Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives

< BACK to Radical Alternatives main page

RfA model should be scrapped

(This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here)

So far everybody is talking about RfA reform as a modification of the current RfA model... IMO, RfA is so broken that any model built around it is doomed for failure. We need to completely scrap the model and come up with something new---a completely new way of getting the bit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea..you have any ideas?Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested in such a measure, but we need to be realistic. It will take a considerable amount of time to completely rewrite RFA (which I would support), but it just might be necessary. I think that for now, we should stick to realistic measures and experimentation/trial until we can come up with a process that eliminates the current RFA model. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We do need to get this past the community. There is some doubt that they will accept he clerks proposal. I doubt at this time they would accept a complete overhaul. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And I think it would take a lot more time "rewriting" the old model and don't think much will be accomplished if we did. Just look at the above discussion and that's just people spouting their opinions on the current status quo.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe any options are off the table in this conversation, if you have a proposal to fundamentally redo the entire process by all means present it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have mentioned that if we could get even one of the suggested reform items past the community, this may open the road for more, and I wholly support that. That said, this project certainly does not exclude the possibiliy of coming up with an entirely new system. We could open a new sub page for discussing that, but it would be a very long and tedious route. There may be cabals, perhaps even at WMF, discussing such measures already. JW's silence may seem to suggest that, but he may well have very good reasons not to comment here, though it would be great if he would chime in. What we as a task force need to decide is whether we offer these reforms to the community singly, over a considered period of time, or as a bundled package. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some ideas it would make sense to bundle together, but in general I think they should be presented to the community singly. As Kudpung, and many others, have said, getting one reform idea past the community may open the road for more. If this is the case, it should be much easier to get the ideas past the community singly than if we were to group them all together. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 02:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pros & cons: A bundled reform would entail interminable discussion by the broader community on all the individual points, probably in a traditional unstructured debate. Staggering the proposals would meet the suggestion that one reform would open the road to more, and would not pile on a lot of individual proposals for the broader community to consider at the same time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What a nightmare... are we here to fix RfA or to put bandaids on it? Issuing changes piecemeal does not "fix" the problem, but will introduce pieces in a disconcordant manner without any assurance that the issues needing to be fixed will be fixed. And like I said, IMO any reform that builds upon the current model will just perpetuate the problem. If we are going to make a proposal, I say we go full bore, present an IDEAL. Even if that ideal isn't accepted today, we get it out there. Personally, I am dubious that any meaningful change will come about, but I'd rather present a new ideal that we can be proud of than haphazard suggestions that don't really do anything.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tofu, there have been several suggestions in the past. 1 - Breaking the individual tools out ala rollback. 2 - Alternative methods of giving the bit ala coaching with tools. 3 - probational periods with the bit 4 - making it into a true vote with secret ballots. 5 - making it into more of an RfC type scenario where people endorse individual statements making it the 'crat more responsible for interpretting consensus. There are numerous alternatives, the question is can we come up with a viable alternative.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned some possible pros and cons already. Rolling out these suggested changes to the existing basic system as a bundle would in fact amount to a major reform. Neverthless, we are not ruling out suggestions for a completely different concept, such as, for example, secret ballot, although I suspect that such ideas are already being discussed in another place. If we do go along that track as well, let's make it a discussion on a separate sub page. Nevertheless, for the moment, I think we would have a lot to gain by discussing the changes that have been listed here as possibles, and reaching some consensus on them. Hence the straw poll below (with space for discussion below it), which may produce working priorities for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. I'm all for discussing new ideas, completely radical or minor tweaks. However, before you suggest ripping down RfA for a new system, I would expect a clear direction and reason for the new system. For example, my personal opinion is that the current system does elect the right people, but the broken-ness is around the way failed candidates are left to feel. That point of view can be (and has been) analysed and specific solutions have been put forward. The larger picture "what is an administrator", "unbundling the tools" or "how do we get rid of administrators" should be out of scope for this reform, or the good work will get lost in the noise, they can be dealt with seperately.

Having said that, some fixes you've brought up can and should be entertained. Perhaps an WP:RfA reform 2011/Ideas lab page, where sections for different methods (even the perennial ones) could be discussed, improved or vetoed through discussion. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to expand on my comments in the !vote below. I agree with Worm that the task force can find room to discuss the more radical ideas, and a new page to do so is a good idea. In terms of the core aims I think the next steps are clear; we need to elucidate the ideas we have discussed so far into a proper list of proposals (maybe, WP:RfA reform 2011/proposals). That way we have a clear idea of what to work on next. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We have that already on the main page, and as we progress, sub pages for them are being created. You may have noticed that I've already copied some threads over to the respective pages. If there are any aspects of reform of the current system that we have missed, just add them neatly to the sections on the main page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that WMF is considering an alternative or replacement to the current RfA process, for there is no chance of this task force implementing one. None whatsoever. Sorry, but that's the truth. What we can do, realistically, is try to implement changes that will improve the existing process. I'm more than happy to discuss alternative methods, but a serious initiative to scrap RfA by way of community approval would be, I fear, a waste of time. Swarm ^X 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, which is why I'd rather come up with an IDEA of what we as a community would like. Get an actual consensus to change it will not happen, but if we have an idea of where we want to go, it might get implemented by fiat.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And if the powers that be are watching this, we might be able to discourage plans that the community would reject AND might address some of the issues that they might overlook.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal views are:

• We could at least try to get clerking approved for starters.
• This task force would never get an entirely radically new form of selection process past the community.
• The powers that be are probably not watching, and if they are they are, they have their reasons for not chiming in. It would be nice to know though. I don't like wasting my time or anyone else's.
• Radical change may come at any time suddenly by edict from higher authority.
• We don't want to discourage ourselves from discussing any of our points for reform, but we can reach a consensus to not waste time on any that any that may not be absolutely viable.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A radical proposal that could be tried immediately

(This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here)

Ok, this is not my first choice in solutions, but this might be a viable alternative that might work---and that we might be able to try immediately. (I would call upon Ironholds 'experimental rfa' as precedent for simply trying something new.)

Rather than fighting to change everything, turn RfA into more of an RfC environment. Right now we have people taking sides and !voting and then others coming along and !voting "Per so and so." Instead of having two categories for "Support" and "Oppose", let people make statements and get those statements endorsed like they do in typical RfC's. The Nom would be the initial statement, but this way people can endorse other statements as well. I make a statement critical of a candidates handling of CSD's, others can endorse my position. WCS, however, likes the candidates handling of AFD's, the same people who endorsed my statement might also endorse WCS's position. This would require that the 'crats really read the RfA and get a true sense of what the consensus is---and evaluate the wind.

By making it more of a traditional RfC, you might get people to moderate their tone in writing their comment. If I write my rationale in such a manner that it is a personal attack, then nobody is going to endorse it. If I write my rationale with a "Support/oppose" then not as many people will endorse it---they might agree with me that CSD is a critical issue and that the candidate needs to work on it, but they might not agree that the issue is strong enough to support/oppose over.

Again, this is an idea that a brave soul could try immediately. (note, I am not advising somebody to try it as it might have negative reactions, but pointing out that if somebody wanted to try something different, this could be done.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of darn god insight to consider in your above comments. My76Strat (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an unsurprisingly brilliant idea. → ROUX ₪ 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I could get behind this iff there are two bigger sections (support/oppose) for the comments to be organized by --Guerillero | My Talk 22:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be entirely and completely pointless. It wouldn't really be a change from the current system. Do you know how an RFC works on Wikipedia? Essentially what Balloonman is proposing is that someone makes a nomination statement. People can then indicate whether they agree with it or not. Someone else could then make a statement saying "I don't think this person should be an admin because..." and people could then post to indicate they agree, or not post to indicate they do not. Crats would then evaluate the statements and who supports what, and figure out what the consensus is. → ROUX ₪ 22:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Let people endorse the reasons pro and contra promotion. Make it such that people are encouraged to word their statements in a manner that others will support.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I really like this idea, and I think I proposed something similar on one of the many talk pages. There's no reason that RfA should be quite such a vote (it's not a !vote by any stretch of the imagination), it would be better as a discussion. However, it would mean that the crat has a much heftier job in closing and I don't think it should be lowering the bar, just changing what the bar looks like. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed previously, see Wikipedia:RFA as RFC and Wikipedia:RFA as RFC/Werdna for a trial run. It was a long time ago now, but any lessons from these should be considered before trialling it again. CT Cooper · talk 10:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the trial run it had several problems:

1. It wasn't really an RfA, in fact it was held out as an experiment to see how it might go. Thus, never garnered any real community interest, only about 10 people participated in it.
2. It had a controversial figure as the subject, somebody who had already failed 3 RfA's and would undergo what 2 or 3 more before passing (ultimately with flying colors if I recall correctly).
3. I didn't like how it was broken down into two sections, one where people who support write their rationale and the other where people who oppose write their rationale. Like modern RfC's, I think the differing view points need to be intersperced. I also don't think that every position is going ot have a clear defacto "this comment means support/oppose."

The trial didn't fail due to something inherently wrong with the methodology (although Radiant did raise a potential concern) it failed because people didn't spend the time to participate in an experiment which wasn't going to be used to determine if Werda should/shouldn't be promoted. When Ironhold's tried an alternative methodology it, IMO, showed obvious problems with that methodology. Namely, that the people who had the strongest reasons to oppose waited until the !voting began before voicing their concerns, thus denying Ironholds a chance to adequately respond or for the issue to settle before !voting. Werda's failed RfC/RfA didn't show that, it didn't show much of anything due to lack of participation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This RfA, however, is a better example of how this idea was tried and failed. My first glance at the RfA and I thought he was going to pass, until I saw the last section where the model was lambasted.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I thought there was another RfA; I just couldn't find it. Thank you for retrieving it. For the record the trial for Ironholds is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2, in which the voting phase was delayed, and I agree that on the whole the trial was a failure. There was also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis in which the voting sections were removed and everything was lumped into one. I used to support removing the s/o/n sections, but this trial changed my mind, given that it was awkward to read through and problematic for the closing bureaucrat, not to mention the removal had limited benefits. CT Cooper · talk 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Roux; this is a good idea. Best of all the bad ideas that are being tossed about. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If it can be shown that a user does not understand deletion policy, then I don't really care whether s/he is a nice person, has written 2 GAs, and has an outstanding anti-vandalism record, I don't want them having the delete button. I'm sure I speak for a large proportion of the community there. In this format, it's perfectly possible that a large majority would agree with the nomination statement, but nonetheless feel that they should not be able to delete. In the RfA format, such a user would most likely get less than 70% support, the crats would recognise that these opposes were not spurious, and the candidate would fail. In an RfC format, the end result could well be that they would become an admin, even though convincing arguments had been made for why this otherwise good candidate should not be deleting things.

I am therefore opposed to this system. It could work very well in conjunction with some sort of radical unbundling mechanism. That way, the candidate above would get the tools they needed, but not the ability to delete. But that is unlikely to happen for a long time. —WFC— 10:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus on improvement and recognition, not inquisition

(This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here)

There are good discussions above about how RfA currently works, and how to improve it. I propose a complementary approach: changing the focus of RfA from "assessment of admin nominations" to "recruitment and retention of good admins". This change of focus may help reduce the level of acrimony in comments as well.

Focus this process, and the pages and guidelines about it, on identifying good admins. Measures of success could include how many admins are identified, how good they turn out to be, whether they are willing to become admins, and how much overhead and drama is produced as a side-effect.

Helping interested admin candidates become good admins, and helping current admins stay active + get better + be effective, would both be relevant to a process focused on maintaining the best admin corps. That seems more useful to me - and better grounded in our desire for a healthy editing community - than a gauntlet to be overcome by those who choose to risk it.

Any editor who has demonstrated commitment to the project, a capacity to help others work effectively together, and an understanding of problems that can hurt the project, should be able to become an admin. If there are specific issues that need to be resolved, these should be presentable in a simple format, and progress towards resolving them should be measurable.

Rather than having the conversation about a potential admin happen over a few days, make this part of the larger conversation of how we keep our community and project thriving and a pleasure to use. Editors recruited / nominated as admins should end up with some recommendations for improvement, whether or not they 'pass' their initial review; they should be able to get regular feedback on those recommendations; and they should find their next review simpler and easier.

–SJ+ 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should mix ER and RfA together? A candidate's contributions are analysed and feedback (including recommendations for improvement) is given regardless of whether the candidate succeeds or not. Is that about right? I would agree with that.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread might gain more weight if it were on the Radical alternatives talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here) — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, there's some good thinking behind this idea. Changing the focus / goal towards recruitment may make people see the whole thing (and, more importantly, behave in the whole thing) in a much more acceptable way. A simple paradigm shift like this could actually work. Pesky (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm pretty confident that this would work. There will, of course, be the typical opposition, but this cannot be avoided under any circumstance. The objective is to encourage editors to volunteer to become administrators. Under the current system, RFA just isn't worth any good editor's while, as even excellent candidates face badgering. RFA !voters must become more tolerant and appreciative for the benefit of the editor under RFA, for they are doing so on a volunteer basis. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It could work, and I took an informal approach not a million miles from what is being proposed here before submitting my RfA. I contacted four long-standing admins that I had had some interaction with in the past, stated that I was considering applying for adminship and asking for their opinions, while emphasising that it was not my intent to canvas. I found it an extremely useful experience and, on the basis of the comments I got, decided to go for it.

On the other hand, I did not find the ER I requested a couple of years previously particularly illuminating: Wikipedia:Editor review/Catfish Jim and the soapdish. Combining the two in a formal manner will only work if ER is taken seriously. (I hasten to add that I have no idea if my experience of ER was in any way typical). Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's not the same incentive/compulsion for commenting at ER. It still would not change the main problem: unreflected, silly, or irrelevant comments. I mean, what does one do about voters whose own contribs are full of systemic bias and POV pushing and insist that editors should only write about the area they live in? What about voters who oppose an overwhelmingly supported RfA because of a name, then go and vote 'strong support' on another RfA that SNOWs and gets closed within 24 hrs? Any radical reform that still allows open commenting is still going to attract the major problems that are endemic to the current system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading back over the initial post, I'm not really talking about the same thing, but rather about a serious editor review prior to RfA process in its current form. I'm not going to comment particularly on oppose rationales at this specific moment in time, but yes, I did notice that one. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we recognize "Able Editors"?

I wonder whether it would help this process to have some non-political achievement standard by which Wikipedia editors could gain extra respect. Academics, military people, boy scouts and such all have their ranks, which are taken to imply knowledge of a certain common skillset; since I like the sound of it I'll name the status after "able seaman" (something which I know nothing about). Now, yes, we have WP:editor review, but that is focused too narrowly on adminship and politics, identifying weaknesses without really having a specific standard the editor is certified to have met. Here the point would be to say, with some authority, that an editor knows the policies of Wikipedia, can edit any kind of article within his competence whether he knows the topic well or not at all, knows procedures for dispute resolution and proposing new ideas, maybe can handle various specific functions like Recent Changes patrolling or answering Refdesk questions, etc., can make a DYK hook, can make a Good Article or maybe even a Featured Article, and has a certain number of edits and time spent in Wikipedia. The skills evaluated should invite editors out of their usual ruts and ensure that they're pretty much up for anything. However, the status should not be prone to revocation or be held up over a single conduct dispute, as the status would indicate only that the editor knows how to follow policies and handle controversies rather than guaranteeing he does so. The idea is that you could draw up a list of competencies ("merit badges" if you will) and editors could play the game of filling them all out. And at the end of it, you'd have an Able Editor.

Now the use of this, of course, is that if candidates for (full) admin status were expected to have Able Editor status first, you'd know you had a consistent and satisfactory level of skill in all candidates, pre-certified in what I would hope to be an entirely non-political environment. The remaining factors to be discussed would then be more limited. Of course, getting the Able Editor status could be a bit of fun for other editors as well, who are looking for some validation of their efforts. Wnt (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea, but I can see it being a lead balloon with the community. People have enough problems with hat collecting, "adminship is no big deal" and the myspace aspects of Wikipedia, so adding a checkbox system to get a hat which does nothing but adds status doesn't look like something that's going to get consensus.

Having said that, I really do like the idea and it'd be good to create something like that for admin coaching or a check list of things you should do before applying for adminship. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the concept of this on paper Wnt, but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. Different people are here for different tasks, and some simply don't have any desire to "collect hats" so to speak. Some of our best editors tend to go through their tenure here and are seldom heard from other than their article edits, simply because they don't have any desire to get involved with the "process" other than the editing itself. Much of this is akin to what Worm says above, but I'd like to also add that there is already a (conceived(?)) divide between editor/admin/crat/arb here that I'd have to wonder if adding more layers wouldn't increase some of the tensions that we now have between editor vs. admin. mentality. I think if we did anything in this type of venue, then our best bet would be for it to be simply an automated process free from any type of "editor input". Meaning: "x" number of edits = "y" checkbox. Secondly, even given that someone were to complete(?) this "Able Editor" status, it would only add another layer to "gaining adminship", and I'm not sure that would make things better. There will always need to be "judgment" issues that need to be evaluated with the couple extra buttons, so I don't see an automated process as being an answer there.

The only one thing that I can envision as far as far as additional "layers" go, would be to unbundle the 'block' button. All the other adminy things (move over redirect, RFPP, delete, view deleted, etc.) are simply moderator types of things - whereas the "block" function does pull a sysop style of action into play. I'm not sure that it would ever gain any widespread consensus here, but it's something I've thought about. — Ched :  ?  14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion was meant to be independent of any unbundling of admin functions (which I also think should be good). The "Able Editors" would not have any special privileges, nor would admins even be formally required to become one; the idea was simply to make it possible for editors to certify that they have a certain standard level of experience. Wnt (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably off-topic here, but I strongly feel that blocking is the one tool that should remain strictly within the mandate of sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I read it as unbundling upwards, to a new level above the current sysop. But as you say, off topic. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts for alternative processes

Below are a few ideas that I've entertained for alternative RFA processes:

1. Perhaps, in order to promote discussion among editors during RFA, we should consider somehow splitting the RFA process in half such that the first half (e.g. 3.5 days) is strictly discussion (i.e. discussing the user's editing, possible objections) and the second half is the actual !voting process. In order to keep discussion civil and constructive, we could provide a mandate that only editors that participated in the first half may !vote in the second half, based on the previous discussion.

2. A process that actually allows candidates to display their ability as a possible administrator. For instance, users who meet a pre-determined set of general criteria (i.e. edit count/tenure/past disputes/blocks) would apply for the tools. Subsequently, these users would perform as an administrator in their selected areas of interest under the close supervision of volunteer mentor(s) who are administrators themselves. After a predetermined length of time, the tools would be removed and the community would !vote/discuss whether or not the candidate should become a permanent administrator.

I'm not necessarily insinuating that these suggestions are the way to go, but they're a start to hopefully get the ball rolling for some good discussion here. Any thoughts would be welcome. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with proposed change #1, but I think "a mandate that only editors that participated in the first half may !vote in the second half" would deviate the RfA process from its true intention: to let the community decided whether or not a user can be trusted with adminship. Proposed change #2 has been proposed in some form or another before, and one important argument against it also has to do with trust and the community:

"Admins execute their actions (under normal conditions) with the trust and power of the community behind them. To gain that trust and power, that community has to grant it. Trial admins have no such trust and power, or it has not been demonstrated by consensus that the community is behind them. This "trial admin" proposal seems to have forgotten about the foundation of adminship: the trust of the community. —User:Kurykh

I agree with this statement. Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rework the proposal: to require all new administrators to be supervised by experience administrators for a pre-designated amount of time. It would help alleviate concerns of !voters at RFA. The only problem with this rework is that it doesn't address the process of RFA itself, which is the primary issue here. I've also seen proposals that suggest that we split the administrator role into two parts: one that is strictly maintenance and one that includes the actual controversial decision making required currently of administrators. Again, this doesn't address RFA. My only suggestion after reading your comment, Guoguo12, is that in order to reshape the RFA process, we may need to move a bit outside our comfort zone as a community, but this does not, by any means, mean that we should abandon the community trust model of RFA. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Move outside our comfort zone? Okay, perhaps semi-desperate times call for semi-desperate measures. The reworked proposal seems, for some reason I can't pinpoint, a lot better than the original ... like adoption for new admins. But what happens if the admin-in-training turns out to be a poor admin candidate? Guoguo12 (Talk)  00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All these suggestions, or very similar, have been made at WT:RfA, now in the archives but certainly within the last 18 months. They were met with little resonance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no harm in discussing it, right? Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

None whatsoever, and there would be no harm in inviting those who who discussed it there to participate here - you may be lucky, the suggestions may find renewed interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1 has been tried before with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2. Unfortunately, it was generally regarded as a failure due to users turning up after the discussion period was over with reasons to oppose. I take note of the proposed solution to this problem of only allowing users who participated in the first half to vote in the second half. In principle, it is a good idea, as it makes sense for their to be a discussion first before any vote like process. My main concern is on how the proposed restriction on participation would work. Would would happen if someone was away from Wikipedia for the first half but returned for the second half and had something to contribute that nobody else yet had done? Would they barred from commenting at all? Or, would they still be allowed to comment but not be allowed to make a formal vote? CT Cooper · talk 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the latter solution you suggested to that dilemma. There's no reason to bar someone from at least commenting just because they were not present for the first half of the RFA. On another note, would there be any prospects for incorporating the clerks proposal into this one as a method of moderating discussion/!voting during the process? I think it could work (although it would probably have to be introduced separately to satisfy the community). Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This and clerks are separate suggestions for reform but there is a straw poll at WT:RFA2011 that seems to have got lost in the many threads. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do realize that; although, it might be possible to incorporate RFA clerks into this proposal to moderate discussion during the first part of the process and !voting in the second part. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave the status quo. It is working fine

I have been pretty happy with the last several passes (even the one I opposed) and with the ones who went down in flames. I just don't get where people are thinking that we aren't passing enough candidates. And the people getting discouraged are probably either too dramatic...or just should go concentrate on content and not be so driven to moderatorship.TCO (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Require a nominator

Before I start I want to say that I am well aware that there's nothing wrong with self nominations. I have no problem with them, and I think it's been a long time since I've seen a serious oppose on the basis of self-nominations. However, I was wondering if changing the culture of nominations might be an idea. If we require a nomination / ratification of the self-nomination, we would take out many NOTNOWs, and also a large portion of SNOW closures. We could go so far as to put any discussed "minimum requirement" on the nominator, not on the candidate. Then, create a category for "Users who are open to nominating administrators or ratifying requests" (better written), so if you want to become an admin - and but don't have a nomination, you can ask for one. I'm sure the idea could do with a bit more fleshing out, but any thoughts? Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know ... I think we handle the "NOTNOW" stuff pretty well as is. I think until the "community" can enact a desysop though, it's always going to be a topic of dissent. I've always felt that there should be some sort of RfAd (desysop) like the RfA is structured. An editor in good standing can open one. If there's a major consensus that an admin. has lost trust .. then when the crats close it .. they head over to request the removal of the bit. Just IMHO though. — Ched :  ?  13:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this could work in conjunction with the suggestions in this discussion. Maybe we could require a qualified nominator only for candidates that haven't yet reached the Journeyman award level (or whatever min. req. we come up with at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals). Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

how ironic, who did you ask? ;-) --ClubOranje^T 10:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone I REALLY trust ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)