User talk:Application Drafter/Sysop applications draft

Author's comments
I posted the following comments on the userpage, but moved them now to this talk page with minor edits:

The following changes are suggested:


 * Mark "Requests for Adminship" as historical, and open the new process, "Sysop Applications."
 * Replace the standard three RFA questions with the six questions shown below.
 * Question 3 - how the applicant intends to use the sysop tools - is similar to old question 1.
 * Question 4, asking for the applicant's article writing experience, is based on old Question 2.
 * I have removed old question 3 about conflicts with other users.
 * Questions 1 and 2 are added to establish minimum criteria. Only one user (Lustiger.seth) who failed these criteria has become a sysop in the last several years.  Having these criteria on the application should eliminate the need for WP:NOTNOW closes to premature RFAs.
 * Questions 5 and 6 are added to establish the candidate's character for honesty. Why this wasn't done years ago after the Archtransit scandal is hard for me to understand.  Disclosure of material negative information should be expected of all applicants.
 * Remove the old system of voting "support", "oppose", or "neutral" with a reason in your vote. Instead, vote "support" or "oppose" without giving a reason.  Then, if you choose to give a reason, you may comment in the "Concerns" section or on the talk page of the Application.
 * This change will reduce the "pile-on" effect of oppose voting. Normally, in old RFAs, support voters vote without saying much, whereas oppose voters write long comments.  The oppose votes are disorganized insofar as oppose vote number 13 may refer back to oppose votes number 2 and 6.  The cumulative effect of oppose votes with long reasons is to say "we hate you."
 * The new model removes this asymmetry. You can still oppose, but you can't say more in your oppose vote than a supporter would say in her support vote.  The cumulative effect of bare support and oppose votes is "some of us like you, and some don't."  To the extent that reasons for opposing the candidate need to be explained, the voter can explain in the "Concerns" section.
 * No "neutral" votes. If you don't want to vote, nobody is forcing you.  Neutral votes are pointless.
 * We can decide later what a passing score should be. For now we can allow bureaucrats to use their discretion as they currently do.

The following features will be maintained from the old RFA process:
 * Bureaucrats decide the outcome after a 7-day discussion.
 * A nominator may praise the candidate. That is probably the one positive aspect of old RFA that is worth preserving.

Application Drafter (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Thanks for launching this. I strongly support the idea of a more structured application. A few thoughts:
 * The "competence" section should be placed first; no point in continuing if the conditions are not satisfied.
 * Maybe there should be separate subsections for each of the main admin tasks: experience & intentions on - deletion discussions; content disputes; counter-vandalism; any specialist skills.
 * There should be a distinct section covering conflict resolution skills. We won't expect every candidate to shine in all respects, but they do need to be good at dealing with conflict.
 * Now about the voting process. I propose a week following the application going up for comments, questions, and replies from the candidate, grouped under each section of the application. Then a week for voting: just a straight vote, no more talk. That way all votes are cast based on the same information. (I know it's possible at present to change a vote, but how many do?) Noyster  (talk),  09:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just going to come here and say this last point exactly. It would be better even if no other changes are made to the process for there to be a comment period (bring up strengths & weaknesses, let nominee respond) followed by a voting period, and for there to be no overlap. I would go so far as to say that discussion would not be allowed during the voting period. If the vote is close, then perhaps reopen discussions, but I think at that point it goes to the crats anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept your suggestion to put competence first, and will do so.
 * It is important not to make the RFA process excessively long. On the one hand, editors who login only once a week should be given a chance to participate.  On the other hand, the candidate should not be left hanging for a long time.  I would be willing to extend the process to 10 days but no further: 3 days for concerns and comments, followed by 7 days voting.  Comments and concerns would be allowed during the voting period.
 * If this proposal gains traction - which has not happened yet - we can worry about adding a question on conflict resolution. My opinion is that this question is not an important part of the process.  Most admin work does not require conflict resolution skills. Application Drafter (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alt accounts
The alt accounts question need to be restated to make clear that they don't have to publicly reveal previous accounts and can instead privately reveal them to trusted users. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments
I am slightly wary of the "Competence" questions. The nature of the questions implies that applicants are suitable if they have reached those minimum thresholds. However some !voters might consider six months not long enough, while others might consider it unnecessarily long for a highly active applicant. Similarly, some !voters might consider 2,000 edits as insufficient. Also, the questions are not really related to "Competence". The other questions look reasonable. I would like to see a "Neutral" !voting section. I disagree with the claim that "Neutral votes are pointless." It is certainly possible for neutral !voters to provide helpful (constructive) feedback for the applicant. I don't really see a need for a "Discussion" section. !voters can include their reasoning with their !votes, as they do at the moment. Axl ¤  [Talk]  14:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with Axl, except for "discussion". We have one now, but it is at the top above support and below the drop box, which is a horrible place.  Having at the bottom is best, and is consistent with how we do most polls.  It would be better to move most threaded discussion there instead of in the polling section, although I'm not sure you could get support for forcing threads below.  As for the "competence" section, he and I completely agree, it isn't necessary and might be misleading.  This sneaks in a minimum standard, to which the community have overwhelmingly rejected in the past, while solving nothing in exchange.  Do yourself a favor and cut it.  The "character" section seems a bit awkwardly worded, almost accusatory, but the overall questions are fine and relevant.  I don't think you can say they "must" do anything, as technically, they can refuse to answer any question and policy clearly says you can't compel someone to do so.  The difference here is that if they do, it will be obvious. Dennis - 2&cent; 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mandated minimum requirements have always been rejected in the past (as far as I can see, having read a lot of the back history of the RFA talk page), so I can't see that being accepted. Also, there's no need to ask whether they've been blocked when we can just look at their block log. Neatsfoot (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The block question is useful to reduce the amount of searching that !voters have to do. If one person collates the information for everyone to easily read, less !voter time is required. Also, it gives an idea of the transparency/honesty of the candidate, and shows whether the candidate has learnt from the event. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the block log is only one click away in the current RFA, so there really isn't any searching required. Perhaps a better question might be "If you have been subjected to any, please explain any blocks or other sanctions you have received"? But I'm even wary of that, because the vast majority of admin candidates have never been blocked or sanctioned and it seems like wasting space for the majority - if a candidate has any blocks or sanctions, it's sure to come up in individual questions. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)