Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by TheSpecialUser

Comments

I haven't had ability to do a few review, but I would like to say that I like the concept behind this. The biggest difficulty, in my opinion, will be in seeking approval for an adminship trial. The percentages might be a bit too bureaucratic if this then 75% if that then 70% and it might be best left to a bureaucrat to decide with rough guidelines given. Then there would be one guideline, say 80 automatically receives adminship, 70 goes to Post-Review, 60 is left to bureaucrat, anything less fails. Any deviations from that can be based on bureaucratic discretion based on the Pre-RfA. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look again, I feel that I have made it "too" complicated. Anyways, I'll be re-adjusting per your comment. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about now? →TSU ^tp* 20:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between success and no consensus? They seem to have the same result. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missed it. Now, I better go to bed. If there still exists few silly points such as that, please do make changes to it. Have a nice day! →TSU ^tp* 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the Pre-RfA section. It's basically announcing to the world that you're going thru an RfA and that reminds me of canvassing. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that it is not canvassing. The Pre-RfA work would be in good faith and it won't be intended to attract voters to get a desired outcome. According to this, when a user notifies other users with intention of gaining their participation to get the outcome one-sided, it is canvassing.

Right now, users are coming to know about a RfA which has just started by either RfA-RfB box, or the user puts a RfA mbox on their talk and userpage or they would be stalking the WP:RFA. The Pre-RfA page nor would appear on the Rfa box as it is not a RfA and nor the user would put a rfa mbox on their talk or userpage. So the 3rd option about stalking a page would be the only way for users to come to know unless the candidate does "off-wiki canvass" or if a mass of users would be "hounding" the candidate.

Main thing; The policy also says this: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Hope that I was helpful. If you still have any doubts, feel free to ask. Cheers! :) →TSU ^tp* 15:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding too much complexity to the RFA. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least it will prevent deserving candidates from loosing and create a better chance. →TSU ^tp* 01:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a candidate is truly deserving, the won't lose. If they do lose by any chance, they'll go thru another RfA and will get thru if they truly are deserving of the mop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But recently, many RfAs ended up with 70% to 75% and due to this, they were closed as no consensus. Going through the opposes, you will find few lame rationals used and few very strong which happened back in past. So thus, if a candidate is deserving and just can't quite get there, they would still have a chance with them. And as you are ative here for 3 years or some, you would have noticed that number of RfAs have decreased. Even admins have raised this concern and many consider this current system as broken (though their views don't make any difference, but something has to be wrong if number of RfAs and active admins reduce more then 60%). →TSU ^tp* 01:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one reviews a couple of hundred serious RfAs, it becomes apparent (at least to me) that generally, those who should pass, do, and those who should not, do not. The few who fail marginally often come back and pass at a future attempt after having taken on board all the suggestions for improvement. Creating pre- and post-RfAs will just multiply the number of venues for nastiness - the very cause of the problems and the dearth of candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]