Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)
|This project is largely dormant but it is still watched and contains a vast resource of reliable research data that is still relevant today and will often be cited in discussions.|
|This page in a nutshell: This is a collection of suggestions for a proposal for reform of the admin selection process and links to its discussion pages on the various aspects of possible reform. Other views and solutions are more than welcome on its talk page.|
|Contrary to the Wikipedia mantra 'Adminship is not a big deal', it is - because of the very stressful and oft humiliating experience of the inquisition itself. The trials and tribulations of being a sysop come later. - User:Kudpung|
The problem with RfA is NOT the process. It is the participants. - User:FetchcommsWe need to disengage ourselves from the community's anger over admin abuse, and we need to find a way not to get in a candidate's face when they show up for RFA. - User:Dank
Welcome! Some Wikipedians have formed a task force to better organize discussions and make viable proposals for RfA reform. This project contains their suggestions, resources, and things to discuss. If you would like to be of active help, please join the task force page. Many pages, proposals and discussions fall under the scope of this project, and all that information may seem overwhelming. Don't be intimidated! It's all neatly organized in the pink box above.
- The project has two major goals:
- Making RfA a more attractive proposition for experienced editors.
- Reducing the number of unlikely successful requests for adminship.
- Anyone can comment on any of these proposals.
- Please post comments at the related sub pages; please consider suggesting any major changes to this main page on its talk page.
- Please keep your participation on topic—side-tracking or irrelevant comments may be struck or archived at the discretion of the task force.
- If you join the task force, it is hoped you will moderate, motivate, and stimulate. It may take up some of your time, and it is highly recommended that you are familiar with the RfA process and have a working knowledge of core Wikipedia functions and policies.
- The task force aims to achieve their resolutions with a minimum of background noise in a reasonable time. They will make their suggestions from a synthesis of the ideas that are being submitted. These will lead to reforms that can be proposed to the community.
- Fairer questioning – eliminating patently irrelevant and trick questions.
- Fairer voting – eliminating nonsense votes.
- Fairer closing – easier for the 'crat to reach a decision.
- More voter discipline – by calling on a more experienced electorate.
- No more SNOW/NOTNOW applications.
- Enables a possible lowering of the bar to 70–60% in place of the current 80–70%.
What this project is not aboutEdit
These items are not within the remit of the current project. They are, or have been, the subject of perennial discussions around Wikipedia, in particular at WT:RfA. To learn more, follow the links above to some of the more recent discussions, or use keywords in the WT:RfA archive search box.
- Length of tenure of admins
- Age limit: See: 12 years old
- Unbundling of sysop tasks and tools: See Unbundling the tools, Unbundling makes sense, Unbundle the Block button, "Trusted and experienced editors.", A philosophical discussion, Senior Sysop
- Probationary or trial adminship
- Preparing future admins through mentoring or training
- Desysopping: See Notes below at:    
- Bureaucrats and their tasks
- Notes (desysopping)
- Guide to CDA
- CDA RfC
- CDA userboxen
- A standard recall (or Archive #213)
- De-admining (or Archive #213)
- Cirt desysopped - Confirms again that sanctions are fully operable, and demonstrates that admins - even respected and prolific contributors - can be demoted for any infractions of accepted behaviour.
RfA reform progressEdit
For a more comprehensive list of ideas conceived by this reform, please visit the Possible proposals page
This section details the progress which has been made since RfA reform 2011 started.
Changes to RfAEdit
(Since 11 July)
- A warning now shows when you try to create a new RfA, as well as on transclusion, with suggested reading material and pointing out that users should not undertake an RfA lightly. See the edit notice and WP:Requests for adminship/New message for examples.
- To encourage those editors who would make good admins but who are unwilling to put themselves forward, a new process has been created WP:Request an RfA nomination. The editors there are willing to review candidates, and either write an RfA nomination for them, or explain to why they believe the candidate is currently unsuitable.
- Kudpung's very helpful essay, WP:Advice for RfA candidates, has been moved to Wikipedia space.
Proposals put forward to the communityEdit
None as yet
- Clerks - a proposal for a new role to oversee the RfA process, similar to Arbcom clerks.
- Minimum requirement - a (perennial) proposal to put in a minimum requirement to apply for adminship.
Still at the drawing board, these proposals need more work before they are presented to the community:
Essential reading for task force membersEdit
- User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform – Takes the reform items one-by-one with critical comments. Essential.
- Jimbo Wales – RfA is a horrible and broken process – Necessary reading
- User:ErrantX/Essays/RFA Study – Survey on the RfA experience
- Kudpung's RfA criteria – Also provides some analysis of RfA voting and questioning
- Other users' RfA criteria & essays
- User talk:Dank/RFA – Helping candidates when they first create their RFA page; making a clear statement that RFA doesn't give admins a license to delete specific pages or block specific users if there's been a serious effort by the community to consider the question, and consensus was not reached
- User:Aaron Schulz/New RfA method – 2006 – but still relevant
- User:NoSeptember/Adminship is a big deal – Short summary-style views of one user
- The Wikipedia RfA talk page – General discussion on RfA matters
|While the task force is currently inactive, the membership list below is retained for historical puroposes.|
This is a list of those who feel they can collaborate with each other to move this RfA reform project along. Just sign your name the normal way. No comments other than your signature are needed. Outside views are more than welcome on the various talk pages.
|Consider reading the comments on the project talk page first before joining this list. This is not a list of passive supporters for the project. Joining here assumes you are already firmly in favour of reform, and can invest time to regularly and actively take part in its development.|
- list! to the
- Swarm X 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm not sure if the above criteria are wrong to begin with... I think the whole notion has to be reworked. No more !voting.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC) (retired from Wikipedia)
- 'User:M.O.X (talk) • 9:05pm •'Formerly Ancient Apparition, formerly Fridae'sDoom. 10:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- MacMedtalkstalk 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pesky (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- --SPhilbrickT 04:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- --Errant (chat!) 08:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- — Oli OR Pyfan! 08:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corruptcopper (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 8 May 2012)
- Jusdafax 09:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I'll be part-time but will attempt to give quality input. This topic is vital.
- Baseball Watcher 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 20 June 2011)
- Keepscases (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (currently
blockedunblocked for disruption at RfA)
- This seems to be a perennial discussion/project/proposal item, but I am always in favor of any improvements if possible. — 07:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- — Fly by Night (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- 09:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will Beback talk 02:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (Indef banned from Wikipedia)
- --White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (retired from Wikipedia)
- —WFC— 03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alzarian16 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- --ceradon 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- —mc10 (t/c) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) More so once the autoconfirmed trial gets underway; hopefully that won't be too long.
- ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- --Cerejota (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Divide et Impera (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 17 December 2011)
- Trusilver 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Moogwrench (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 17 December 2011)
- Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- --Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Irondome (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)