Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 5
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
- Nominate this page for deletion, with the rationale "Net negative for the project".
- Inform the user whose words led to this course of action.
- 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.WormTT · (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. WormTT · (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)
- 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. WormTT · (talk) 12:54, 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.WormTT · (talk) 06:32, 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)
|
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 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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)
|
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)
(←) 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)
(←) 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)
|
New Proposal (and progress on an old one)
Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement - Please continue the discussion there. WormTT · (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)
|
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)
|
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 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 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. WormTT · (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 ;) WormTT · (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)
- 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 ;) WormTT · (talk) 14:46, 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)
- 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)
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:
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.
|
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)