Wikipedia talk:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC

Closing

While I see the intent behind the "Instructions for closers", I think it is best to let the closer determine how it is closed rather than the drafter. The rules described resemble a vote more than an actual determination of consensus.

The default bar for consensus on this RfC is supermajority support (67%). If any proposal(s) reach(es) at least that level of support, that/those proposal(s) will be counted as having attained consensus, and the rest will be discounted.

That is how a vote works, not how consensus is determined. Any closer who counts up 67% and decides that means consensus is not doing their job at judging consensus. These things should be closed through the process described in WP:CONSENSUS and not by an arbitrary percent based bar. HighInBC 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I thought of all you said, but the idea was to prevent too much discretion from being in the hands of one closer. I've always understood that consensus is not a vote, but since this is an extremely controversial issue, the idea was to prevent the closer from having disproportionate influence on what were considered "good" proposals in the future. What if they simply discard a proposal because "I like the oppose arguments better" (while invoking so-called "discretion") or "it only got 65% support". What if we get a biased closer who is doing it just to twist the final result to his liking? For this reason, I thought perhaps that it would be best to have some instructions rather than leave it completely open-ended. To prevent this, we could perhaps get a panel of closers. --Biblioworm 15:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as though a closure can't be challenged or reverted. What you are describing is a vote, we could have a bot close it. We have numerous trusted closers who manage to keep their bias out, we also have a whole community to review any close that be out of line. I see no reason to abandon the system of consensus that has served us all these years, this topic is not that special. HighInBC 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative I have seen in the past is to request that more than one uninvolved editor cooperate to determine consensus. A common requirement is three. That way there is a higher confidence level that the closure is correct. In a voting scenario like this, I don't see that it would necessarily make a difference, though.--Aervanath (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please explain what "election" has to do with this?

RFA might be lots of things, depending on your point of view. It is not an election. There is no competition, no choice and voting is not based on a manifesto. It is a binary choice. More of an approval process. Leaky Caldron 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are mostly just using the word "election" as a stand-in for "vote"; possibly technically incorrect, but I don't think it makes anything less clear.--Aervanath (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: I hope nobody is comparing RfA to Unconditional election. Do you think this guy would pass RfA today?

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to "SNOW-close" the clear winners losers after about a week?

It's 24 hours in (with 2 days to go to add new proposals).

About half of the proposals are either very strongly supported or very strongly opposed. Do we want to "WP:SNOW-close" those heading for certain defeat after about a week? What about those whose support remains super-strong after a week?

The only reasons I can think of not to early-close them is if it looks like the comments in future "yes/no/comment" posts will be more useful than having lots of open discussions or if the "tally" is deceptive, such as many mutually-conflicting "conditional support"-type statements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire reform project would be subverted by snowing anything. One of the ones that's heavily favored is attracting more participants to RfA; it seems like it would be counterproductive to prevent other people from joining the conversation about how to fix RfA. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 07:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the proposals should be given the full 30 days. There is nothing to gain from cutting discussion short on an RFC like this.--Aervanath (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 30 days after the first 72 hours ran (i.e. 30 days from October 18, roughly) would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular editor but this motion whatever it is is and the debate are utterly unintelligible to me. All the best with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.86.7 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2

If this is phase 1, what's phase 2? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing everyone on this list who isn't a clear-cut obvious WP:NOTNOW or "WP:NOTEVER" that running for adminship won't be a trial by fire. Ok, I'm kidding, that's phase 3. In all seriousness, you asked a very good question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little humour never hurt anybody. But seriously, is discussing reforms for the RfA phase 1? And if not, what is phase 1? And, like I said before, what's phase 2? I'm not joking I'd like to know! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not neutral, but FWIW, I think the main value of Phase 1 is Realpolitik ... that is, it helps to tell you where the votes are, so that people don't waste time in Phase 2 working on stuff that probably won't happen, at least not now. Options C and D currently have high supporting percentages, but it's not clear what specific changes they would lead to ... maybe we'll answer that question in Phase 2. Or, it might be that when C and D are turned into concrete plans, consensus disappears ... if that happens, I hope people will consider my backup plan (it's one of the last sections). - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The low rate of promotions at RfA (none in September, one in October) is probably one issue driving the high supporting percentages for proposals C and D, and who knows what we'll see in Phase II. Sadly, on WP and in real-life ~~politics~~, when problems like this one get stuck for a long time, breaking the impasse usually involves some finger-pointing. I wish I could do something to help with the RfC, but I can't ... I can't be or be considered neutral until something happens (for better or worse) to boost promotion rates. If things change, I'll meditate on whether I've lost my bias. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Dear all,

At the talk page of WP:RFA Biblioworm asked for ideas on how to lighten the load on admins. This as a follow up of this Phase I RfC, which showed community consensus that we should somehow try to lighten the load on admins. I made a suggestion and a bureaucrat indicated that it was an interesting idea, but it needed to be developed and put forward at a different venue. As such, I would like to ask you for feedback on the proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]