User talk:Geogre/RFA-Derby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Problems.

In order to construct a reasonable replacement system we first need to understand what is not working in the current system (You may want to talk to Durin about this because he seems to be the person who has most extensively studied the RfA process). Now, given the above notion, there are some problems with your list of issues. First- You overestimate the importance of IRC especially in . For example, I got 130 supports in my RfA and I've never been on IRC in my life. Now, I did discuss a fair number of things with other users via email and it is possible that that had a similar result but that should still have had a much smaller influence. Therefore, I would suggest that while IRC contributes a substantial fraction to the larger support or oppose sets it is not true by any means that "Whenever you see pro or con votes in the 100's, that person has spent some time on IRC." Second, in regard to "RFA is influenced by "RFA week conversions,"" while I have seen attempts of this sort I have never seen such an attempt work unless the user was a borderline candidate who modified their behavior slightly. I'd be interested in seeing counterexamples. That said, I like this idea overall and will maybe see if I can cook something up when I have time. JoshuaZ 03:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been having some trouble keeping some of the rue I feel over the Carnildo affair out of any discussion of remedies. I did not mean to insult anyone in the observations on the IRC lensing effect, and my statement about "100's" was probably less hyperbole than archaism. The numbers going to RFA now, in general, are so high that 100 has gotten to be somewhat common, so perhaps a century doesn't demonstrate the IRC effect the way that it did a few months before. At any rate, my focus was supposed to be what I consider the spurious reasoning of the 'crats in this case. It isn't that they are not good thinkers or were up to wickedness, but just that, once more, the "failure" of "democracy" has been used as a rationale for exigency and the abridgment of all prerogatives of the users. Geogre 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean it as an issue of taking offense I meant it as a genuine counterexample, I think you in general overestimate the weight of IRC. (I'm not even convinced any of this is necessary anyways, by and large good candidates seem to pass I can think of one recent example where that may not have been the case but that's it). JoshuaZ 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I'm not convinced any of it is necessary, either. I didn't think RFA was very broken. However, that was the argument made for the Carnildo reappointment. Therefore, the decision "has been" made that RFA is not only broken, but so broken that cutting the Gordion knot with a Stinger missile "has been" endorsed. RFA was about #20 on my list of problems, but if this is how things are going to be, then at least we can establish that there is or is not a mandate for change. If so, or if not, we can have some real evidence to use to forestall repetitions of this "affair." (And, on IRC, I would be happy to be wrong, but I remain of my own opinion still.) Geogre 10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to make up my mind about what is wrong with the current generation of admins and Wikipedia in general. On the one hand I see a class of admins (and especially wannabe admins) who have a far too belligerent attitude, a dedication to "fighting vandalism", as if Wikipedia were a first-person shooter video game. On the other, I see Wikipedia's main problem not being the obvious vandals that this class of admins can easily detect and fight (these vandals may to some extent be handled with technical means), but the lack of good content actually worth protecting, and the stubborn POV-pushers of various nationalist, religious or pseudo-scientific persuasions who wear out good content contributors. I think a larger focus on merits of the admin-candidate having to do with article-creation (perhaps even instituting a demand for the candidate to have a FA under her belt) is important. It would, I hope, result in more mature admins whose main interest isn't in adminhood itself. The POV-pushing problem is difficult to solve, as all the institutions of Wikipedia are intentionally avoiding issues of content, and the POV-pushers tend to be far more dedicated than the scholars working in the same area. Perhaps the new Tendentious editors policy that is on the drawing-board will be of some use. Larry Sanger's model for Citizendium may solve the problem, but I will remain skeptical until I see how it works in reality. up+l+and 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *Kat*

I have not taken much more than a casual interest in the internal affairs of Wikipedia. RFA is an area that I have visited only a handful of times in the past year and a half. I know the criteria, and I've read some of the nominations. Last week I even voted in favor of a candidate. You might think of me as an outsider looking in.

RFA isn't totally busted. Parts of it are quite sound. Requiring the candidates to answer questions, for example. The method in which the decision is reached is also, basically sound. That said there does seem to be room for improvement.

[edit] The Criteria solution

  1. No more self nominations.
  2. candidates must be nominated by somebody who has been a regular contributer to Wikipedia for at least two months.
  3. A 66% supermajority is required for a nomination to pass.

Respectfully *Kat* 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we're here on the talk page, let me comment slightly on that. The proposal I'm thinking of would include your #1, although not in such a bald manner. Some of my dearest friends on Wikipedia think self-noms are the best. I think they're the worst (for a host of reasons). For #2, I'd probably go beyond that, but I'm not really planning to address it. #3 is the biggest one, though: currently, in the status quo, it's supposed to be 75% or more to pass. The Carnildo affair is the only one that has differed in a very long time. Geogre 11:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason why any of these should be impleminted. The first and second are irrelevant- what are they intended to accomplish? The last one also seems arbitrary and not obviously relevant. It isn't at all clear to me how any of these address any of the issues raised. JoshuaZ 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, JoshuaZ, the first one would eliminate the occasional newbie with <300 edits who nominate themselves, and answer with a "help out in (insert user's favorite subject matter here) related articles" for question 1. The second would help eliminate the 3 edit, 1 day nominators who I know I've seen at least one of. Picaroon9288 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage

A not new but bever implemented and long overdue idea. 1000 edits AND one month minimum for all participants. That would eliminate sockpuppetry in toto. A huge achievement compared to disenfranchizing of the newbies who are yet unlikely to have a clue to participate anyway. That would also eliminate the sockpuppetry talk from the 'crats who claim the outcome is affected by sockpuppetry and that's how they arrived to the decision that defies the reality, like in case of Carnildo. --Irpen 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo was a strange situation in licensing such disenfranchisement. There were, indeed, some trollish persons who voted to oppose because their copyright violations had been tagged and deleted. That, however, did nothing to actually demonstrate voting totals. The rules as they existed had not discounted such voters: it is not up to anyone to know the content of the heart of the voter. A rule that would sharpen the point and draw a line is a good step, but I think those edit totals are high-ish. Sometimes a new comer shows such acumen and perceptiveness that we do want to listen (e.g. Newyorkbrad, who isn't that new right now, but who has shown an uncanny maturity), and some of the very, very long time users vote in petulance (names not given in the interests of peace). The point is that a great army of "oppose" voters staid their hands when they rested assured that the RFA wouldn't pass. They didn't want to hurt Carnildo's feelings. I didn't want to, either. The point is that no one knew that this was going to be sprung on the community. Had folks known, the vote wouldn't have been close enough that discounting people would have made a whit of difference. The point is that I'm not sure the Carnildo case is a very good argument one way or another about this subject, even though I agree that upping the voter franchise standards is a good idea. Geogre 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not at all Carnildo specific. I've seen several RfA's trolled by socks. That's a huge disruption and such a mild restriction will take care of the whole RfA sockpuppetry issue. I was never interested in RfA voting in my first month. I don't think anyone was. --Irpen 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shoot, I didn't even know it existed in my first three months. The people who show up, brand new, and know to get straight to RFA like a baby sea turtle going to the sea, are not all sockpuppets. They're often reincarnations. Reincarnated users are at least as much bother as puppets. That said, I agreed with your proposal generally all along and still do. Geogre 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial admin

I tossed this idea at WP:RFAP - if a person pulls between 65-75% of support, then why not let him have the tools for say, 30 days? This could especially be useful in dealing with the requests of ex-admins like Carnildo and Chacor. During this period:

  • He will be monitored by normal users as well as other admins and bureaucrats. Admin actions such as abusive blocks or deletions can be repaired, so its not like letting a wild animal loose.
  • The RfA remains open, with people encouraged to ask questions and keep interviewing the fellow.
  • Allow others to give him tips and advice.

I think the final call is not another vote, but the expression of any serious complaint regarding the editor's behaviour in the 30 days. Perhaps in this latter way we can avoid the possibility that some editors would oppose just because they don't like some of his/her decisions. Rama's arrow 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in charge. I'm just one guy, but I like your proposal in general. I'd suggest 60 instead of 30 days. It's not that I think people can uphold false conversions to the true faith for 30 days, but that I think 60 days of a false conversion might let the true faith sink in a bit. (I.e. I might go on a diet for 30 days, keep it, and quit. If it's 60 days, I might end up actually changing my eating habits.) This is not because I assume bad faith, but, as you apparently do, because I assume that RFA is more blind than it should be. No one can know, ultimately, how someone will behave with buttons until that person has the buttons. 60 days, if not 30, would allow some evidence. Geogre 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The third way - RfA problems are systemic - further reform is necessary

This largely maintains the status quo for now but improves the quality of admins over time, emphasises the need to contribute content prior to receiving adminship, and rewards contributors with some limited protection from single rogue admin abuse. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I have some comments/observations on the talk page to that. I love the idea, and I think it feeds into some other ideas that need serious consideration. It's more of a blocking reform than an RFA reform, but certainly one could easily say that no one without EU status be allowed to self-nom. Geogre 12:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make RFAs less important

How? (I'm mostly repeating stuff I saw elsewhere and liked)

  1. criteria for standing. Nominations (multiple, perhaps 3, by editors with a minimum number of edits, perhaps 2500?). Minimum service (edits, perhaps 2500. Mainspace edits, perhaps ... hm .. stuck here because of little reverts and those annoying tags. We'll come back).
  2. make it seem less 'permanent.' The timed de-sysop thing would work nicely. Maybe a subcommittee of the ArbCom or a separate committee just to make quick work of those cases?
  3. criteria for voting. Someone else mentioned 1000 edits. I would add, 3 months. Numbers are flexible. Idea is good.
  4. criteria for keeping the mop. Writers reluctantly take to this stuff, as it interferes with what they come here for (except for POV-pushers and page-herders/guardians) The other kind of people grab the mop, many for wrong reasons. I prefer the former group, no matter how many nice people in the recently closed elections said both were important. In fact, I would prefer that all administrators actually wrote. Counting mainspace edits is not enough, since they can be racked up by doing things other than writing. How about getting a couple of articles up to (not sure what the right words are... "Featured"? "Good"?) status? Two such articles a year? Seems within reason, and it is really why many of us are here...
maybe an automatic 1-month desysop every 6 months wouldn't be a bad idea either. A writing break, of sorts. (not my idea, but I like it, and it seems to fit)

So, easier to get the mop, easier to lose it. With all those restrictions, a straight up vote would be the least important step on the way to gaining and retaining the tools.

Am I totally off here? Jd2718 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/o/User_talk%7EGeogre_RFA-Derby_7966.html"