Wikipedia:Adminship poll/B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is Requests for Adminship the best process for granting of sysop rights?

Hence or otherwise on the first question, do you think that Requests for Adminship is currently the best process for granting of sysop rights? Or is there a better process you may wish to suggest?

[edit] Yes

  1. Requests for adminship is the worst process, except for all the others. Grandmasterka 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. But the optional questions are getting ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Grandmasterka. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Not sure of another thing that would work. Wizardman 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. It could probably use some tweaking, though. (An adaptable process, it is.) - jc37 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. The lesser of a bajillion evils. bibliomaniac15 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. There's a better method out there, but we haven't found it yet. Captain panda 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. per Grandmasterka; while many of the requirements voters at RFA put upon candidates are onerous and unnecessary, I doubt that a better workable system could be devised. --Wikiacc () 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. "The hardest part of being a wizard is not using magic. Any sod can not use magic when they don't know how, but to have the ability and not use it, that takes some skill" (or something like that, from Terry Pratchett). We're not appointing people who will use the tools properly, we're looking for people who won't use the tools improperly, and RfA is the least awful way of finding those people. Happy‑melon 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. I don't actually think the process is particularly flawed. It is the attitudes to it that seem to have been bred both at RfA and across the encyclopedia that bother me. RfA should not be a big deal. the wub "?!" 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Per Grandmasterka - plus familiarity may breed contempt, but ignorance is worse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. The system itself is not the problem, and at least a single user can't overwhelm an RFA, the way an aggressive user can overwhelm many of our other processes and discussions. --JayHenry (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. The least of all evils when it comes to sysop promotion, yet still evil (and yet somehow workable). -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. It may not be optimal, but it does seem to be better than the alternatives. No matter what, users will perceive the process to be about trust, loyalty, and respect and no matter how you change the process when these ideals are at sake, controversy will occur. RfA may not be prefect, but it seems to work most of the time, even if not in a manner as comfortable as we would all like. SorryGuy  Talk  23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. The most pragmatic solution, and if anything better than one year ago. There does appear to be more of a focus now on what the person can contribute, rather than a candidate merely staying out of trouble for a few months and passing, which I do recall as a criticism some time ago. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Yes, however we need to make optional questions relate to the adminship candidacy. Pointless questions that are asked to be funny or just stupid are clogging things up. RfA is serious, because admins can seriously screw things up if we appoint the wrong people. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Yes, though we do need to revise both the standard questions the the sort of optional questions permitted. Looking at it from different people's perspectives, I think most of us would think it works right about 80% of the time, which is remarkably good for personnel decisions. (about 10 % of the promotions are a mistake, about 10% of people rejected should have been promoted) I wish any of the other organizations or political bodies I've been associated with had been able to come near this record. DGG (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Although my personal experience with the current process has been mixed, I think the flaws in the process are ultimately minor, not fundamental. RfA as we know it essentially works and we'll probably never be able to come up with anything better. Changes I support are making the threshold lower (60 or 65%), setting it at a definite number, and introducing a community desysopping process. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Noone has so far found a better one despite a squidgazuperillon proposals. We might alternatively say that it is the worse possible system — apart from all the others. Every process is going to have phases where it works less well and more well. Splash - tk 12:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. I wrote on an RFC on the RFA system that no process is better than the community which uses it, and I continue to maintain that. Problems with RFA are not inherent in the process, which is working alright. I made one proposal to scrap the segregated "support" and "oppose" sections, but after a single trial run, this was not adopted since it became to messy. I have not yet seen any proposal for major reform in our admin selection process which is better than the current. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. There may be problems with it, but I feel that it remains the best process, in theory. hmwithτ 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. Yes, but we still rely too much on numbers and percentages. The open scrutiny is a double-edged blade which works, most of the time. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Yes, but it needs improvement. Mainly getting rid of the questions that have nothing to do with adminship such as 'Who's your favourite band?'. I fail to see the relevance. If an idea to replace RfA actually makes sense, then I will investigate. ><RichardΩ612 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. per Grandmasterka Dlohcierekim 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. While like any idea it can be improved upon, it is currently the best system available and I think the community is doing a fine job selecting its administrators. None of the alternative proposals I have seen have convinced me they would be an improvement. (1 == 2)Until 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Nothing better exists that is viable (yet). Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. Absolutely. iMatthew 2008 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  30. Yes, it works fine. Nobody has been able to suggest anything better. Well, anything better that is feasible. Sure, we could all fly to their hometown, meet at a donut shop and get to know them personally, but until airfare is free, RFA will have to do. Useight (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  31. It's public, (mostly) transparent, and allows wide input. Until a better system is found, this is the best choice. KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  32. RFA does have many flaws, but I'm afraid the process itself cannot be made better, since all of the flaws in the process are caused by the people involved in the process, not the process itself. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  33. Most definitely. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  34. The process is probably as good as it's going to get; the people and culture have to change. Singularity 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. Per Grandmasterka. Should be more of a vote though, because despite all the bellowing about Wikipedia being a consensus-based system, it doesn't work that way. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  36. The current process has many flaws with it definitely, how people use it is a big issue due to its openness - but that may also be its biggest strength. The current process also is the most close on having consensus to exist, and until a better process is found, it will have to do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  37. The process is pretty good. It's the people using the process who set the high standards and ask too many questions. James086Talk | Email 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  38. I think so. There are flaws, yes, but a request for adminship draws users who are specifically familiar with the user to join the discussion. If a bureaucrat granted adminship like rollback, s/he could miss something that User:Johndoe specifically remembers. All contributions can't be analysed at RfA, so it's partly aimed at those who have had dealings with the candidate. PeterSymonds | talk 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  39. Yes. RfA is a good method for evaluating a potential admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. Last I checked it was still a popularity contest where the least controversial people won, with the explosion of optional questions, its actually gotten worse. Mr.Z-man 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. That said, I don't know of a better system at the moment (oppose Rollback style). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. It's too hard to get adminhood, and too hard to lose it once gotten. I think the latter causes the former; since it's almost impossible to revoke adminhood even when the admin is acting like a dick, we're far too reluctant to award it in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. No, it's not the best process. But it does the job. Andre (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per Andrevan. A system that looks bad on paper but is okay on experience. Can't think of a better alternative, however. Rudget 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Limit alternative questions to direct clarification on specific past actions by the nom, and to topics specifically concerning use of the tools. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely not, as Mr.Z-man notes, it's still a popularity contest by and large (with good faith seemingly shoved out the nearest window). User rights should be given out in a manner similar to rollback; let editors request them one at a time in a short discussion (obviously the more damaging rights should be a little more scrutiny, but not so much that it's a "big deal"), letting them move up and try out rollback -> protection -> deletion -> blocking. In this way, trust can be established over time, and the user can gain confidence in their ability to correctly use the tools. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Mr.Z-man. Nakon 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Yes, as above. — Werdna talk 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Not bitter, but, it can be a popularity contest. Pile ons are rampant (both support and oppose) without giving proper due diligence. Can be a fishing expedition. Is there an alternative that's better? Err, no. Oh, and the the number of optional questions is beyond ridiculous. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree about the questions, considering I had 29 questions in my last RFA :p Gary King (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. It amazes me how apparently only mainspace article-building edits count towards experience on the project, as well the number of support votes based on the number of featured articles a particular candidate has contributed to. While I agree that some article contributions are necessary to fully understand the project, I can't stand how candidates who have a solid history of vandal-fighting or maintenance, administrative,or backlog oriented tasks are passed over for adminship solely on the basis of a lower mainspace edit count. It also amazes me how a single controversial incident that happened months or years before an RFA or a single disgruntled contributor's comments can stop an otherwise highly qualified candidate from becoming sysoped. On the other hand, I'm not sure there really is an alternative to the current RFA process, in theory it should work if the community are open minded and look at candidates objectively based on their strengths and whether they can be trusted with and have the motivation to use the tools. I'm sorry if this is sounding like a rant, but adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. RFA will only fully work when the community stops treating it like a popularity contest and assumes good faith. If an admin makes a mistake, it can be reverted, if an admin commits a blatantly bad faith action, they should be warned first and eventually desysoped/ blocked, just like ordinary users are. The community really needs to stop the "admin can do no wrong" attitude. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Wow, what a surprise that I'm here. But MrZMan and Mr Senseless sum it up nicely. 21655 ταλκ/01ҁ 15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. I wasn't expecting to put mine here but I 100% agree with Mr Senseless. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. An apprentice program like Wikiversity would be better. Zginder 2008-06-03T14:59Z (UTC)


[edit] Other

  1. A) Enable rights to be granted or revoked on individual articles or classes of articles, or with respect to individual editors. A1) An WP:MENTOR should be able to block and unblock his protégé, for example. A2) Long-term members of WikiProjects should be able to apply for and, unless there is an objection, routinely receive admin rights to block individuals from editing articles associated with that project. I realize this will require code changes but it's something we can look at in the coming year. B) Full administratorship, which includes access to administrator mailing lists, administrator IRC channels, and global blocking, should be limited to accounts with at least a certain number of edits, a certain length of tenure, and should expire after a certain period of time, say, 2 or 3 years, with a waiting period before asking for those privileges back. Such retired administrators can continue to have courtesy access to the tools, particularly article-delete and user block/unblock. Not having perpetual access to discussion forums prevents cabals from forming. Yes, I know TINC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 April 2008
  2. To be honest, I'm neutral, although Majorly's suggestion sounds good. ...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I've only been involved in few RfAs. It seems like a lousy process. People with years of no controversy and very many good edits get turned down, because "they don't get involved in admin type stuff". And then some nongs, who don't have great edits _and_ don't really understand policy get the bit, because they've hung around the right bits of WP. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. It needs a polish. Right now, it is a challenging field for anyone who's going for their first RFA; I hemmed and hawed for ages before someone nominated me, and I suspect a lot of other folks feel similarly. The tendency for piling-on when someone who's dared to cross another editor that happens to have a few friends is pretty ugly as well. Something needs to be adjusted. Having said that, I'm not sure what to do about it. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. What Tony Fox said. What I hate is seeing a pile-on of support, followed by a pile-on of oppose — that happened to me on four of my five RfAs; I plummeted from 80% to 50% in a matter of days. Something needs to be fixed, I dunno what tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I don't hang around there much. I'm not thrilled with the system (seems like 1 part student body elections and 1 part Room 101 to me), but no other proposals ever gain traction. shoy 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Change something, we're a wiki after all. Dorftrottel (talk) 03:27, April 21, 2008
  8. It can be tougher for those who have been around a long time; some newer people probably get through too easily, whilst older ones get heavy flak. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Would be with stricter suffrage requirement, reasonable community desysopping in place (would make those on the fence less hesitant to support), and mandatory sabbaticals for admins to return to regular editing in main space to prevent them from loosing touch. Other than that, there is no better way to gauge the community's opinion on such issues than the survey. --Irpen 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. RFA is the right way to do this, but you are just doing it wrong. There are plenty of people who are trying to fix RFA, so I will leave changing Wikipedia to the Wikipedians. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. RFA in the abstract sense is good. I just hate to see the negativity. I would love more focus on encouragement and perhaps a stronger attention to the fact that all Wikipedians are volunteers and in that regard, I would like to see more support for whomever is seeking additional responsibility (i.e. it's not like they're going to be getting a raise--it's amazing we don't have to coerce people into it.) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Tentatively yes but. The underlying idea isn't that bad (though that's not to exclude the possibility of improving it.) More emphasis on exploring attitudes, perspectives, and likely views on other editors if they misbehave or come to attention as plaintiffs or parties, would be a more helpful emphasis. We want admins who show calmness, resolving rather than escalating problems, balancing both helping and aggressive handling, and so on. These kinds of things could possibly do with a bit more consideration - a lot of admin work is simply having trust and credibility at calming and resolving problems, in one way and another. Ie, not simply just being trusted with "the tools". Examine what qualities we want to enhance or de-emphasize in the admin pool, and select for those. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grant "Like Rollback"

  1. Grant it like rollback to trusted users, and remove it from those who abuse/misuse it. Majorly (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Majorly's suggestion - RfA standards are extremely high on en.wp while poor admins are amazingly still able to keep the bit. EJF (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm with Majorly on this one. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. With Majorly and agree with EJF. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Yes, this was the spirit of how it launched. Miught make us invest in a better removal method too. Hiding T 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Yes, there's no real possibility for abuse, and as long as the rights are given out slowly and one at a time, I don't see the problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    And how is a user judged to be "trusted"? We could, I suppose, get feedback from the community - you know, like have an open discussion in which people give their views, and then a crat could close the discussion after several days with a decision based on overall consensus. SilkTork *YES! 07:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Yes - would return admins to the level of the community, reducing the counter-productive divide which currently exists. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oh Hells Yeah - Currently, becoming a sysop is like some deranged obstacle course, after which you become an untouchable God. If obtaining sysop wasn't a big deal, then losing it wouldn't be a big deal either, and sysops would cease to be what they are now; immortal, invincible authorities. Ziggy Sawdust 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. We have 1,557 admins, we have about 1,228 rollbackers, this gives some perspective, it is quite likely that people that does not want to become admin have not asked for rollback. If we use a harder requirements for admin and have a easy way of removing the admin bit I do not think that it will be much difference from rollback, which all opposers said would be disaster. --Stefan talk 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. This is the wiki way. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:00Z (UTC)


[edit] Oppose "Like Rollback"

  1. While adminship may be "no big deal", it's also a position of community trust. And I think that a single user just arbitrarily handing it out would be a very Bad Thing. - jc37 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Ye gods no. Happy‑melon 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Ep! No. MBisanz talk 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Holy ****ing **** no. Mainly per Jc37. HUGE potential for abuse, and heavens knows what would happen if we ever had an admin vandal. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Um, if anything happened...you know it could just be reverted right? And obviously the privilege would then be taken away, thus serving as an example for future editors. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Largely per the below, we'd have 'crats "tank warring" (a bigger, badder version of "wheel warring") over who could and couldn't be a sysop. Not good. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Not quite, SynergeticMaggot. Bureaucrats can only give sysop permissions: they can't revoke them. You need a steward to do that. So that would take time. Time in which a poorly appointed vandal administrator could do a lot of damage. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That wasn't what I was talking about exactly. If someone becomes a vandal, theres more than one way to stop it. Its really no big deal. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. no - things are too factionalised for this to work. If, then, it were as easy to remove as it would be to grant, anyone engaging in any controversial area would risk being desysopped fairly rapidly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Bad idea. Andre (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. We need to make the process a bit easier, but making it as easy as rollback would be going too far. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Who is going to do the taking away? I barely trust our current 'crats to promote correctly. I dread to think what would happen in an environment where a priveleged few could take away admin rights as they pleased. -- Naerii 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. No, and don't try to leverage this interesting page for proposals that you've proposed elsewhere already. Splash - tk 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. A "rollback" can be easily reverted. Deletions and blocks cannot be reverted easily by anyone (even admins need to go through heaps of discussion to avoid being accused of wheel-warring), hence those who are given these tools need to be subject to more scrutiny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. This would be about the worst way to hand it out. While just about any admin action can be fixed, it's very easy for an admin to make a huge mess very quickly.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Not a good idea. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Rollback actions can be reversed by non-admins. Admin actions cannot. I do not think it would be responsible to give out the admin bit like rollback, that is to say like candy at a picnic. The community is doing a fine job in selecting its admins, and I don't think a handful of people able to hand out and revoke the tool arbitrarily can do better. I think Hersfold said it best when he said "Holy ****ing **** no". (1 == 2)Until 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Abuse of Rollback really is no big deal, in the grand scheme of things. It's no worse than what can be done by any editor who can use a History page competently. Abuse of admin tools is a very different matter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Definitely not! iMatthew 2008 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Clearly not. A disturbing alternative to the RFA process. Rudget 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. nope. Clearly too much potential for misuse. - Philippe 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Uh-uh. KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Even if we eliminated the idea of 0RR or 1RR for admin actions, I would still oppose this due to too many opportunities for WP:BEANS-style abuse. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Too much of an opportunity for abuse. Nakon 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Per Sheffield Steel and others. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. No, this would be rather poor. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. I think I missed this. I must chime in. If rollback itself was minorly contentious at one point, this would be a windstorm of a nightmare. Besides, granting sysop rights by a single person may lead to unpleasant results. The person dishing out the rights is responsible for that person's actions and can be placed in a negative light. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. While I think adminship is no big deal, I think this would take it to far and has far to much potential for abuse. Also, a single person unilaterally granting admin rights would have a very heavy weight on their shoulders given the potential unpleasantness the admin tools can make if misused. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. Not a good idea. SPeɴceʀT♦C 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Never, how many bureaucrats we will need to have to desysop users who constant abuse of tools? I have already seen misuse of rollback, user granted with admin tools like rollback would be much more worse. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. "grant it to trusted users"? Trusted by whom? Either the community would have to appoint especially qualified editors who could decide who was trustworthy; we could call them bureaucrats and select them by consensus - or we would have to present potentially trusted editors to the community to ask for consensus directly. Which we do now in RfA. Or else we could descend into chaos, hopefully ameliorated by the large number of extra Stewards we would need to undo inadequately informed decisions. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. This does not adequately reflect community consensus, which adminship should be. PeterSymonds | talk 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Council

Have a group (elected or open) who make the decisions. Already we have a bunch of people who participate in many RfAs and so have an interest in and some knowledge of the process. The Council could overlook procedures and make decisions on the number and type of questions asked. SilkTork *YES! 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. I would be in favour of an open council. SilkTork *YES! 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Interesting idea. I think that if this is well implemented, it would be better than the current system, but as a supplement to the current RfA process. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. This is interesting, and quite possibly passable - certainly light years better than "granted like-rollback" proposal. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Not a bad idea but it strikes me as even further diverged from the idea of community consensus on promotion. A criticism of RfA is that many comments come from RfA regulars rather than the wider community - thought well-intentioned, this seems to move further in the opposite direction. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Maybe, if the council were elected like arbcom (though in a simpler process and for shorter terms) and there were set criteria like FAC. If we just allowed them to use their own personal criteria, it could be a disaster. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    Honestly, a huge problem nowadays with RfA is the disparity in support and oppose criteria. I really think it needs to be standardized somewhat. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA by area

I did have this thought. Maybe instead of "yes/no" generally, we should emphasize the main areas of adminship by seeking yes/no on them separately? And it would likely diminish in a big way supports and opposes for unhelpful reasons, by focussing on major aspects of the mop.

Opinions:

Understands the project from enough different perspectives and with enough experience

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Would understand and use the tools responsibly

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Would be seen as fair, neutral and trustworthy by our users

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Communicates well, helping and being firm as needed

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Shows good judgement in decisions and application of norms and policy

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Would calm and resolve rather than escalate a problem

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Would work well with others (consensus-seeking, discussion) in a dispute

  1. (yes/no/comment)

Would you trust this user as an admin overall

  1. (yes/no/comment)


I wonder if something like this would perhaps draw attention to what we need in admins and hence encourage new RFA candidates to focus their efforts on our priorities?

Just a thought - I'm not expecting agreement, and it'd be a longer page - but just maybe if RFA candidates were directly yes/no against our needs in admins, we'd see an immediate improvement in the match between RFA passes and admin qualities. And fewer issues with common "RFA problems".

An RFA candidate really needs to have a high trust rating and decent to good ratings on each of the above anyway, so more focus and asking directly is no bad thing. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of benefits to doing it your way:
  1. It would force people to abandon the "bandwagon" approach to RFA (there's no sections dividing "yes" from "no" votes, or from other comments in general)
  2. It would force people to consider individual traits rather than letting one incident or trait overwhelm their decision
  3. It should encourage discussion (for both support and oppose) since people would likely want examples affirming others positions
The only down side I can think of is that it would complicate RFA to the point that participating would become more burdensome and time consuming (especially if there's a lot of debate about individual traits). But I think the payoff in highlighting the most important traits of potential admins is worth it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Possible answer to "debate" - maybe keep the comments brief and non-threaded, and optionally linked to the talk page for more detail/discussion if needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, this is a great idea. The only concern I would have is that it would make the page longer otherwise, I like the idea that it would objectify criteria and to rationalize the decision process. Lazulilasher (talk)
I like it. It'll help keep things a bit more focused, and after all the criterion should be "not insane" and "highly unlikely to abuse the tools" - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, though I feel the onus on supplying the evidence should be the nominator and/or candidate.

I don't think that the community should be asked to address each question as some people would simply not bother or would answer yes to all or no to all without paying attention, and I'd rather hear from a person who would like to raise a single compelling point than read a list of people who say No to every point because they view all self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger, or Yes to every point because Why The Hell Not?

If the points were addressed by the nom/candidate, discussion could be directed to the points - such as "Oppose due to poor evidence of working well with others" and "Support for meeting all criteria" - while also allowing the flexibility for other points to be brought up not listed in the criteria. In a sense, this criteria box could replace the random and arbitrary list of questions now being asked. SilkTork *YES! 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria:
  • 1. Candidate understands the project from enough different perspectives and with enough experience

(Evidence)

  • 2. Candidate understands and would use the tools responsibly

(Evidence)

  • 3. Candidate has displayed fair and neutral judgement

(Evidence)

  • 4. Candidate communicates well, helping and being firm as needed

(Evidence)

  • 5. Candidate shows good judgement in decisions and application of norms and policy

(Evidence)

  • 6. Candidate would calm and resolve rather than escalate a problem

(Evidence)

  • 7. Candidate would work well with others (consensus-seeking, discussion) in a dispute

(Evidence)

  • 8. Candidate has already earned trust

(Evidence)

A slight adjustment of focus. SilkTork *YES! 09:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... we're after others views on what they feel about the candidate in various areas (which will usually be based on the candidate's history), not the candidate/nominator's self-claims; the fact the candidate nominated says they themselves believe they're okay in all those areas. The difference between the two wordings is present vs expectation of future - do we ask "what has the candidate shown", or "what do you think the candidate shows for the future"? Even if they gave evidence in each area, others views would be more important.
If someone objects then it's then useful to discuss that, and you're right that some might answer without thought, and one compelling comment is worth a lot. But if there is an objection then it will get raised on the talk page, and discussed, which seems a much better place for it. The main difference still seems to be the tense (present vs. future), ie "shows X" vs. "would show X". Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we're after the community's views on a candidate. What happens in a RfA is that some evidence and rationale is presented to the community for why a candidate may be trusted. At present the evidence and rationale is poorly structured and people ask random questions - there is no consistency between one RfA and another. There are some members of the community who have some knowledge or experience of the candidate and they will present some evidence. And there are a few committed members who will do some research into a candidate's history. The research will be random. Some talk pages arbitrarily selected. A look at a few article edits. Nobody has the time or inclination to search methodically through a candidate's history fully. The majority of comments and !votes in the AfD will focus on the evidence that is brought to the table by the candidate, the nominator, the candidate's allies and enemies, and the select few who will do some random research.
Much of this will continue. However, what might be interesting is to replace the random questions section of the process with the criteria box that you've suggested. By supplying some evidence (or not as the case may be) that the candidate is aware of the sorts of traits that the community are looking for and then the candidate and/or nominator directing people toward those places where the community might find evidence of those traits, would certainly make the business more consistent and fair. There would still be as now those individuals who would pick up the stuff a candidate might rather remain hidden, and the criteria box may serve as a useful focus for people who wish to do a bit of that skeleton hunting.
I certainly would, however, have some concern about personally investigating all the criteria before being able to make a comment on a candidate. Already I find RfA time consuming, and there are too many times when I start looking into a candidate's history, only to give up after half an hour or so without having made any comment at all because I have to do something else, or I'm unable to make a judgement on the evidence I have. And what I am mainly looking for is a simple reason why I shouldn't trust a candidate. If I am looking for eight reasons why I should I might find the business just a little too daunting. SilkTork *YES! 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Most times if there is a concern someone'll raise it and others will then check it out. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)