often less-than-productive threads. He could spare us a lot of work and candidates a lot of unhappiness if he would only follow through and do something—anthing— about this in his official capacity. Swarm u | t 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Band together in defined process to edit RfAs

After years of trying, it should be obvious now, there is unlikely to be an approved "rival RfA process" passed by consensus. Instead, remember that changes evolve on Wikipedia by numerous people who act in a similar manner, in every nook and cranny of the site. Simply define a set of rules to influence the existing WP:RfA process, and have numerous people come to each RfA and start acting on those suggested rules, to keep the RfA process from diverging into admin trivia, or cratering due to wild rumors about a candidate. Think of creating a formal essay as a "wannabe guideline" that suggests how to keep an RfA debate centered on the goal of approving qualified candidates. Then, get more dozens of people to follow that essay/guideline when responding within each, live RfA, as it unfolds. I think you can see how this would work, like a budding guideline that steers editing in areas where the rules are scarce. Forget the concept of a massive new RfA process, with mandatory rules to force !votes, while being approved by a keenly interested rough consensus, who approve the new master plan. Aint gonna happen. Instead, the new essay/guideline would offer "suggestions" (not mandatory) of how to respond to off-topic, unhelpful comments, by steering each RfA back on-track to consider the qualifications of the candidate. List the typical problem tactics ("inexperience with WP:CSD A7"), and suggest a list of pertinent questions, and offer some ways for how to edit an RfA to steer the process back on-track to checking for real qualifications. As more people follow the suggestions, then the anticipated changes in the process will grow. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:41, revised 18:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are on the wrong track

The bar for consensus should be lowered... - Discussions of this kind are treated in detail at WT:RFA2011/CANDIDATES

The bar for consensus should be lowered to at least 60% and possibly to a bare majority. This is the only practical way to fix RfA. The nastiness is not the main problem. The main problem is that the arithmetic favours the opposers in the first place. The process is rigged in favour of the status quo. I suspect that editors are primarily reluctant to go through an RfA because they think it is likely to be a futile waste of time in that the RfA will probably fail because the numbers are rigged in favour the opposers. James500 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC) A lower theshold would work, if the threshold for removing the tools were also lower. But Kudpung has decreed that we are not allowed to discuss that. —WFC— TFL notices 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC) We decided not to address that early on simply because there's way too much under the scope of 'RfA reform' to even begin to address 'adminship reform'. It's the same reason we decided to focus primarily on improving the current system, rather than seeing it replaced entirely. We can only take on so much, and we also have to be realistic in our efforts. That said, I completely think lowering the threshold is something we should try to see put forward. It doesn't mean we're on the wrong track, no one has simply brought it up for discussion. Swarm u | t 02:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC) RfA and adminship are inextricably linked, and I simply cannot understand the argument to the contrary. Would RfA be combative if adminship were no big deal? —WFC— TFL notices 02:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Nope, I completely agree that the problems at RfA are linked largely to adminship itself, and that adminship reform is as needed as RfA reform. That should help in putting my previous comment in context. Swarm u | t 03:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think we can really separate these things, no matter how much we'd like to. Fair enough, we can say "Don't cross this line" within the project - but the subject itself needs to have the line crossed. I'm completely in agreement with Swarm on this one. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) (←) Let's not kid ourselves. I respect Kudpung as an editor, but I have to disagree with him on this issue. Addressing adminship, specifically de-adminship, is absolutely crucial to successful reform. It can be put off until later on, but it cannot be overlooked. Re. lowering the threshold, I couldn't agree more. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I think you may be forgetting that we're working on what is a perennial proposal, and that successfully introducing any change would be a huge accomplishment. Our best chance is to work on moderate proposals first. De-adminship is not realistic, IMO (the most recent proposal got utterly clobbered). That said, no one's preventing anyone from working on a de-adminship proposal if they want to. There was an agreement at the beginning of this project and no one expressed a problem with that position at the time. However, don't blame Kudpung for us not magically having a perfect de-adminship proposal. If you feel strongly about it, get to work. I'll help. But I don't think it would be prudent to put a lot of effort into a major proposal like this before we've even accomplished anything minor. Swarm u | t 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the quandary of my comments; allow me to clarify. What I meant was that it is imperative that we draft such a proposal as part of a reform in the future, as doing so would be unrealistically naive, but it cannot be put off forever. I didn't intend to blame anything on Kudpung and I very much appreciate the magnitude and scope of his efforts to fix RFA. If it's best to draft these proposals separate of the project for the time being, than so be it. And Swarm, I'll start drafting ideas (likely in my userspace), and you (and any others) are more than welcome to pitch in. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC) That's fine, and I completely agree with what you're saying. I'd just like to take this one step at a time, and the step we're at now is getting this project back off the ground. Swarm u | t 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I've created the skeleton of a page where ideas pertaining to that area can be compiled without interfering with the progress of this project. Anyone interested is invited to list problems/solutions there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC) My idea of "adminship reform" is to appoint large numbers of new admins. My reasoning is that if most regular editors were admins, any problem that exists of "admin abuse" would probably pale into insignificance, because the number of soft targets would be much lower (I am under the impression that admins can't effectively use their tools to abuse each other). James500 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC) (←) Well put, James500, I couldn't agree more. This is, after all, what Jimmy Wales originally intended, is it not? Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Tyrol, whilst I've disagreed above about de-adminship being within the scope of this project, I absolutely agree that de-adminship needs to be addressed. I've watchlisted the page and will help to contribute to that project too (when I find the time). Good job and kudos for starting to tackle the issue. WormTT · (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your interest, Worm, I look forward to working on the issue with you in the future. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, I think that James500 ought to read through this project from the beginning. We already know what's wrong with RfA, and we know why so few mature, experienced users of the right calibre won't nominate themselves, or decline our offers to nominate them. The contact with them has been, for obvious reasons, off-Wki, but the reasons are all the same. I see little point in trying to find other reasons that have not been mentioned or for which we have no corroboration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, you are not in a position to assert that I have not read this project from the beginning, or that my comment was intended to apply only to what you consider, in your personal opinion, to be "mature, experienced users of the right calibre" (because we appear have very different ideas about who is and isn't suitable).James500 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

New Proposal (and progress on an old one)

Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement - Please continue the discussion there. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Continues at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement

I've put together a proposal at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement. I'd like to know what people think of it, feel free to copyedit it. I think that we have a real chance to make a change with this proposal, and whilst it's not a grass-roots radical change it is a significant step in the right direction. As I said, we've already got 2 steps out of this reform, and I think it'd be good to have a proper proposal or two to come out. Why do I say "or two"? Because I see Swarm has been pushing the clerks proposal so it's looking a lot closer to something we could put before the community. WormTT · (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I'll support it. Of the 20 SNOW/NOTNOW closes, were any even close to 2,000 edits? If you can take the edit count lower, I'd go as low as you can so it's obvious we're just trying to cull the very new users that likely don't understand RfA yet. — Bility (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 13 had less than 1000 edits, 2 between 1000 and 2000, and 4 had between 2000 and 3200 but less than 6 months making a total of 19. I liked the 2000/6m mark because it has parallels with WP:Service awards. By the way, if we upped it to 3000, we'd take out 26 failures... but 2 were not NOTNOW or SNOW. WormTT · (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Under this proposal, presumably the two that weren't SNOW/NOTNOW (or all of them maybe :P) would request a nomination and either be let through anyway or they'd be (nicely) encouraged to wait until they had a better chance. Sounds like a good system to me, but you're probably right that 2,000 edits will be more palatable for the community. — Bility (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I was just thinking a proposal like this yesterday. This is more than fair and exactly what I would suggest. Swarm u | t 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I was thinking more like 3 months and 1000 edits just because it may be hard to set a bar where there has been none before; however, the ability to be nominated should solve the problem. I think we should be willing to back down to the lower bar if there is heavy opposition to 2000 edits/6 months. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Can we move and continue this discussion on the right page at WT:RFA2011/CANDIDATES to keep it all together? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know how easy it is for the regulars here to follow the discussions, but for me (as a new member) it is easier to follow if all discussion is centralized. Maybe some super genius can figure out a way to transclude just a single section. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find...

15 August 2011 ...a list of questions based on how often they are asked? Discussion moved to WP:RFA2011/QUESTIONS

a list of questions based on how often they are asked? Does anyone have this information? I think it would be a good idea to implement some of these questions in the standard questions. I got the idea from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Question profiles but it doesn't seem like it was ever discussed in full and I think it would be an easy change to make. One question that I have seen a lot is the question on what constitutes being an involved administrator. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC) We don't currently have that, but feel free to add it ;) WormTT · (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, I'll try to start doing some research. Mine might not be entirely scientific but I will peruse the recent RFA's and create a list of common questions. Now, I was recently told by Kudpung that this project isn't supposed to modify how RFA works, but is instead supposed to modify the behavior of !voters. I think Kudpungs approach is much too narrow and is much harder to implement. With that being said, where would I actually take a proposal to change the questions? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I was recently discussing a similar point with someone else, and I'll say the same thing here. We need to remember that we're working on a perennial proposal and that successfully introducing any change would be a huge accomplishment. We need to be realistic about the changes we want to introduce, and rather than putting work into proposing changes in the RfA process (which may be very difficult), we should focus on proposals that don't require consensus to implement (if possible), and and moderate, realistic proposals that will be easy for the community to swallow in an RfC. This was what we agreed upon at the beginning of this project, and that is the "mainstream" focus under which we operate. All that said, there's nothing preventing any of us from working on more radical/far reaching proposals (i.e. altering RfA process in some way, introducing an alternative, adminship reform) under our banner. It's certainly not banned. We don't encourage you to focus on things like that, but you're definitely free to do so and I'm sure we'd all be glad either to support your efforts or give you constructive criticism. Swarm u | t 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Brilliantly summarised Swarm. We have even created a space at WP:RFA/RADICAL for offbeat suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Ryan, anything to do with the RfA questions can be discussed at WP:RFA2011/QUESTIONS. We already have a list of 200 or so questions that might possibly considered as inappropriate - although some people don't agree they are all nonsense. Gathering background info to make tables and stats is slow and painstaking work, but if you want to have a go at analysing the rest of the questions, you are more than welcome to give it a try. However, the reason why we don't have such a list already is because I don't think anyone has considered that the possible uses of such a list would justify the hours it would take to compile it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Some ideas I have

I have begun reading much of the information here but I can admit that I haven't even come close to reading it all, so I am sorry if I duplicate existing ideas. Both of the ideas I have are ones that if consensus was gained could actually be implemented into the RFA process.

My first idea

Modifications to the existing three questions could be in order. Question 1 could ask what areas of administrative work the nominee intends to work in and how they have the knowledge and experience to work in the area. If the question required that extra clarification the following example could occur differently.

• Example one Candidate states that they would like to work in AFD. Editors point out that they don't have a lot of edits at AFD and have not contributed in many discussions.
  • Generally, this is a good reason to oppose a candidate who states that they want to work in AFD.
• Example one with modified question Candidate states that they want to work in AFD and have a good knowledge of its working because they were highly involved with the writing of many different pages on notability policy, and contributed heavily to the page arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. Even though the candidate has not taken part in many AFD discussions, editors can see that the candidate has a good knowledge of AFD because they helped shape it.

In addition, more questions could be asked in the standard questions. I had an idea but lost it, but basically they would be for the candidate to highlight more of the things that would make them a good administrator.

My second idea

Voting doesn't start at the beginning of an RFA. The first three days consists of only the use of the discussion section and question and answers. Not only would this make a discourse between the candidate and the !voters less of a taboo, it could even make discussion expected. This allows editors ample time to analyze the edits of the nominee before they make their vote. This would solve the problem with switch voting and would give the nominee a chance to explain their actions.

The first three days would utilize the discussion section. Many opposes are based on a few edits, the discussion section would be a chance for possible opposers to ask for a rationale for the edits. This makes it easier for editors to change their opinions and creates a forum where the candidate has a chance to explain himself. I also think, but am not sure, that discussion on the candidates answers to the question should take place under the question itself.

Thoughts

These are just some thoughts I had, and I may be modifying some of my proposals but I would like to see what other task force members think. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable about the idea of discussing a candidate without !voting for three days. If it worked it would mean some editors spending the first three days wondering whether the flaws that had been revealed would result in significant numbers of oppose !votes. Most candidates get rejected relatively quickly at RFA and I see no benefit to them or the projet in extending the pain by three days. But more likely it wouldn't work as it would be difficult to discuss such things without saying whether you thought they were sufficiently serious to merit an oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Ryan's second idea is intriguing, actually. Think about it: before starting their RfA, candidates have the option of answering question submissions before the RfA even starts. If it would be destined to fail, other editors could discuss this with the candidate before they're thrown to the wolves. A candidate could explain that they do understand the CSD, before there's a pile on over a past mistake. If it's a NOTNOW situation, the "pre-RfA" is archived and they're not allowed to start the process. It wouldn't necessarily involve changing the current process, but it would act as a lightweight, totally optional "pre-RfA" process. It doesn't even have to be set up as an official part of RfA, it could exist as an independent Wikiproject run by volunteers, with no community discussion required. Swarm ^{u | t} 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and it can help ensure RfA1 is a best attempt because if a user withdraws prior to the !vote it seems that it shouldn't count as a failed attempt. My76Strat (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your point addresses some of the problems I have with the current RFA system. You state that "it would be difficult to discuss such things without saying whether you thought they were sufficiently serious to merit an oppose". Under the current system, it is oftentimes looked down upon to discuss the rationale of the opposers (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RobertMfromLI). Although my idea was slightly different from Swarm's interpretation, I really like how he interpreted it. During the "pre-RFA" editors can state the rationale which would lead to an oppose. Editors may point to [example.com example edit 1], [example.com example edit 2], and [example.com example edit 3]. I don't think that it would even be off limits to state that you would oppose because of example edits 1, 2, and 3. The candidate then has the option to address the edits and state how they can refrain from a similar editing style or give a rationale for their edits. I certainly don't think that 3 extra days of worrying is going to be a huge detriment to the candidates, especially since they have a better example to high-lite their good edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know there haven't been a lot of comments on this section yet, but if there are enough editors who express support, I would like to start a draft for a proposal. I'm assuming a proposal of this magnitude would need an RFC. In the event of an RFC I would like a couple different options addressed. One would be that the new RFA system is enacted for a trial period of x months, at the end of the term it could be extended or discontinued. Another is that the new RFA system is enacted for a trial period, but editors have the option of choosing the traditional RFA system or the new system. After the term it could be continued, continued with the option, or discontinued. The final thing I would like to see addressed is a decision over whether, at the end of 3 days the true RFA starts immediately or the candidate must reconfirm his/her desire to proceed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to make a complete draft yet, but I would recommend starting a "skeleton" draft that lays out the main points. Swarm ^{u | t} 07:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this could be a very interesting idea. I know it's been mentioned elsewhere within this very reform, but I think we have something a little different here. Similar to "requesting an RfA nom", there's no reason you can't just boldly start up a wikiproject - WP:RfA Trial Run or some such. This wouldn't need community "approval" as such, though it might be an idea to put it to the people at WT:RfA.

In future, after say 6 months, if it is clearly working (say the vast majority of people who get through the process go on to be admins, and it visibly stops NOTNOWS or SNOWS) we can put a proposal to the community to make it mandatory. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. No need for an RfC, just offer it as a service. Swarm ^{u | t} 09:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Great idea; it allows us to try some possible reforms without the immediate need for community consensus/permanent implementation. Tyrol5 [Talk] 11:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to get too far separated from RFA though. My original idea was for the discussion to take place on the RFA page after the RFA had been transcluded. If we create a separate page my fear is that it will become something akin to "editor-review". First, people may not comment on the pre-rfa and second the discussion may have no impact on the outcome of the RFA. We could possibly transclude the discussion onto the RFA page, but if it is not actually part of the RFA, I don't know how we will get participation from many RFA regulars. I'm going to start a draft of my proposal in my userspace and then I can move it to RFA reform space where we can work out the kinks and modify it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see it ending up that way, but I think that since it's such a radical idea (read: big change), the community would need to see something in action before accepting it. What's more, It's likely to get participation in the first few months, with the initial enthusiasm (that's how people work) and if it's working, we could put a proposal in to make it mandatory. However I'm willing to wait to see what you put together first ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like that, and I'll probably incorporate it into my proposal. For a trial period of x, users desiring adminship create a page at Pre-RFA discussion (or something like that), hopefully the three RFA questions are still asked and other editors still ask normal questions like they would in an RFA, discussion takes place. After 3 days (if we choose to stick with 3), the candidate can start a normal RFA, the questions and answers would be copied and pasted into the RFA then deleted from the Pre-RFA and the rest of the page would be substituted into either the discussion section or the talk page. (This is a very poor comment, but I am in a bit of a rush) Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a very interesting idea. I like it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd proposed a similar idea to Ryan's suggestion #2 in a thread back in June. In that discussion, it was mentioned that a similar pre-RFA questioning/discussion session before !voting was tried at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 back in 2008, and largely regarded a failure due to !voters showing up with other reasons to oppose that had not been discussed in the "pre-RFA" period. I suggested that we require !voters to participate in the discussion period, but this idea was quickly shot down on the grounds that it would "deviate the RFA process from its true intention: to let the community decided whether or not a user can be trusted with adminship. However, I fail to understand why it's too much to ask to require !voters to participate in discussion first. Is three days not enough time for this occur? Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RfA proposal

I have moved my proposal to Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives/Pre-RfA Proposal. Comments would be appreciated on the talk page of the proposal. Any changes that do not modify the overall plan of the proposal I have created can be made without first seeking consensus. If changes are controversial or may substantially change the proposal, please discuss them first. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have radically modified my proposal into an even more radical version of a parallel system of RfA. This is based on things suggested on Jimbo Wale's talk page. Please feel free to comment. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Something that might be of interest

To whom it may concern/interest, User:Jorgenev has compiled a page that documents past criticism of RFA, back to 2004. It's worth looking at. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RfA simplified

While it's clear that Ryan's idea of a "pre-RfA" involves the "official" adoption of a structured process, I don't see a reason we can't implement this now as a flexible, completely optional and voluntary service. Questions can be submitted and answered in advance. There will simply be a discussion section where people can talk about whether they think the editor will be a good RfA candidate or not (no supports/opposes). Pile-on issues (e.g. CSD problems) can be raised before the RfA and the candidate can be advised not to run in the first place. If a candidate does go on, the questions answered in advance can be transcluded from the beginning—resulting in a more informed "audience" at RfA. I'm thinking K.I.S.S.:

• boilerplate questions
• submitted questions
• discussion

Close or after a week or two, or before if the candidate is satisfied. Will be superseded if the formal proposal is accepted. What do you think? Swarm ^{u | t} 19:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Automatically sysopped through writing 30 GAs in 5 different topics

Discussion moved to the correct talk page. Please continue it there

There are several questions that I believe each one of us should ask themselves: How do we improve the RfA process in order to have more admins? How do we improve the RfA process in order to have more qualitative admins? How can the admins use their mop properly in order to attract good contributors, straighten contributors who have areas of opportunity, and be inflexible with bad apples? How can they lead by example good potential wikipedians? I guess the answers to the above questions depend on what wikipedia each one of us envisions. I will expose my personal view which might differ from those of many in this community. I believe we'll have a better wikipedia if the number of Good Articles increases sensibly. I would love to see in 5 years at least 100,000 good articles, and these 100,000 articles should be the core articles that each encyclopaedia should have, not frivolous stuff. But is that possible? In my short experience as a contributor, but long experience as a reader, I would say no. Right now we have 12,000 GAs, and half of them wouldn't find a space in neither Britannica or Encarta. So how can we have the admins lead by example and contribute to a wikipedia with many GAs and FAs, by making the process smoother for newcomers who have the potential to write GAs and FAs? How can we get to apply people who will truly lead by contributions, and not only by admin work? It is my opinion, that first of all, we should approach many long term contributors who have an extremely high number of edits and are not admins for several reasons, the first being that they have had blocks in the past: some of these people apply and get rejected because once their behavior was not "admin level behavior". However, these people have great experience with wikipedia, and should have the mop in my opinion: they know the tools, the policies, the community, and are good watchers of many articles. They are good readers and have encyclopaedic minds. Proposal: What if, after a certain number of GAs in different areas, you are given automatically the mop? For instance, and this is only my number, after 30 GAs, in 5 different topics, you automatically have the admin tools, and you don't have to go through AfD at all? Isn't content creation the most important thing in wikipedia? I am aware that this proposal is actually circumventing the RfA process altogether, but the main reason why I am making it, is because I honestly believe that many content creators are just too worried with content to waste time at AfD and try to become sysops. It is actually first and foremost these people who should have sysop buttons. They know sooner than everyone who is a good content provider, and who isn't, who is a POV pusher, and who is an equilibrated person, they can distinguish true contributors from butterflies, and they can spot a bad source right away. I believe that many good admins would come out of this process, and that we'd see a jump in the number of Good Articles as well. I made sure to include in the rule that the 30 GAs should be in 5 different topics, but the number can be increased (or slightly decreased). It is extremely important to have a wide number of topics, because this would eliminate single purpose accounts, who will push their agenda in one direction and have 30 GAs, let's say in Sports and recreation only. An encyclopaedic mind is such in all areas (or at least in 5 of them). Penny for your thoughts? Divide et Impera (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, someone with 30 GAs (or 100, for that matter) can still be a terrible admin. We have quite a few great content-focused editors that shouldn't be near administrative duties. Some have no experience in the Wikipedia space at all. I can think of several who blatantly disregard WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There are many factors that make a 'good admin' and, while "number of GAs" might be one, it's generally considered to be a minor one and shouldn't be the only factor in determining adminship. Swarm u | t 00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Can you say (or email me) the nicks of even 1 (one) editor who has written 30 GAs, in 5 different topics, and still isn't a sysop?Divide et Impera (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Me? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC) But you would reject the tools, so we are safe. My76Strat (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I agree strongly with Swarm. There are users who have made GAs and then got banned later. The problem with this proposal is that it does not address the other aspects of being an admin - patience, technical knowledge, ability to advise well in most (if not all) situations, and good judgement.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

New tool

For a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, see RfA Vote Counter. Courtesy of Snottywong. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)