Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Ryan Vesey

Some notes

This was a proposal I drafted for RfA reform 2011. After I went to college, the proposal didn't receive much attention. I have two proposals on this page, and perhaps I should split it into two separate proposals. The first would involve an overhaul of RfA and would be similar to the current proposal by Thine Antique Pen. The second would be a slight modification designed to increase discussion with the candidate and allowing the candidate to halt the RfA after discussion, but before it formally occurs. I welcome any comments and editors are free to edit the proposal page directly; however, if you plan to actually change something of substance, it would be great if you mentioned it on the talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong ... I'm assuming clerks will be elected. This would be a form of representative democracy, an idea that several people mentioned on the the talk page of the current Signpost article. It's certainly not a wild-eyed idea ... but I think you'll agree there will be some resistance. Do you think people would be more willing to vote for this on the basis of a good argument made in an RFC, or would they be more willing to accept a committee's authority after the committee had demonstrated their competence and good will for, oh, three months? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view this as a representative democracy. Perhaps it is, but the admin clerks' votes would be based on the discussion and their evaluation of the candidates. I actually still haven't had a chance to read the signpost article or its talk page. This could certainly wait another 3 months, it has waited almost a year already and it would have more weight if thoroughly examined by a committee and endoresed by said committee. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longer RFAs

Your second option for a period of discussion and questioning before running looks like a system that was tested a couple of years ago in one of Ironholds less successful runs. As I remember it the disadvantages were that the editor had to be around and answering questions for an even longer period, and there were even more questions. I think if we are going to improve RFA we should try to make it less stressful and shift the focus away from questioning the candidate and back to reviewing their contributions. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a very good point and I don't know if I would still propose something that would make RfA longer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the duration of RfA would simply prolong the agony. I believe that the question section has got out of hand on many, but not all, RfAs, and many questions appear to be posed by new/inexperienced voters trying to be clever by taking part in meta areas in many ways similar to the problems on NPP, XfD, and AN/I, to cite but a few examples. The issues surrounding RfA questions was fully examined (again with data and diffs) and discussed at WP:RFA2011. As WereSpielChequers points out, the effort should be to make the process less stressful, and that, IHMO, can only be achieved by introducing some control over the voters. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]