Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Ryan Vesey
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
On this page are two proposals. The first proposal was created by me after it was suggested that my original proposal be incorporated into a new parallel method of RfA. The second proposal is my original proposal which was designed as a Pre-RfA system.
Parallel method of RfA
[edit]The parallel method of RfA would begin much in the way a normal RfA does now. Editors could request a nomination or could nominate themselves. In this method, there is no !voting or voting for that matter. Candidates are discussed by the community and are promoted by a group of "Admin Clerks".
The Discussion
[edit]Discussion begins after a candidate has accepted their nomination, transcluded their RfA, and answered the first three questions. Editors can ask questions or leave comments in the discussion section in the form of a threaded discussion. Comments should strive to address only concerns about editing, concerns about questions, or should reveal good qualities about the editor and praise for the answers to the questions. For example, a comment may be:
- Comment I am very concerned about your edits to Insert page here. It seems like you have introduced copyvio. Example (talk)
- Comment I believe you answered question 4 perfectly. The editor shows a clear understanding of policy.Example (talk)
Comments should not be:
- Comment I support this candidate because they show a clear understanding of policy Example (talk)
- Comment I oppose this candidate because they have introduced copyvio Example (talk)
The person running for adminship should be encouraged to respond to any concerns about their editing and inability to successfully respond to criticism should be treated by the "Admin clerks" as a reason not to promote.
Reasoning for comments to maintain neutrality about promotion of the candidate
[edit]While much of the current RfA process is based on quantitative results of the community !voting, the alternate system would be based on the decisions of a panel after they have reviewed the candidate.
The Admin Clerks
[edit]After a period of (presumably) 7 days, discussion will be closed for the candidate. The Admin Clerks will then discuss the candidate, basing their information off of the week's RfA. After a time period of not yet decided discussion, the Admin Clerks will vote as to whether or not to give the candidate the tools. At least 80% of the clerks must support the candidate for him to receive the tools. At least 5 clerks must take part in the vote.
Makeup of the Admin Clerks
[edit]The composition of the admin clerks must be discussed if this plan is considered viable by the community. Currently, options include a 5 person or 10 person group of admin clerks. Further discussion is necessary to decide if the admin clerks should be composed of bureaucrats, admins and bureaucrats, or admins, bureaucrats, and highly regarded editors.
Restrictions
[edit]If any restrictions are applied to a candidates ability to have a traditional RfA, those same restrictions should apply to this. Any restrictions on !voters in a traditional RfA should not carry over to this.
Proposal in the event that this is not a viable alternate option to RfA
[edit]Everything below this would not be part of the above proposal, it is the original plan which led to the proposal
Candidates for adminship would be benefited by having a forum where other Wikipedians can review their edits, question their edits, and have the ability to respond to any questions regarding their edits. The pre-RfA would facilitate discussion between the candidates and any !voters before the RfA actually starts.
Proposal
[edit]To create an optional pre-RfA program, which would run through a trial period of six months. At the end of the six month trial period, the program will either be discontinued, remain optional, or become compulsory.
Pre-RfA Program
[edit]Users would begin the program by listing themselves at the page Wikipedia:Pre-RfA and creating a page similar to the current RfA nomination page.
Example of the Pre-RfA page
|
|---|
|
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page)
(?/?/?); Scheduled to end RfA/time Remove the Nomination[edit]Example (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Example (talk)
Questions for the candidate[edit]Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
General comments[edit]RfAs for this user:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Discussion[edit] |
The candidate would answer the questions as normal and take questions from other users; however, no support, oppose, or neutral !votes are allowed and no discussion can take place in any of those sections. Editors should use the discussion section to point out any problematic edits or any other concerns the users have with the candidate. The candidate is then encouraged to respond to any questions the potential !voters might have. It is important to remind !voters that responses to the questions during the Pre-RfA are encouraged and not a reason to oppose a candidate. The Pre-RfA would last anywhere from 3-5 days.
After the Pre-RfA
[edit]At this point, candidates choose whether they truly believe they are ready to run. If they choose not to continue, they should place {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} around their pre-RfA. If they choose to run, they should move their page to the proper area and transclude it onto the main RfA page.