Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives/Pre-RfA Proposal

Clarify

So, does this mean that you would have two identical Rfas? Wouldn't this make the process more stressful? I mean, if you answer the very same questions, what would you put on your "real" Rfa? The same ones? Isn't this duplicating it and making it harder? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't answer the same questions. The questions are already answered. This would be the beginning of your RFA in that the entire page gets moved. A person would start the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pre-RFA/Example (or something like that). After 3 days, they can close it if they no longer wish to proceed, or they can move it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example. After moving it, everything would be treated as a normal RFA and more questions could be asked, but all of the earlier discussion is available. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you look at the code for the pre-Rfa page, you will notice that it is exactly the same as an RfA page except the voting sections are wrapped in a comment code. Once the page has been moved, the comment code would be removed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I've been quiet

Ryan asked me to comment on this a few days ago, and I've been hesitant because I think it's a great idea - depending on the route you want to take it. I think there's almost too many options for it!

I think that something like this would be a great service to offer, in a similar manner to request a nomination. With enough publicity, it might help. As that would be a additional "service", it could be implemented without community consensus at any point.
- if it's a service, we would need to dress it up as such - pointing out that this will be a public review of you, but less harsh than RfA.
- we don't need to follow the same RfA system - we can tackle issues dead on. Perhaps have sections that people can comment on - Deletion work / NPP / temperment / etc.
It could be incorporated in any "alternative" system - for example, after x days of discussion, a decision could be made, perhaps by committee, perhaps by a crat (making it more of a discussion) or by a secure (not visible) vote. There's a few ways this could be taken

So basically, I think this has the makings of a great idea, but I think it needs to be pushed in a slightly different direction. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an alternative system is created and this method was incorporated into the alternative system I agree with the things you have stated. If an alternative system is not created or is not created in a way that this can be incorporated, I don't think it would be useful just as a service. At least not useful in the way I intended. If it was only a service, it would be great at letting editors know they are not ready for adminship and describing the things they need to do to change. That is all good and well; however, it wouldn't impact the actual RfA in the way I would like it too. There are a couple of things that could be changed so that it could be offered as a service and impact the RfA. Currently, I like the idea of the comments, questions, and discussion being carried over to the RfA. If we choose not to have the Pre-RfA follow a similar system as the actual RfA, the entire discussion from the Pre-RfA could be transcluded to the talk page of the actual RfA. Without one of these two things happening, I believe the service wouldn't help candidates succeed in their RfA's. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get that - but I think you'll struggle to get past the community as a requirement. Don't let my opinion on that deter you though, I can smell a change coming and it might be this! Worm^TT · (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I swing this by the discussion on a new parallel system of RfA? I'd probably start a new thread so it doesn't get lost. If they don't like it, we can go back to discussing this as a service. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it, no. In my opinion, nothing's going to come of the Jimbo thread - you have a lot more chance of getting something done based on this thread here and when it's gone through a bit of discussion, taking it to the pump. Similarly if you were to post at WT:RFA - they're good places for notifications, but the amount of pointless discussion you'll get will be relatively disheartening. Leave it here and useful discussion will happen - but remember it doesn't happen quickly. That's just my opinion though, feel free to push it in either of those locations if you disagree. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm finding myself totally in agreement with Worm, here. There are so many potential benefits to a Pre-RFA that it's hard to know where to start trying to list them (so, being an idle get, I won't even try!) I too can smell a change in the air - and it may well be either this or, more probably, something which has evolved from this. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Copied from WT:RFA2011: I'd proposed a similar idea to Ryan's "pre-RFA" proposal in a thread back in June. In that discussion, it was mentioned that a similar pre-RFA questioning/discussion session before !voting was tried at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 back in 2008, and largely regarded a failure due to !voters showing up with other reasons to oppose that had not been discussed in the "pre-RFA" period. I suggested that we require !voters to participate in the discussion period, but this idea was quickly shot down on the grounds that it would "deviate the RFA process from its true intention: to let the community decided whether or not a user can be trusted with adminship. However, I fail to understand why it's too much to ask to require !voters to participate in discussion first. Is three days not enough time for this occur? Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you would effectively be reducing the length of time that people can vote for to 3 days, from the current 7. Also, users are likely to game the system by putting in a small comment which may not include any discussion so that they can vote. What's more, if you're only planning to support, why do you need to comment at all - you agree with the nomination, surely concurring is sufficient. No, I think exclusion of the editors who do not think that RfA is the be all and end all... you know, those busy building an encyclopedia... is a bad idea. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with the issue is that editors who are not online during the discussion phase would be excluded from voting. It isn't always because they chose not to take part in the Pre-RfA. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I never suggested excluding those editors from the RFA process (apologies if I misunderstood your comment). And I do not, personally, hold the belief that RFA is the "end-all be-all"; as a matter of fact, I'd just prefer doing away with the process all together (which, alas, is not feasible at this point in time). @Ryan Vesey: You've provided a very valid concern. It's worth mentioning, however, the quandary that this proposal creates (i.e. I'm a bit confused as to whether you want to shorten the actual RFA itself; is it still a week? The entire process, pre-RFA included, might get to be a bit extensive if it lasts more than a week, is this what you intend?). I think the proposal, in general, is a good idea, but there are some clarifications that need to be made before this goes to the community. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that enough issues have been found with the proposal by Worm earlier and the way it was tried before that we should focus discussion on my modification of the proposal into a parallel process of RfA as suggested on Jimbo Wale's talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the concerns here; I think there will be ways around them. We just need to be creative in coming up with those. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]