Wikipedia talk:RFA as RFC

Explanation of a major change
Consider this to be an expanded edit summary of this edit. The changes I made were: I think that's it, but it's possible there were some minor tweaks in there that I've already forgotten about. --ais523 08:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed the names of sections from RfC to correspond to the proposed RfA method
 * Changed the meaning of the instructions. The previous instructions inadvertently implied, for example, that a user could not raise two different concerns, or respond to a concern whilst raising another one, and that the nominators could not respond to concerns (although the nominee could). I've relaxed the restrictions on editing other sections somewhat.
 * Moved the 'Discussion' section heading back to the bottom and renamed it (a revert of Triona); the section is to direct discussion to the talk page and stop it showing up on the main page.
 * Changed the name of some sections, and updated the page accordingly.
 * Nowiki'd some colons so they'd actually show up (because ;a:b is a definition in a definition list).

Flow
I do not quite understand the flow. The process starts with three endorsements, then goes totally negative with people only putting objections up after that... Am I missing something? Ans e ll 09:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a nomination, a space for the nominators to sign (it requires three nominators at present), oppositions, and rebuttals to the oppositions (which are positive from the nominee's point of view). --ais523 09:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Users that support the nomination should just sign in endorsement. Opposing requires a statement of objection. The 3 nominators isn't really an attempt at making the process more difficult, rather, its intended to stop applications that are doomed from the start to fail. All this is of course work in progress - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will improve RfA to leave out or encourage supporters not to have comments. I realise why there is the requirement for 3 nominators.
 * If the only positive section is rebuttals to oppositions, how focused is that on their actual work. A double negative doesn't make a positive. I think there should be two main sections, one for support and one for opposition, both of which can have opposing views put under them. The current allowance only for rebuttals to criticisms doesn't allow the scope that I feel a good "reformed" RfA process should have. Ans e ll  01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. One of the "problems" I perceive with the current RFA structure is that opposes can gain undue weight (early !votes, b'crats or admins opposing, lengthly bullet pointed minutiae). If people can also certify that they believe in the candidate's good qualities, that could help make things less poisonous. It also might cut down on the appearance of "mindless support votes". -- nae'blis 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trial run?
I'm willing, and hopefully so are others, to have a "dry run" through the process. The decision will not be binding, but will perhaps show how a real RfA in this format will look. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with running it as a simulation and treating it seriously. If it isn't a binding decision, it's probably best to run it in userspace or somewhere else 'unofficial' to prevent the problems there were last time something like this was tried (check the early history of Requests for adminship/AzaToth (2)). --ais523 07:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There'll be great big letters up the top saying "This is not official" or something. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a live trial is the only way to see how it works, as it's the only way to get realistic participation. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RFA as RFC/Werdna. No nomination or confirmations yet. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 13:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that the trial run failed due to lack of community interest.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic!
This is absolutely wonderful and necessary! Heavy kudos to whoever thought of this. --Improv 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with this
There is a fundamental flaw with this approach - it doesn't cancel out the effect of numbers in RFAs, it just cancels out the effect of Oppose 'votes'. The numbers are still there - except under this proposal the entirety of the Support 'votes' would be counted against individual divisions of Oppose 'votes'. For example, let's say a hypothetical RFA candidate gets 100 Supports and 150 Opposes. Under common sense, and current RFA procedure, they wouldn't have a chance in hell. However, if the oppose votes were on different issues, e.g. Then under this procedure a clearly rejected RFA would actually pass. Cynical 08:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 50 over civility concerns
 * 30 over lack of experience
 * 70 over previous vandalism
 * In that situation, I would expect a bureaucrat to fail the nomination. It all comes down to bureaucrat's discretion. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 10:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cynical, Consensus building is not about numbers, it's about arguments. Forcing people to use arguments rather than paying so much attention to the numbers will result in decisions that are more in line with policy and that are better reasoned. Raw numbers are a factor, but they're not the only factor. --Improv 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but who can objectively decide which side has better reasoning? How does this process prevent opposers and supporters from just rubberstamping all objection and rebuttal sections?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better to rely on judgement from long-term users who care about and understand the project, based on arguments/discussion than raw numbers of votes. Objectivity isn't part of policy -- we need good judgement more. --Improv 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to segregate the community into long-term and others? What is the difference between objectivity and "good judgement"? If it is one editors opinion about what is good for the project based solely on the fact that they know they care about the project then you are not assuming good faith in others. I agree that raw votes is not the way to do it though.  Ans e ll  02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RfB seems like a fairly good way to find those capable of making decisions. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with this.
Namely, directing discussion to the talk page. With an RfC, you do not really care if you get a debate, since the idea is simply to get feedback. However, with an RfA, debating is important to build a consensus, which is unneeded in RfC. What reason is there to direct all actual discussion to the talk page? Modeling the process for granting adminship after a dispute resolution process seems like it wouldn't work well, since you ideally do not want to have to resolve disputes, so it's not necessarily designed to be something you want to go through. This is better than certain other proposals to "improve" RfA, at least. -Amarkov babble 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who still has this page watchlisted...
...may want to look at Requests for adminship/Matt Britt, which appears to be a trial run of a similar process. --ais523 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)