Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
For a list of RfA reform projects, see Wikipedia:RfA reform.

This project will be for discussing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reform and proposals for 2012.

Problems with the requests for adminship process which need to be addressed[edit]

Minor proposals to address a problem[edit]

  • Convert voting to a 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This proposal reduces the extent to which off-wiki canvassing could influence votes. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Form the jury from a random selection from ALL the editors in good standing who have been active for the last (6 months, year, 3 years, etc). Continue inviting randomly selected editors to participate until a quorum is obtained (15, 20, 500, etc). This would eliminate a cabal. jmcw (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question, could you define "good standing" and explain why editors who are not in "good standing" should be excluded. RfAs generally have ~100 editors on them, yet in a typical month we have ~2500 editors who make over 100 edits. That means that (I'd guess) 96% of editors don't give two hoots about RfA... this is going to mean a lot of spam. WormTT(talk) 13:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would define "Good Standing" as something empirical, such as "not currently blocked". Spam reduction: if this is necessary, let people opt out of being selected. I see it as a great advantage to bring in people who are just 'common' editors who are not usually involved in Wikipedia structure (I almost wrote Wikidrama<g>). jmcw (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly see benefits, though I also see disadvantages. There are editors who look like they'd make good admins on basic criteria, but I'd be very unhappy about them being admins. An editor who is unfamiliar with anything to do with adminship, I'm not sure how much confidence I'd have. WormTT(talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea could be fine-tuned by a) the length of time active and b) allow the 'crats a bit more leeway in the !vote. jmcw (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Given the series of unfortunate events surrounding Pending Changes, any proposal for a N-Month trial needs to specify a particular person or persons who will end the trial (as in, "go back to the pre-trial state", not as in "continue the trial after calling it 'ended'") and defined consequences if the trial is continued past the end date without consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Maybe a better approach would be to limit the number of admins selected under any new process to N and have their terms expire after M months if the trial proposal is not extended (with the right to reapply under the existing scheme).--agr (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something that could be easily abused. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree; this is in fact a cabal and as such embodies the fear that IMO gives rise to a lot of the unpleasantness at RfA. It also would not have a hope of reflecting all the varied concerns that go into people's choice whether to support or oppose at RfA. A statistical approximation is not the same. Not minor and a move in entirely the wrong direction, I think. --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the idea of a jury pool or the six-month trial? Please feel free to delete this comment if you want to move your comments to the correct location, up to this sentence. If the pool of RfA voters were limited to any editor eligible to vote for trustees who says they are interested in voting on RfAs, and then limited by which editors had involved interactions with the candidate (such editors would still be able to comment, just not vote) then there would be no cabal. The potential for off-wiki canvassing, which exists today, forms a far greater cabal risk. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thought - Just wondering - do we have an essay or guideline/policy that sets out what is expected of someone who is looking to become an admin? These could be used to craft limits on opposition to avoid people voting based on a disagreement with an editor, or a minor slight which the voter has perceived as derogatory. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried looking at WP:Advice for RfA candidates? - and the dozens of other essays/guidelines/plicies it also links to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals to overhaul the process[edit]

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)[reply]
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.
The new proposed process by me is divided into 3 phases. First phase features a Pre-RfA process. Second, the regular RfA through which admins are selected currently. And the third, with a Post-RfA system to give an editor who barely doesn't reach consensus a chance of getting admin rights. →TSU tp*
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Active participants[edit]

List of editors who are willing to contribute in this process, in addition to those who already have:

  1. →TSU tp*
  2. ⇒TAP
  3. Specs112 t c 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2012

Leave a Reply