This project is largely dormant but it is still watched and contains a vast resource of reliable research data that is still relevant today and will often be cited in discussions.
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.
Contrary to the Wikipedia mantra 'Adminship is not a big deal', it is - because of the very stressful and oft humiliating experience of the inquisition itself. The trials and tribulations of being a sysop come later. - User:Kudpung
The problem with RfA is NOT the process. It is the participants. - User:Fetchcomms
We need to disengage ourselves from the community's anger over admin abuse, and we need to find a way not to get in a candidate's face when they show up for RFA. - User:Dank
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.
Possible proposals – A basic summary of ideas that the task force is developing and queuing for development based on the active discussions above.
Talk
Current admin count: 859 (
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)
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.
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.
^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.
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
While the task force is currently inactive, the membership list below is retained for historical puroposes.
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.
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
Consider reading the comments on the
project talk page first before joining this list. This is not a list of passive supporters for the project. Joining here assumes you are already firmly in favour of reform, and can invest time to regularly and actively take part in its development.
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.---BalloonmanNO! 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
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