460:. 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.
39:
69:
632:
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. --
530:- 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. -
779:
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 Pre-RfAs can be withdrawn at no penalty, and any pre-RfAs that have decided to proceed to RfA will enjoy a more lenient outlook by the
499:
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
662:
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
631:
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.
484:
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.
296:
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 Knowledge (XXG) structure
263:
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
390:
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
695:
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.
312:
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.
500:
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.
657:
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
198:
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
405:
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
248:
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.
722:
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
Knowledge (XXG) community service.
203:; 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.
130:
200:
125:
120:
172:
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
599:
679:
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.
686:
663:
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.
770:
743:
583:
648:
670:
752:
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. --
615:
608:
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.
53:
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
824:
897:
556:
54:
371:
222:
204:
159:
501:
443:
108:
188:
892:
848:
540:
592:
A proposal to give or remove adminship to any candidates based on a decision by 10 admins. Can be overruled by 100 admins.
81:
in the year 2012 and links to its discussion pages on the various aspects of possible reform suggested by various editors
363:
Any proposal should have an N month trial and then there should be an RFC about whether to go back to current practice.
819:
337:
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.
473:
326:
277:
637:
411:
375:
226:
208:
163:
871:
729:
505:
447:
151:
Convert voting to a randomly selected pool of uninvolved volunteer RfA voters eligible to vote for trustees.
28:
814:
757:
659:
803:
699:
490:
461:
314:
265:
86:
46:
38:
797:
List of editors who are willing to contribute in this process, in addition to those who already have:
181:
633:
433:
407:
396:
866:
839:
781:
724:
713:
538:
753:
565:
457:
486:
342:
303:
254:
138:
Refusal to change is also risky. The existing system could be in the process of going wrong.
135:
Change is risky. Any of the proposals below could go wrong due to unforeseen circumstances.
624:
A proposal to give up on RFCs and instead empower a small board to experiment for 3 months
174:
429:
392:
17:
886:
832:
532:
221:
This proposal reduces the extent to which off-wiki canvassing could influence votes.
561:
338:
299:
250:
877:
857:
784:
761:
734:
641:
569:
545:
509:
494:
479:
451:
437:
415:
400:
379:
346:
332:
307:
283:
258:
230:
212:
193:
167:
780:
B'crats. Those who skip the pre-RfA shall retain the existing standards. -
115:
Problems with the requests for adminship process which need to be addressed
560:? - and the dozens of other essays/guidelines/plicies it also links to.
131:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Problems/Finding qualified candidates
201:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Problems/RfC consensus difficulties
126:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Problems/Snow and NOTNOW candidates
121:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Problems/RfC consensus difficulties
485:
Not minor and a move in entirely the wrong direction, I think. --
370:
This addresses the risk inherent in any change. I suggest N=6.
391:
the trial is continued past the end date without consensus. --
63:
33:
600:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Thine
Antique Pen
687:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by TheSpecialUser
771:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Mailer diablo
744:
584:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Egg
Centric
94:
77:
This is a collection of suggestions for a proposal for
649:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Ryan Vesey
671:
Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by TomStar81
45:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
428:Sounds like something that could be easily abused.
616:Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Dank
141:Off-wiki canvassing may unduly influence votes
8:
712:Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform 2012/Proposal by
456:I believe something like this would lead to
264:RfA... this is going to mean a lot of spam.
244:Form the jury from a random selection from
27:For a list of RfA reform projects, see
109:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
825:
79:reform of the admin selection process
7:
146:Minor proposals to address a problem
107:This project will be for discussing
815:
297:(I almost wrote Wikidrama<g: -->
25:
578:Proposals to overhaul the process
67:
37:
158:Should voting pool size be 20?
111:reform and proposals for 2012.
863:
1:
898:Requests for adminship reform
820:
557:WP:Advice for RfA candidates
878:14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
914:
554:Have you tried looking at
84:
29:Knowledge (XXG):RfA reform
26:
858:13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
785:07:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
762:16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
735:14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
642:22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
510:03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
495:11:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
480:08:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
452:11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
438:09:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
416:21:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
401:19:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
380:02:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
347:13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
333:13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
308:13:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
284:13:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
259:13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
231:08:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
213:08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
194:01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
168:01:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
570:01:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
546:14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
75:This page in a nutshell:
18:Knowledge (XXG):RFA2012
893:Inactive project pages
793:Active participants
854:
845:
660:Thine Antique Pen
191:
105:
104:
62:
61:
16:(Redirected from
905:
874:
869:
865:
855:
850:
846:
841:
837:
827:
822:
817:
806:
732:
727:
702:
535:
476:
470:
469:
329:
323:
322:
280:
274:
273:
189:
97:
71:
70:
64:
58:
41:
34:
21:
913:
912:
908:
907:
906:
904:
903:
902:
883:
882:
872:
867:
849:
840:
833:
804:
795:
730:
725:
700:
580:
562:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
543:
533:
474:
463:
462:
327:
316:
315:
278:
267:
266:
148:
117:
101:
100:
93:
89:
68:
52:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
911:
909:
901:
900:
895:
885:
884:
881:
880:
860:
830:
810:
794:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
774:
773:
767:
766:
765:
764:
747:
746:
740:
739:
738:
737:
717:
716:
709:
708:
707:
706:
690:
689:
683:
682:
681:
680:
674:
673:
667:
666:
665:
664:
652:
651:
645:
644:
628:
627:
626:
625:
619:
618:
612:
611:
610:
609:
603:
602:
596:
595:
594:
593:
587:
586:
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
549:
548:
541:
523:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
497:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
385:
384:
383:
382:
372:75.166.206.120
365:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
289:
288:
287:
286:
236:
235:
234:
233:
223:75.166.206.120
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
205:75.166.206.120
160:75.166.206.120
153:
152:
147:
144:
143:
142:
139:
136:
133:
128:
123:
116:
113:
103:
102:
99:
98:
90:
85:
82:
72:
60:
59:
51:
42:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
910:
899:
896:
894:
891:
890:
888:
879:
876:
875:
870:
861:
859:
856:
853:
847:
844:
838:
836:
831:
829:
828:
823:
818:
811:
809:
808:
807:
800:
799:
798:
792:
786:
783:
782:Mailer Diablo
778:
777:
776:
775:
772:
769:
768:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
745:
742:
741:
736:
733:
728:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
714:Leaky Caldron
711:
710:
705:
704:
703:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
685:
684:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
669:
668:
661:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
630:
629:
623:
622:
621:
620:
617:
614:
613:
607:
606:
605:
604:
601:
598:
597:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
582:
581:
577:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
553:
552:
551:
550:
547:
544:
539:
537:
536:
529:
526:
525:
524:
511:
507:
503:
502:71.212.226.91
498:
496:
492:
488:
483:
482:
481:
477:
471:
468:
467:
459:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
444:71.212.226.91
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
389:
388:
387:
386:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
362:
361:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
324:
321:
320:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
285:
281:
275:
272:
271:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
247:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
214:
210:
206:
202:
197:
196:
195:
192:
187:
186:
185:
180:
179:
178:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
154:
150:
149:
145:
140:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
118:
114:
112:
110:
96:
92:
91:
88:
83:
80:
76:
73:
66:
65:
56:
50:
48:
43:
40:
36:
35:
30:
19:
862:
851:
842:
834:
812:
802:
801:
796:
754:Anthonyhcole
698:
697:
555:
531:
527:
522:
465:
464:
318:
317:
269:
268:
245:
241:
183:
182:
176:
175:
106:
78:
74:
55:village pump
44:
864:-- Cheers,
487:Yngvadottir
887:Categories
406:scheme).--
242:Suggestion
190:Review me!
95:WP:RFA2012
49:reference.
47:historical
430:IRWolfie-
393:Guy Macon
173:process.
835:Specs112
534:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ
87:Shortcut
873:Huntley
731:Caldron
528:Thought
458:a cabal
726:Leaky
868:Riley
442:How?
184:Vesey
805:→TSU
758:talk
701:→TSU
638:talk
566:talk
506:talk
491:talk
475:talk
466:Worm
448:talk
434:talk
412:talk
397:talk
376:talk
343:talk
339:jmcw
328:talk
319:Worm
304:talk
300:jmcw
279:talk
270:Worm
255:talk
251:jmcw
227:talk
209:talk
177:Ryan
164:talk
634:agr
408:agr
298:).
246:ALL
889::
760:)
640:)
568:)
508:)
493:)
478:)
450:)
436:)
414:)
399:)
378:)
345:)
331:)
306:)
282:)
257:)
229:)
211:)
166:)
852:c
843:t
826:P
821:A
816:T
813:⇒
756:(
636:(
564:(
542:¢
504:(
489:(
472:(
446:(
432:(
410:(
395:(
374:(
341:(
325:(
302:(
276:(
253:(
225:(
207:(
162:(
57:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
