User talk:A930913/Archives/2011/Jan

Adminship proposal

I closed your meta-proposal at WP:VPP, it's not going to fly. By all means suggest ways to improve RfA, but coming up with a rigid structure like that which relies upon proposers owning their proposals, and upon polling rather than debate and consensus is not going to be agreed to. You might be interested in reading WP:CDA to see the complexity of trying to get reform in the areas of adminship. Fences&Windows 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I know the complexity of this. ~70% want change and ~30% don't. That means there should be change. The problem is, that when it comes to voting on what the change should be, it's more like ~20% want method A, ~25% want method B and ~25% want method C. On this vote (but we can't call it a vote) no change wins out. My method there was bureaucratic, absolutely, but if it got passed, there would be change. The vote (which isn't a vote) gets the people to put their name to method with the highest vote in the latter stages. This means that if the ~70% passed my motion, even if the highest method vote is 20%, the ~70% who voted originally, effectively pass that method, even if at that stage they do not particularly agree with it. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is bureaucratic, but after all the failures of the non bureaucratic ones, surely this deserves to be tried? 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 04:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We can thrash out the various ideas in an informal forum, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform [edit: oh, that's a bluelink!], and work out via discussion which ideas might have merit and which might be stillborn. The problem with your proposal is that it automatically favours reform even if the community actually genuinely prefers the status quo once they've examined all the alternatives. Just as one parliament cannot bind future parliaments, so one poll of Wikipedians cannot compel future Wikipedians to adopt a proposal they disapprove of! Fences&Windows 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In summary - good, simple ideas are more important than procedure if you want to reform RfA. Fences&Windows 20:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)