Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 1
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Crat monitoring & closing
27 March 2011. Now addressed on relevant sub pages.
|
---|
RfA Questions
Task forceImmediately disqualify those who have added a comment, when it clearly says "no other comments other than your signature are needed at this stage", as that shows people who are not able to follow simple instructions. (The degree of seriousness with which one should take this comment of mine is left to the judgment of the individual -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Pesky's Thoughts
29 March 2011. Now addressed on relevant sub pages.
|
---|
Pesky (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Task ForceI'll add my name, but as I have this thing (aversion? avoidance? lol - summat like that!) about obligations and commitments (too many in real life, I'spect) my input may be sporadic -dunno how much use I'llbe, but make the best use of me as you see fit. Pesky (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks
30 March 2011. Appreciation for this project and task force as opposed to WT:RfA
|
---|
I just want to say: thanks for the page. I really like the work you and WSC are doing. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
(←) Above, Dank said, "does it meet the goal?" That's an important question. What is the goal? Sure, we want to "fix RfA", however the community can't agree on how RfA is broken. There are dozens of ideas on how to "fix RfA", from potential ground rules to major reworks of process. I think we need to clearly and specifically define what the ultimate goal is. On what scale are we trying to "fix RFA"? For example, WSC raises these ideas. Kudpung says the goal should be to make RfA "a less unpleasant experience, attract more editors of the right calibre, and nip time wasting candidatures in the bud." The first thing we should do is agree on a goal, as personal opinions, obviously, differ. Swarm X 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
|
RfA Feedback - Continuing Input and Improvement
30 March 2011. Feedback and stats now on relevant sub pages.
|
---|
I'm just dragging this across from the other place, so if it's bitty, that's why, but (as I have said in other places) I am basically an idle get and cba to re-word it, lol! (Getting old, maybe?) The only way anyone could 'do the studies' (and this is an excellent idea - doing the studies) would be for someone (maybe the 'crats?) to issue an anonymous-to-non-crats questionnaire to (for example) everyone who's run the RfA gauntlet within the past three years, asking for subjective scores on a number of points. in fact, only by doing something like this, and doing it as an ongoing part of the RfA process, can we measure any future improvement. And it has to be measurable. I think an RfA-process feedback page - showing just the results - is definitely a very good idea. Maybe one of the questions on the questionnaire should be "was there any particular opposer who you felt was overly-aggressive and / or verging on (or making) personal attacks" (please name them), and if the same names keep coming up, maybe the crats should have a quiet word with people who are subjectively viewed as 'persistent offenders' - and possibly ban them from the RfA process for a while? If those who might fall into that category knew that this was a possible consequence, maybe that alone would be enough to make the whole thing a more constructive experience for everyone involved - and also for everyone reading through the pages. After all, anyone with Wiki access can read through those histories, and they may well not currently be presenting 'the face of WikiPeople' as we'd like Joe Public to see it! And adding it to main page as a suggestion for it to be part of the whole RfA process. Pesky (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the probable seriously-bad etiquette - didn't really occur to me to ask first about putting it on the main page (probably coz I'm impatient, impulsive, stuff like that). Hope it's OK there, Kudpung? Feel free to remove it with extreme prejudice (no, that doesn't mean trout-slap, that means no more online virtual chocky biccies .....) Pesky (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
![]()
|
Goals
12 April 2011. Unbundling of tools. (not within the remit of WP:RFA2011)
|
---|
Lots of good discussion here so far. One thing I found especially worth highlighting is Swarm's comment above: "What is the goal?" The reform page starts with a list of suggested changes, which is great, but it seems to me that we need to clearly set out the goals of the reform before we spend too much time figuring out how to meet those goals. Once we decide on the goals of the reform, that ought to go on top of the page, above the suggested changes. From there I imagine we'd want to focus on a small number of goals that are both important and realistic. From reading previous discussions, the three goals would seem to be:
Of those, I think #2 seems (to me) to be by far the easiest to fix; just don't let obvious NOTNOW candidates transclude their RfAs, and if they do, undo it and explain why on their talk page. I've done this a few times, I know other editors have as well. #1 and #3 are probably a lot harder to fix, but arguably more important. What other goals should we be focusing on? 28bytes (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
<outdent> To be quite honest, I don't see myself ever wanting to become an Admin either, no matter how good the process gets. It's not really my kind of thing - if I feel like doing some housekeeping I'm more likely to go typo-hunting. Each to their own - it takes all sorts :o) Pesky (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Unbundling of admin tasks, and also the question of desysoping are not intended to be the object of this particular exercise - if we try to focus on too many things all at once we'll get nowhere, and that's why previous attempts have failed.
|
Question
31 March 2011. Is there any feedback from Jimbo?
|
---|
Is there any feedback from Jimbo regarding the emails he must have received? My76Strat (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
|
RfA clerks
1 April 2011. Now under discussion at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Clerks
|
---|
A stand-alone page has now been created. Please continue the discussion there. Task force members please put the page on your watchlists. Both Errant and Worm That Turned have recently raised the idea at WT:RFA of using clerks.
I also think the concept has merit and it should be considered. Swarm X 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely a need for someone to police the RfA process and the quality of the comments. Referring to an editor as an 'obtuse jerk' on a talk page could justify a civility warning from any other editor. Using such language on RfA about the candidate should meet with immediate removal of the comment any any !vote attached to it and a 6-month topic ban from voting on further RfA. I rather like the idea of an RfA clerk who recuses from !voting, but the problem is, how would we decide who can be a clerk? It could be any editor in good standing with a record of clean voting on RfA, and say for sake of argument, participation in a minimum of 20 RfA, or it could be an admin, or it could be a crat. As it is part and parcel of the package of reforms we hope to achieve, it needs further discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Possible clerk tasksSome possible tasks for a clerk. I think that the very effect of knowing that RfA is clerked, would drastically reduce the rate of poor voting and misbehaviour, probably leaving the clerk with little to do.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Moving
On moving this project from User:Kudpung to Wikipedia space
|
---|
MovingI don't really need anyone's permission to move this out of my user space and it won't make it more official when I do. Everything needs to be started somewhere, though, and I'm happy in the joint effort with Dank and WSC to have been able to help provide that start. One reason I would like it out of my user space now, is because I neither want to regarded by our supporters as the leader, nor branded by our detractors as the ringleader, and pushing that damned barrow of admin power. Another reason is that the board software and/or policy does not allow shortcuts to be made to user space. I'll make the move to a WP:X project space when I get back to my office with its 24/7 broadband on 5 April, and when everyone else has gotten over seasonal delerium. By then, or thereabouts, we should also have the table of RfA voter profiles. in the meantime, do please keep the suggestions coming for a WP:X page name to move to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) |
Trial proposals
Trial proposals
|
---|
I've got a pile of notes & was hoping (unless anyone gets to it before me) to write a draft at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Clerks for the clerking proposal. Does anyone have any good ideas for a trial we could propose & implement for the scheme? I think we largely have the scope of a clerks task nailed down, it is just the implementation details. --Errant (chat!) 10:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The role of an administrator
This clerking proposal is an excellent, realistic first step into RFA reform, and I look forward to seeing how it will work to help solve some of the problems at RFA. I do think that there is one other issue, however, that is still pertinent in the RFA process, and that's the evolved role of an administator. In the early days of Wikipedia, the tools were handed out to plenty of trustworthy users and were used for purely managerial aspects of the project. Since then, during the past several years, the role of administrator seemed to have evolved from a "janitorial" role to a controversial decision-making role, a role previously left to ArbCom and Mr. Wales himself. I think that separating these two roles again (similar to the two-tiered adminship proposal) would be beneficial to the role of administrator and the process of RFA itself. I don't know the specific inner workings of such a proposal should it become a possibility, nor am I certain that this is the right way to go, I'm just reiterating it here so it doesn't get overlooked. Thoughts? Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Many people have an issue with the role of an administrator, many people don't. It's largely a cultural issue, and changing culture takes time. I think the culture change has to be out of scope for this process, along with community de-adminship. If we allow the taskforce to start working on the larger picture, it will get lost into the noise of the different opinions. WormTT · (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. Like I said above, I don't know if this is the right route (this just happens to be my personal opinion), and I do agree with the fact that it would take time and the productivity of the task force would be lost in the commotion of heated debate. I just didn't want the issue to be overlooked, because whether you like it or not, it's there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a discussion that traditionally generates more heat than light. I think as a topic it is standalone as big of one as "RFA Reform"; whilst the ideas are somewhat in scope I'd suggest perhaps putting that sort of discussion on the back burner. If the reform process gets clear momentum behind it and starts to bring in some changes then it gives it/us some credibility - and then it might be possible to introduce general ideas about the role of admins. Just my 2p --Errant (chat!) 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I will more than willingly comply with your recommendation, as such an effort would, as stated above (and considered by myself), more than likely encumber the efforts of the task force in reshaping RFA. As I said in the first post of this thread, I do agree that our efforts should focus primarily on finding realistic solutions to reform RFA for now. Thanks for the input, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a discussion that traditionally generates more heat than light. I think as a topic it is standalone as big of one as "RFA Reform"; whilst the ideas are somewhat in scope I'd suggest perhaps putting that sort of discussion on the back burner. If the reform process gets clear momentum behind it and starts to bring in some changes then it gives it/us some credibility - and then it might be possible to introduce general ideas about the role of admins. Just my 2p --Errant (chat!) 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. Like I said above, I don't know if this is the right route (this just happens to be my personal opinion), and I do agree with the fact that it would take time and the productivity of the task force would be lost in the commotion of heated debate. I just didn't want the issue to be overlooked, because whether you like it or not, it's there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
the nature of Adminship itself affects the RfA process
7 April 2011. Repeats what's wrong with RfA (desysopping)
|
---|
It's meant to be 'no big deal'. But while removal of Admin privileges is a 'big deal', then Adminship will be seen to be a 'big deal' too. I know this has been said many times by some really insightful people - and they are dead right. (Pasting from the bar, below, lol!) I really do think that a recall or suspension of an admin should be 'no big deal'. If you think about it, issues out there in real life can affect each and every one of us. RL issues spill over into WikiLand, Wiki-Issues spill over into real life. Sometimes an admin, just like any of us lesser souls, can go through a patch where they are less than tolerant, less than understanding, less than civil, too inclined to zap things / people (possibly in error). It happens, and it would be naive to say that WikiLand was immune to that kind of spill-over effect. So ... how about when we notice that an admin has become / is becoming less than fully centred and absolutely reasonable, they have a 'holiday' from admin work (not punitive, just a break, and never meant to be any big deal), and their modes of interaction in discussions such as these, ANI, RfC, and all the rest, are assessed until it's clear that they have got over whatever was causing them to be a bit too trigger-happy, at which point their adminship was given back. We all make mistakes, we all go through bad patches, we all get irritated from time to time at the slightest little thing - such as 'what someone's interests are', 'how someone argues their point'. It's obvious. So how about the idea of a 'compassionate leave break' - no big deal. Pesky (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Trust the bureaucrats
8 April 2011. Not strictly within the remit of WP:RFA2011
|
---|
What's currently proposed seems to be much the same as the current process with a few tweaks. It would still be a vote and so would still be a political process. Perhaps you should consider a more radical reform. For example, why not just let the bureaucrats just decide the matter themselves? This would be similar to the way that other rights are granted - see Requests for permissions. For example, I recently put myself down on a list for filemover privilege, making a brief case why it would be useful. Someone checked this over and then dealt with the matter immediately without discussion, drama or voting. Other privileges that I've picked up were assigned in a similar no-fuss way. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
<outdent> Any 'job title' can evolve. That's how life works! Pesky (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
|