Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Egg Centric

Simple proposal

Find ten admins who all agree a user should be an admin, and have the consent of that user, and they can become an admin. Find ten admins who all feel an admin ought to be desysopped, and they are. Either proposal, however, can be resisted by finding one hundred admins who disagree. In that case the ten admins behind the proposal are instead desysopped themselves. Bureaucrats can also override any or all parts of this if they feel it is in the interests of the project and/or fairness.

Discussion

This implements every requirement. It is an exceptionally simple system. It will result in a lot more reasonably adequete (and reasonably adequete is fine if adminship really is no big deal) admins and a lot less drama. Egg Centri c 20:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - admins shouldn't become a sort of smoke-filled room/star chamber cabal. - jc37 20:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about juries randomly selected from a pool taken from volunteers in advance, assuming involved jurors are excluded from the second, smaller pool? What if the larger pool was randomly selected from volunteers eligible to vote in Board of Trustees' elections instead of just any volunteers? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeHere is a problem, how many times have we seen RfA's in which ten admins may !vote in support but 20 or 30 may oppose. It is highly unlikely that you are going to find 100 admins who care enough to oppose, especially knowing it will result in the desysopping of ten admins. In addition, why should the opinion of those 10, or 100 admins be any more important than my opinion? This tends to be a bit cabalish. In fact, ten admins would have the power to grant sysop tools to 100 admins who could then control the entire encyclopedia. Highly unlikely, but those are the problems that I see. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I support restructuring an RFA2012. Can we move this to Wikipedia:RFA2012/Cabal? Or something similar. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of the point. If adminship is really no big deal then anyone who can't get a hundred admins against them should be given it. Otherwise the guidelines should be updated. Egg Centri c 20:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface by saying that I'm inclined to oppose this proposal on its own for the sake of non-cabalism, but the following is only a procedural question for the sake of discussion. How would a prospective administrator get the attention of ten administrators without appearing to be canvassing? Would there be a venue for administrators to review editors potentially qualified to become administrators themselves and subsequently support giving them the tools? Also, the 100 administrator number for overruling the ten administrators' decisions, although probably arbitrary at this point, seems a bit high. And lastly, could this process possibly coexist with the existing RFA process? Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the number of admins required to overrule just 10 of them, and I can hardly agree with desysopping those 10 original admins just for disagreement. They could always be desysopped later. I'd also like to note that WP:INVOLVED would have to apply greatly and that a particular group of 10 admins should be limited to at most 1 action per week to avoid "lynch mobs".--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It seems extremely harsh to desysop someone just for putting someone forward to be an Admin. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too radical. What if more than ten people say no to supporting this candidate?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't necessarily support the proposal in its current form, but does that prevent us from making or suggesting changes to it? No, it doesn't. Editors don't necessarily have to oppose because the disagree with one or two aspects of the proposal. We can change it, and I'm sure Egg Centric would be open to suggestions; that's the purpose of discussion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You seriously put forth a proposal that has ZERO input from non-admins? MF would have a field day, except for the SNOW inevitability.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Admins shouldn't have any greater governance authority then regular editors, they have additional tools, but outside a few narrowly tailored areas, they don't get any greater say in things then ordinary editors. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose having a panel appoint admins isn't a bad idea, but we need community involvement either to elect the panel or to set the criteria they use to appoint admins. Also the idea of losing ten admins because their choice turned out to be duff is troublesome. I could name several exadmins who had more than ten admins amongst their supporters, there have also been quite a few RFAs which failed despite having ten admin supporters. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admins shouldn't be appointing admins. That gives admins a lot more "power" than should be included in the role. Admins shouldn't have more of a voice in any community decisions, the role is to press a button. Sometimes that button pressing includes weighing consensus - but it should not include supervoting. As for the numbers - in a hypothetical 10 support and 90 oppose, there is no way that person should be given the tools. It's hard enough to get 100 people to comment! Worm^TT(talk) 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, get ten friends and you can be an admin. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Worm. Adminship is supposed to be 'no big deal' - let's not think up ways to turn them into supervoters; one of the very problems with RfA is that alot of the oppose votes come from people who are opposed to adminship in general, and probably because they've scuppered their own chances at getting the bit by being constantly uncivil. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done

I don't think I agree with this proposal, but I do feel that something needs to be done. At this point, RFA is dying, with successful nominations per month dropping to pretty much all time lows that haven't been seen for years and years back to the very beginning of Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 21:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, if anyone followed a link directly here, please see Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012. This is also a formal invitation to work on the project as a whole. I have started discussion on Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2012 as to how we will format the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]