User talk:DangerousPanda/RFA2

Discussion and proposals

I hope you don't mind me creating this page. I have some comments on your notes, and I didn't want to just start changing things. Here are my thoughts:

• RfA clerks should also be tasked with removing uncivil comments and personal attacks.
• Your proposed system uses a lot of subpages and transclusion, for the purpose of being able to selectively full-protect different sections. I find this to be somewhat over-complicated and potentially confusing. Additionally, the proposal mentions that the subpages get subst'ed to the main page at the conclusion of the RfA, and then the subpages get deleted. This means that all of the revision history gets deleted as well, which breaks diff links and causes a lot of other trouble. Instead, I think it would be easier to simply have everything take place on a single page with no transclusions. When the 3-day question period is over, the question section gets wrapped in a template similar to {{archivetop}} (something that changes the background color and makes it clear that no further edits are to be made to that section), and the RfA clerks are responsible for ensuring that no additional content is added to that section. When the RfA is over, the entire page gets wrapped in an archive template (like it does today).
• You will probably get opposition from people who believe that a 4-day voting period is not long enough. Yes, the RfA will exist for 7 days total, but votes can only be made over a 4-day period, and therefore it may disenfranchise less active editors who, for example, only check Wikipedia on the weekends. I would expect that you'd have to keep the voting period at 7 days in order to get this proposal to pass. This would extend an RfA's duration to a total of 10 days.

Feel free to take or ignore any of the above comments, I won't be insulted if you disagree with me. I think your proposal has merit and hope to see it as a formal RfC in the near future. Cheers. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess my desire to lock the questions section made me try something different. Definitely some good ideas - it's meant ot be a collaborative concept, after all! Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion period

The idea of adding a 2 or 3 day discussion period before allowing the drive by voting to begin has been proposed before, and I like the concept. The main complaint is that no one wants to see the time from reduced below 7 days, so, as SW notes, it will add the 2 or 3 days to the process length. I don't think that that is necessarily bad, but it is what it is. - jc37 15:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy and open discussion

I have two main concerns right off the bat: WP:NOT#BURO (This seems a lot like an arbcom request), and restriction on discussion is contrary to the consensus process. - jc37 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you recommend we get rid of the gratuitous NPA's, sniping, inappropriate and unprofessional commentary that has brought RFA to its knees (and as some say, to its deathbed)?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

More firmly enforce CIVIL (and BATTLEGROUND). I wouldn't mind seeing a bureaucrat removing someone's whole comment, and dropping a note on their talk page requesting they rephrase. And that could include whole threads between 2 battlegrounding users. - jc37 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is disallowing discussion (with the exception of incivility and personal attacks, which are already disallowed), we're just mandating that it take place on the talk page of the RfA. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

NOTAVOTE. And further, removing discussion to the talk page would enbolden drive-by voting. - jc37 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Trying it as a vote (like ArbComm for example) has been accepted as a potential way of doing this, so WP:NOTAVOTE is not being considered here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Accepted by who? WP:CON a foundational policy. - jc37 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But, a vote based on questions/answers/personal evaluation ... and then evaluated by the Buro who closes it is still based on consensus .... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if I were to accept that assertion, this process is removing the "questions/answers/personal evaluation", and apparently only leaving in place only the default questions and mere voting, and removing all discussion. Doesn't sound like consensus, much less, Wikipedia:Consensus...

As I noted above, there are some nice features to this process (some of which have been proposed before), but suppressing open discussion is simply un-wiki. - jc37 17:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? After the person answers the default questions, the RFA is live for additional questions for 3 days, but not voting. Although professional discussion can be a feature on the talkpage of the RFA, it would still need to be moderated, etc (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, first, I'm starting to feel like we're starting to get adversarial. I hope we don't. As I said above, there are facets of this proposal I do think are worth talking about.

Anyway to try to answer, as I noted above, by restricting "discussion" to the talk page, it would re-inforce the mistaken idea that this is a vote and not a consensual discussion. And would encourage more 'drive-by' voting. - jc37 17:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What is lost by moving discussion to the talk page (which, incidentally, exists for the sole purpose of hosting discussions)? ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the impression will be that only the "votes" matter in the closure of the request and that the discussion (as it's on the talk page) would not. Compare to any XfD; and any noticeboard. - jc37 21:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At a certain point, there needs to be a balance between allowing for adequate discussion, and formatting the page in an organized, readable manner. As the number of users participating to a page increases, the likelihood of that page becoming a cacophony increases. The proposal is not intended to limit or stifle discussion, but rather to keep the main RfA page on-topic, relevant, and organized; with tangential discussions taking place on the talk page. Reducing the cacophony of RfA should reduce the potential for drama. What if we added a clause to the RfA policy which mandates that bureaucrats read and consider all discussion that takes place on the talk page before making a decision on an RfA? ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(de-dent) - I understand the goal is to try to set a new tone and this is trying to do this through a new structure. But when doing that we should keep all existing policy and process in mind. We should be keeping WP:BURO in mind, as well as trying to minimise the learning curve for the process, both by commenters and closers.

Sraw polling needs to be on the same page as the rest of the consensual discussion. There's really little way to get around that. I've tried to separate the straw poll from the rest of the discussion in some various RfCs in the past with varying success/failure. And I've found that the community fights against that, understandably wanting its voice to be heard. What we should do is try to make certain that that voicing is kept on topic of the discussion. (A clear problem of RfA is that the moving of comments/threads to the talk page is VERY subjective. I think that this is a place where we should poke bureaucrats to patrol RfAs, and not just let the community self-patrol, as it's clear this has repeatedly been a contentious issue.)

So with all that in mind, there's no reason why you can't alter the proposed organisational structure to have a request page (which has the request/nom, questions, and stats) and a separate discussion page which includes the straw polling. And each page would therefore have its own talk page. So off-topic stuff can still be moved to the "talk page" while the discussion page would be treated like any other community discussion (RFC/XFD/noticeboard). e.g. WP:RFA/Jc37/Request; WT:RFA/Jc37/Request; WP:RFA/Jc37/Discussion; WT:RFA/Jc37/Discussion.

But treating strawpolling as separate from "discussion" is like saying it's separate from the consensus process. Which of course isn't and shouldn't be true. - jc37 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA is already a straw poll. Bureaucrats don't realistically gauge consensus at RfA by analyzing the strength of the support/oppose arguments (with the exception of disregarding ridiculous oppose votes). Regardless of how much discussion takes place, if a candidate has >70% support, they're going to be an admin. If RfA's were determined by consensus, there wouldn't be a 70% bright line, there would be successful RfA's with 40% support and unsuccessful RfA's with 90% support. NOTAVOTE applies primarily to content discussions, not internal WP processes. Whether or not discussion happens on the main RfA page or on the talk page is inconsequential, in my opinion. Having separate pages for requests and votes/discussion (each with their own distinct talk page) is far more confusing to me than simply having a single RfA page (like there is today) and tweaking the rules so that talking happens on the talk page, and voting happens on the voting page. I don't see there being a steep learning curve for the average RfA voter to figure that out. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 21:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not dispute that there is a leaning towards believing that editors "vote" at RfA. But that's not to say that bureaucrats are tied to the vote results. I've seen several examples of where a request was declined due to the issues presented even though "by the numbers" it may have been a successful request. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened.

If this was merely about the numbers, a bot could close the request. But it's been affirmed many times that RfA is not a vote. (I think Mbisanz even started an RfC along those lines not too long ago.)

As far as I know there is NO discussion which results from voting. As for arbcom elections, remember that those are actually merely a guide to JW to whom the community suggests he should select. And he has stated several times that number of voters in support is not the only thing he uses as a guide to select an Arbitrator.

Think about it this way (hands you a can of beans): Someday, some company will figure out (just like they did when they set up farming in WoW and selling farmed stuff for real money) that all they need do is set up a voter farm and get themselves as many admin accounts as they might want.

This also goes back to some of the reasons why the consensus model was adopted for Wikipedia. To help guard against bandwagons and group think. - jc37 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking of farms... This is interesting: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#elance_problem - jc37 23:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very good proposal. Any RFA in the current process is liable to become a bloated mess of threaded discussion; applying some rigor could work wonders. And no, NOTAVOTE doesn't apply here. RFAs are patently a vote, as Scotty notes. In fact, something it says is optimistic at best and manifestly untrue at worst:

...in [the case of RfA and RfB] the poll results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). Historically, the party making the decision has considered the arguments made, the number of editors on each side of the issue, and any other relevant factors.

When was the last time you saw a bureaucrat (let alone Jimbo) overturn a 70% majority based on the concerns of the 30%?

I don't see what relevance BURO has here, either. It says policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus - well, clearly the existing consensus is that we discuss and vote on administration candidates on a single page. If BWilkins' proposal gains approval, then it will be the consensus by which policy/guidelines are changed. There's no conflict.

The learning curve is also minimal - read, ask, maybe ask again, talk, vote. Even AfD is more complicated than that, with its morass of templates, mandatory edit summaries and notifications.

Scaremongering about vote farming is, well, it's silly. It would be beyond obvious. Much like the Fermi paradox, if it were possible, it would have happened already. Moving to a new system will do nothing to change that. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)