Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Thine Antique Pen

Initial proposal edit

The candidate submits a RFA. Their nomination is reviewed by a board/group of trusted Administrators/Bureaucrats, who will decide if to grant the user the 'sysop' right. If this fails, but not as a WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW, the nomination will be open to the rest of the community and will use the current RfA process. Just some thoughts. ⇒T A P 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Question on this proposal edit

I would like some clarification. Under your proposal, would a group of bureaucrats and trusted admins grant Adminship access to editors? If they choose not to grant the access, it would be opened to community discussion, avoiding the cabal? Who would close the community discussion? It would have to be an uninvolved bureaucrat in my opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think that myself. The Bureaucrats and trusted administrators would have been elected. If they choose not to, but not for WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW, it would go to the community. ⇒T A P 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea has potential. Lets try to dive into this idea and develop the system in its entirety. How many bureaucrats on the panel, how many admins? Should we create a new userright? Do we hold a vote for who is on the panel? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Human nature being what it is, lines are likely to be drawn in the subsequent RfA due to the previous smoke-filled room discussion. How would we avoid that, and the unfortunatly all-too-common related drama? - jc37 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked at Egg Centric's proposal (which is similar to this one) do you think this issue could be resolved with juries randomly selected from a pool taken from volunteers in advance if involved jurors were excluded from the second, smaller pool? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be part of the jury? Admins, non-admins, is there a clearing process? How do we ensure impartiality? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should either be crats only, or open to all experienced editors in good standing, but should not include admins if it doesn't include other similarly experienced editors. The last thing we need is another item to make being an admin a bigger deal then it already is. We selected the current admins to wield the mop, not to rule. Crats are also not selected to rule, but at least they already have a judgement role in promoting admins. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two, I'd weigh in for "all experienced editors in good standing", and not get to fussy about the numbers we'd inevitably turn to to define the bar for that. The perception of a bueraucrat-only admin-picking procedure is likely to seem as a cabal.--j⚛e decker ^talk 22:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understood from an earlier discussion on the crats' noticeboard, they are not warm to any suggestions that RfA issues should crate more work for them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on process edit

Just a comment on the process we should use. Lets use the project pages to create fully developed proposals and discuss them and/or !vote on the talk pages. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. this should be done similar to most XfD or noticeboards (including individual RfAs). Comment on the proposal on the main part, and reserve talk for "other stuff"

I put the discussion in both places. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless where you discuss it, this suggestion is complete none starter. It completely lacks any semblance of credibility and is doomed to the dustbin of RFA failures. Do everyone a favour and withdraw it. Leaky Caldron 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]