Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011

A request that this page title be changed to Wikipedia talk:RfA review/2011 is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.

Shortcut

WP:RFA2011

This page in a nutshell: This is a collection of suggestions for a proposal for reform of the admin selection process and links to its discussion pages on the various aspects of possible reform. Other views and solutions are more than welcome on its talk page.

This project is divided into sub pages in order to keep discussions focused and on track.
Read the main page first, then join a discussion on the respective page.
Please do not start a new thread or a new sub page on something that is already under discussion - see the TOC on each talk page.

Welcome! Some Wikipedians have formed a task force to better organize discussions and make viable proposals for RfA reform. This project contains their suggestions, resources, and things to discuss. If you would like to be of active help, please join the task force page. Many pages, proposals and discussions fall under the scope of this project, and all that information may seem overwhelming. Don't be intimidated! It's all neatly organized in the pink box above.

The project has two major goals:

Making RfA a more attractive proposition for experienced editors.
Reducing the number of unlikely successful requests for adminship.

Anyone can comment on any of these proposals.
Please post comments at the related sub pages; please consider suggesting any major changes to this main page on its talk page.
Please keep your participation on topic—side-tracking or irrelevant comments may be struck or archived at the discretion of the task force.
If you join the task force, it is hoped you will moderate, motivate, and stimulate. It may take up some of your time, and it is highly recommended that you are familiar with the RfA process and have a working knowledge of core Wikipedia functions and policies.
The task force aims to achieve their resolutions with a minimum of background noise in a reasonable time. They will make their suggestions from a synthesis of the ideas that are being submitted. These will lead to reforms that can be proposed to the community.

Objectives

Fairer questioning – eliminating patently irrelevant and trick questions.
Fairer voting – eliminating nonsense votes.
Fairer closing – easier for the 'crat to reach a decision.
More voter discipline – by calling on a more experienced electorate.
No more SNOW/NOTNOW applications.
Enables a possible lowering of the bar to 70–60% in place of the current 80–70%.

What this project is not about

These items are not within the remit of the current project. They are, or have been, the subject of perennial discussions around Wikipedia, in particular at WT:RfA. To learn more, follow the links above to some of the more recent discussions, or use keywords in the WT:RfA archive search box.

Length of tenure of admins
Age limit: See: 12 years old
Unbundling of sysop tasks and tools: See Unbundling the tools, Unbundling makes sense, Unbundle the Block button, "Trusted and experienced editors.", A philosophical discussion, Senior Sysop
Probationary or trial adminship
Preparing future admins through mentoring or training
Desysopping: See Notes below at:^[1] ^[2]^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]^[7]
Bureaucrats and their tasks

Notes (desysopping)

^ CDA
^ Guide to CDA
^ CDA RfC
^ CDA userboxen
^ A standard recall (or Archive #213)
^ De-admining (or Archive #213)
^ Cirt desysopped - Confirms again that sanctions are fully operable, and demonstrates that admins - even respected and prolific contributors - can be demoted for any infractions of accepted behaviour.

RfA reform progress

For a more comprehensive list of ideas conceived by this reform, please visit the Possible proposals page

This section details the progress which has been made since RfA reform 2011 started.

Changes to RfA

(Since 11 July)

A warning now shows when you try to create a new RfA, as well as on transclusion, with suggested reading material and pointing out that users should not undertake an RfA lightly. See the edit notice and WP:Requests for adminship/New message for examples.
To encourage those editors who would make good admins but who are unwilling to put themselves forward, a new process has been created WP:Request an RfA nomination. The editors there are willing to review candidates, and either write an RfA nomination for them, or explain to why they believe the candidate is currently unsuitable.
Kudpung's very helpful essay, WP:Advice for RfA candidates, has been moved to Wikipedia space.

Proposals put forward to the community

None as yet

Firm proposals

Clerks - a proposal for a new role to oversee the RfA process, similar to Arbcom clerks.
Minimum requirement - a (perennial) proposal to put in a minimum requirement to apply for adminship.

Other proposals

(See What this project is not about)

Still at the drawing board, these proposals need more work before they are presented to the community:

Improvement to current process
Radical changes
User:Tyrol5/De-adminship reform - a separate project, focusing on de-adminship reform.
Pre-RfA proposal
Sysop on request

Essential reading for task force members

User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform – Takes the reform items one-by-one with critical comments. Essential.
Jimbo Wales – RfA is a horrible and broken process – Necessary reading
User:ErrantX/Essays/RFA Study – Survey on the RfA experience
Kudpung's RfA criteria – Also provides some analysis of RfA voting and questioning
Other users' RfA criteria & essays
User talk:Dank/RFA – Helping candidates when they first create their RFA page; making a clear statement that RFA doesn't give admins a license to delete specific pages or block specific users if there's been a serious effort by the community to consider the question, and consensus was not reached
User:Aaron Schulz/New RfA method – 2006 – but still relevant
User:NoSeptember/Adminship is a big deal – Short summary-style views of one user
The Wikipedia RfA talk page – General discussion on RfA matters

Task force

This is a list of those who feel they can collaborate with each other to move this RfA reform project along. Just sign your name the normal way. No comments other than your signature are needed. Outside views are more than welcome on the various talk pages.

Coordinators

Kudpung (talk) • Pyfan (talk) • Swarm (talk) • Worm That Turned (talk)

Coordinators?

The Coords keep the discussions tidy, on track, and on the right pages, and check for signatures and page links, and develop sub pages and templates as required, etc. They offer their own suggestions and opinions in the normal way. Italicized names are inactive or on an extended Wikibreak.

Participants

Add yourself to the list!

Swarm ^X 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ϣere SpielChequers 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not sure if the above criteria are wrong to begin with... I think the whole notion has to be reworked. No more !voting.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC) (retired from Wikipedia)[reply]
'User:M.O.X (talk) • 9:05pm •'Formerly Ancient Apparition, formerly Fridae'sDoom. 10:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MacMed^talk _stalk 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--SPhilbrick T 04:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Errant ^(chat!) 08:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corruptcopper (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 8 May 2012)[reply]
Jus da fax 09:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I'll be part-time but will attempt to give quality input. This topic is vital.[reply]
Baseball Watcher 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 20 June 2011)[reply]
Keepscases (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (currently ~~blocked~~ unblocked for disruption at RfA)[reply]
This seems to be a perennial discussion/project/proposal item, but I am always in favor of any improvements if possible. — Ched : ? 07:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Fly by Night (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork *^YES! 09:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback talk 02:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (Indef banned from Wikipedia)[reply]
--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (retired from Wikipedia)[reply]
—W F C— 03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alzarian16 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--cera don 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—mc10 (t/c) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) More so once the autoconfirmed trial gets underway; hopefully that won't be too long.[reply]
~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Cerejota (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Divide et Impera (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 17 December 2011)[reply]
Trusilver 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moogwrench (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 17 December 2011)[reply]
--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irondome (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long message list for Message Delivery Bot. Includes task force and all users who have posted on the project talk pages

[1] CDA

[2] Guide to CDA

[3] CDA RfC

[4] CDA userboxen

[5] A standard recall (or Archive #213)

[6] De-admining (or Archive #213)

[7] Cirt desysopped - Confirms again that sanctions are fully operable, and demonstrates that admins - even respected and prolific contributors - can be demoted for any infractions of accepted behaviour.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

v t e RfA reform 2011: Main page, sub pages, and their sections
Please add comments/new threads on the appropriate talk pages
Main page	About this project – Project overview Talk What this project is not about Goals Objectives Essential reading for task force members
Candidates	Minimum requirements – Proposal to include a minimum requirement for RfAs. Talk Criteria for candidates – Sortable tables and discussion on criteria for adminship. Ideas for WP:NOTNOW prevention. Talk Unsuccessful candidates – Tables: Tenure, edit counts, what they are doing now. More resources for WP:NOTNOW prevention. Talk
Voting	Voting – Extensive data, tables, and graphs on voting patterns and participation. Talk RfA questions – Sortable tables. Controversial questions posed by voters at RfA April 2010 – April 2011. Talk Tool: RfA Vote Counter. Complete breakdown of any editor's RfA votes.
Clerking	RfA Clerks – Ideas for clerks to moderate RfA. Talk
Draft proposals	Possible proposals – A basic summary of ideas that the task force is developing and queuing for development based on the active discussions above. Talk
Radical alternatives	Radical alternatives – Ideas and suggestions for entirely new RfA systems. Talk Pre-RfA proposal – Suggestion to have a "pre-RfA". Sysop on request - a radical alternative for creating a two-tiered admin process, where the one tier can be requested based on criteria.
Downturn	Downturns - Chart, stats, and summary of RfA nominations 2010 - 2011
Task force	Project coordinators Active participants
Current admin count: 848 (list all), 733 of them active (as of 10 September 2011). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months. 235 have not edited in at least 3 months. (list)