Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 6

Straw poll (straighforward !voting, with comments in the discussion section below it) on presenting  reforms
Project organisation: This straw poll is  designed to  test  how the participants of this RfA reform project feel the reforms that  will  be proposed to  the community should eventually be presented. Please put comments in  the discussion  section  below.

You want the reforms presented as a bundled proposition. (The discussion section  is below)

 * 1) Let's be radical. Gradual reform hasn't worked in the past.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You want the reforms presented separately over a considered period of time. (The discussion section is below)

 * 1) If we present the reforms as a bundle, it is unlikely to gain consensus. The larger the change, the harder it will be to push through. If the proposals can stand alone (eg Clerks), then they should. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Historically it is not easy to get reforms pass en-mass, so this --Errant (chat!) 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) It won't be easy to introduce proposals for reforming RFA to the community, and it will take a substantial amount of time (e.g. months), but this is the best way. Tyrol5  [Talk]  15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be the smoothest way to implement reforms, unfortunately.  Swarm  X 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I think that we need to work one step at a time --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Let's wade the waters before taking a big dive. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:21pm • 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Good idea; let 'them' try eating the elephant one bite at a time, till they get used to the idea ..... Pesky  ( talk ) 09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I think one change at a time, such as with clerks, is probably best. Evolution rather than revolution might be more likely to get consensus. However, some changes might have to be bundled to work, and in those cases bundling is appropriate. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I think it is best to initiate the clerk idea and leave the rest for later. maucho eagle   14:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Getting one good proposal that's limited in scope and widely agreed upon among the task force members will give us the best shot for realistic improvement, and if it's accepted by the community, will build momentum for additional improvements. 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) People hate anything that is quick on Wikipedia. This is maximised when it comes to administrators. Being Humans in a "power" position, admins want to feel like their position is exclusive only open to the best of the best. We need to slowly change the beliefs and views of adminship, then begin the reforms. Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) In small chunks, but the order needs to be carefully crafted. If the first one passes, I can see that as making it more difficult for later changes "...but we just changed something!", so this needs to be taken into consideration. Useight (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) With something as well entrenched as RfA, it's likely that small steps will gather more support than "One Giant Step" — Ched :  ? 10:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Per all of the above, we need to do these things. With a deliberate pace that gets it right. There is a lot of talent within these ranks, and I see objectives as attainable. It's encouraging and I am optimistic. My76Strat (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You want some proposals to be presented separately, and others to be bundled. (In addition to your signature, please state very briefly which ones. (The discussion  section  is below)

 * 1) We shouldn't set timetables. Ideas should be presented when they are ready. The "clerk" idea is almost ready right now, and as a smaller change it has a chance of actually getting through and proving that change is in fact possible at RFA. If other proposals come together at or near the same time they can be presented as a bundle. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) While I generally think separate proposals will be easiest to implement, there's no reason that some proposals can't be bundled.  Swarm  X 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Ditto Swarm Pesky  ( talk ) 10:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Beeblebrox and Swarm. If a proposal is ready to go, there is no reason why it should wait to be officially proposed. If some aspects are similar, again, there is no reason why they shouldn't be bundled. Eagles  24/7  (C) 17:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely! With emphasis on if. I am equally convinced that if one proposal is ready, we shouldn't delay moving it forward to wait on the one that is not ready. My76Strat (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You think the task force should also discuss possible radically  different  systems (In addition to your signature, please state very briefly which  ones. (The discussion  section  is below)

 * 1) Presenting ideas piecemeal would be applying bandaids to the situation. It will be building upon a structure that is busted and a fight every step of the way, it's time to raze the foundation and start over.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I would rather radical ideas were discussed, though they may not be appropriate to take to proposal. No examples as yet. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Well, they should be considered. The options discussed so far are largely perennial suggestions that do not get far with the community --Errant (chat!) 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) If not adopted, they should at least be discussed. The current problems and broken-ness at RFA may very well need to be solved with a radically different system. Tyrol5  <font color="#960018">[Talk]  15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Adminship is given automatically after 2 years and 10,000 edits by the Mediawiki-system (just like "autoconfirmed"). Removal of individual adminship-flags by 50% majority-vote. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm all for radical ideas, bring em on. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I think the best process for adminship will necessarily be at least significantly different, if not radically. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Well said Balloonman, well said :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:23pm • 09:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) rollback, reviewer and autopatroller are not big deals because there is an agreed criteria and admins can appoint or remove according to that criteria. If we could agree a criteria for Adminship and crats could add or remove admin flags per that criteria then adminship would not be a big deal. Though I'd prefer a crat chat to a single crat's decision.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes; well said. Sometimes it's time to bulldoze the slums and build something better.  Drag Ironholds over here to get in on this.  Seriously.  Pesky  ( talk ) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Worthy of consideration, probably best done alongside more subtle proposals, which can supersede or be integrated with them if a more radical change gets consensus. Ideas worthy of a look at again include jury run RfAs, bureaucrat chat only RfAs, or an elected body to deal with them. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) RfA cannot continue as-is. Due to the inherent conservatism/inertia/call it what you will of a community over time, substantive change will not happen while RfA exists. I am therefore seriously proposing that Jimbo should consider deleting the thing, closing RfAs as successful/unsucessful prematurely if necessary, announce that there will be no more promotions until a new system has been devised, and then take a holiday. —WFC— 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Any changes to modify the process to become an Admin must be made in conjunction with clearly delineated means to remove the bit

 * 1) One of the major obstacles to implementing change is that removing the bit has become a major challenge/obstacle. IMO it should be easier to get the bit AND to have it taken away.  (and then re-earned.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Desysopping and/or length  of tenure are not strictly  within  the remit  of this project. It  would be a separate project needing to  be started. However, it's been a perennial  issue and there was never any  progress. As an aside note, I  don't believe anyone who  is hell  bent on  becoming  an admin is particularly  worried about  his/her future length  of tenure, and I don't  believe it's much  in  the back of the minds of the !voters either. A rough scan of the table, and comparisons with  the actual RfAs throughout  2010 appear to  show that  a large number of !voters might not  be particularly  familiar with  such  issues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) It's essential. This must be part of the discussion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Yep. See my remarks elsewhere on this page. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and see below. (teamwork but not necessarily in the same box) Pesky ( talk ) 09:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is important to show that admins are in that position due to consent from the community, and their flag is not important enough for a large process to remove it. And that it can be removed by the community just as easily as it is given. This comparison is important and that's why it needs to be shown on the same page. Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) If it is made easier to become an admin, it should be easier to be removed. In fact, it should probably be easier to be removed anyway. But, back to my first point, if the objective is to make it easier to become an admin, then desysopping will probably have to be looked at first. Useight (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) RfA should be a screening process, not a gauntlet. The only two realistic ways of achieving that are by increasing the ease with which the bit is given and taken away, or by introducing some sort of hierarchy to choose all future admins, with little real input from the community. I prefer the former.
 * It will  never happen,  not as a bundled proposition. It's difficult enough to  get  the community  to  each consensus even on  simple,  uncontentious issues.  Let's however put  aside one misunderstanding: This project  is not  in  the slightest  bit  concerned with  making  it  easier to  be granted the tools. On  the contrary, it  is considering  proposals to  reduce the number of unsuitable candidacies. Most importantly however, without  reducing  the bar, to make the process more attractive to  candidates of the right  calibre who  will  not  come forward so  long as it  remains a bloodbath. The minor changes necessary, which  concern !voter behaviour, do  stand a possible chance of being  accepted. After that, anyone is free to  start  a project  for desysoping  reform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA and desysopping need to be kept as separate threads

 * 1) I've seen discussions of a string of worthwhile reforms diverted into discussions about changing the way we remove the bit. Any reform of RFA needs to avoid such distraction, and those who do so should be politely encouraged to address the reasons why deadminship proposals tend to fail. Rather than prevent other worthwhile reforms because they are unable to get consensus for something that many consider a retrograde step.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I think they need to be kept separate, but worked on within sight of each other to make sure that things work coherently. Pesky  ( talk ) 09:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly worthy of discussion, but there is a risk another desysop proposal could derail the entire project. I think we could have serious reform, and then change de-adminship in response, or leave it with ArbCom or a sub-committee. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per all the above. I've advocated keeping it seperate elsewhere on the page, but WSC's comments below explaining why sum it better than I could. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) To sound like mallus and Giano, any proposal with desysopping included will be vetoed by the bulk of the corps de admin. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per WSC. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:36am • 23:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Thanks.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 01:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. Many Wikipedia proposals fail simply because they attempt to address too many issues at  once,  the discussions get  bogged down, and admins are reluctant to summarise and evaluate the mammoth RfCs for consensus. We just had this recently where one proposal with major board-wide implications  slumbered without constructive new comment for 4 weeks. This also comes from !vote-and-run participation without  following  the debates,  and comments and !votes by  newcomers who  don't  read the discussions from  the start. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * (Discussion and summary of the above poll (don't forget  to  sign  your comments)

Do we have a list of actual proposals to go forward with? (or that we have discussed so far). I am always uncomfortable with !votes like this because it usually suggests things are stagnant and the !vote is just for something to do :D I happened to like the idea of Clerks, so I siezed on that and built it out a bit. I suggest the best idea from here on out is for people to find an idea they really like/support, then go develop it up with task force support/input. If it reaches a point where the task force considers it ready for community appraisal then we can go from there. Waiting to package everything as a "brand new RFA" won't get far --Errant (chat!) 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ErrantX. One of the sole reasons that proposals/task forces proposing reforms like this have failed in the past is because development rarely goes beyond discussion/brainstorming. It's time to be bold and really develop the proposals, or else we'll end up like the other reform projects. The problem will only get worse, and now's the time to do something about it before it becomes a critical issue to the functioning of Wikipedia as a whole (for some, it already is). It's now the stage in the project where we need to focus, concentrate our efforts, and get the ball rolling for a better process to select those who are given the use of the administrative tools. I myself am in the process of brainstorming proposals off-wiki and expect to have them posted somewhere soon. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all this. The straw poll is just to get the organising of this project into perspective. We now have plenty of things to discuss, some of them already have their sub pages so that we don't clutter one page with mixed discussions, and we have some coordinators. Except for Balloonman's valid suggestion of looking for some radically different approaches, we can now start in earnest at the items on the suggestions list. What we need to define on this project are which of those items have been perennially abandoned as non viable, or which ones just petered out because people just got fed up of all talk and no action. All these suggestions have been made on WT:RfA at some time or another, but WT:RfA is just a chat room with 2,000 users popping in and out irregularly and not sticking to the topics. IMO, it shouldn't take long to either rule them out as non starters, or begin fully developing them. It would be a shame if this project gets bogged down like the BLPPROD did, and the current one for new page creations (which I have given up on) - there appears to be clear consensus there, but it looks (to me) as if they are now calling for consensus on the consensus because they believe a participation of 200 isn't enough! And that's a project that began with a clearly defined single objective. BLPPROD started off with 400, and 12 were left to finish the job. There will be enough problems when we propose our findings to the community.   --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating what has already been said, but I believe a straw poll on how to roll out potential solutions is premature until an agreement is reached on what the goals are for reform. Without a focused problem statement, listing the specific problems being addressed, it's hard to determine if the best approach to rolling out a solution involves a complete overhaul, or if a step-by-step approach would work. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute that the best course of action at this time is to gather as many legitimate ideas as we can in order to fix RFA, although it might not be a bad idea for us to collectively agree as to what ways we want to roll out proposals to the community community for consideration (i.e. the clerks proposal). <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  01:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The straw poll is designed entirely for purposes of internal  organisation  of this project, and in which  order we concentrate our discussions on  the various suggested items of reform. This might  help  us to  decide later whether we finally  agree to  offer them  singly  or as a bundled proposal,  depending  on  the success of reaching a task  force consensus on  the order of priorities. As an example, the discussion on  'clerks' seems to  be heading  for consensus, and could be offered very  soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your response relates to my comment, as I was discussing what needs to come before gathering ideas to fix RFA, which is to agree upon what needs to be fixed. Depending on the scope of the problem that everyone agrees to focus on at the moment, it might be suitable to figure out a step-by-step solution, or it might be suitable to lay out a more comprehensive solution as one package. Until the goals are decided, it's difficult to say which is better. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the premise that  we are mainly  considering  an overhaul of the present  system, the goal is that  reform. The sub-goals are the individual  items that  would be presented either as a complete package, or as a staggered series of smaller reforms. All the items that  should be considered are clearly  listed on the project  page. There is no stopping  us completely  ruling  any  of them  out. It's part of the consensus gathering  that the task force can be doing among themselves in  order to  advance the project. feel free to  vote on the straw poll -  that's what  it's for. Suggestions for a completely  different  admin  selection  method are not  ruled out, but  it  has been mentioned that  it  very  likely  that  such  methods are being  considered in  other places, such as WMF. For the moment, one of our suggestions, that  of clerking, seems to be making good headway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the mop is integral to this discussion
WSC asks why proposal seem to fail. They fail because people do not want to make it easier to gain the mop if it they are giving the mop to somebody who will inherent it for life with virtually no chance of removing it. As long as it is impossible to take the mop away from somebody, then giving the mop to somebody is a big deal. As long as the mop is a life time priviledge, adminship is a big deal. Instead, the whole process should be simplified, it should be a lot easier to get the mop, AND it should be a lot easier to remove the mop when necessary. There is no reason that an editor should ever see an oppose such as "Good editor, solid work, but I don't trust them with the mop." If the candidate is a good editor and a solid worker, make it easier to get the mop. If they then abuse the priviledge/mess up, make it easier to take it away. Becoming an admin shouldn't be significantly more difficult than gaining rollbacker status! BUT if it is for life and difficult to remove, then that changes the playing field. Quality candidates will be opposed because it is better to prevention then outweighs convenience. Oh yeah, and please take my voting record into account when you read this comment... I tend to oppose about half the time I !vote and yet I firmly believe that it should be easier to become an admin! Put the means in there to remove the bit painlessly and without the current stigma, and people might be willing to discuss meaningful change at RfA.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think desysopping should be an allowed punishment in addition to blocking when it comes to things like incivility. While blocking shouldn't be punitive I nevertheless think it is under these conditions.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't use the word "punishment". That's not what it is about; as long as people think in those terms, nothing's gonna change. It's not a "punishment" to desysop someone, just like isn't a "trophy" or "reward" to become one. It's simply a measure taken, and it should be easy to take that measure. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have Arbcom as an effective method of removing problematic admins, approximately 1% of active admins per annum get desysopped or resign but without automatic right to restoration of the tools. Arbcom is elected by the community and judging by the last elections there isn't a significant minority of the community who actually want a harsher Arbcom. If there was a significant minority, say 25% who wanted even more desysoppings than we already get, then how could any of the Incumbents have got over 75%? Remember if there was majority support for change we'd have seen the election of a new harsher Arbcom. Changing the policy so that you can desysop unspecified swathes of "bad admins" would require a consensus - which is much greater than the majority needed to replace Arbcom with a more desysop happy crowd. I'm not convinced that you'll get that consensus even if someone came up with a proposal which disclosed which subset of admins you actually consider "bad", and I rather suspect that any proposal which gave a broader definition of "bad admin" than Arbcom currently works to would get less support. Remember those who would support desysopping those who were willing to block vested contributors and those who want to desysop admins who unblock vested contributors have opposite intent,  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Says an admin... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a thread on my  talk  page a couple of hours ago that  may  contribute here. Says an admin... ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, 1% aint that much... that's nothing. Second, you are looking at this in the wrong terms.  Desysopping and resysopping shouldn't require arbcom.  It shouldn't be that big of a deal.  We need to separate the notion that desysopping is a "punishment" and something to be resisted with fervor.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I fully agree with you that the process to desysop is worth improving, I do think it is better for a separate proposal, perhaps at a later date. My larger concern is that if the two concepts, RfA reform and Desysop reform are integrated, the likelihood of success for either endeavor is reduced. I am keen on approaching these matters from the highest probability for success. Therefore I agree with the list of things this proposal is said to not be. My76Strat (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1% may not be much, but we are dealing with 1% per annum which is a much bigger deal, especially if you are only desysopping for doing things wrong. Desysopping for a prolonged period of inactivity would get rid of far more admins, but as I understand it this proposal is about disposing of an unspecified number of "bad admins" who are not considered bad currently but would be under an unspecified criteria. As for the argument that it shouldn't involve Arbcom, that is the current system and I don't see people queueing up to say that Arbcom gets it wrong either in terms of those they desysop or those they decline to desysop. If people don't want Arbcom to do this I'd like to see a case made as to why they don't like a system which works and has widespread support. As for replacing Arbcom with an RFA based system, perhaps it would be worth discussing this after RFA is fixed, though I'd still like to see the supporters make a case as to why they think desyopping shouldn't require Arbcom. But as I understand it CDA is currently a proposal to replace a functional system with one that is known to be broken, hence the reason for people who support CDA to fix RFA first. As for the argument that "desysopping shouldn't require Arbcom because it shouldn't be that big a deal" Arbcom is a committee elected by the community, desyopping by the whole community would be a much bigger deal than desysopping by Arbcom, if you want to replace Arbcom with a process that would make desysopping less of a big deal then get Arbcom to create five person subcommittee for handling desysop requests.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1% per annum is still a small number... if we could get new admins up by 10 or 20%, then who cares if that 1% doubles or even triples! Lowering the bar SHOULD result in a higher percentage of desysoppings, but the number of new admins should far exceed that increase.  I would favor a process which allows for more of a revolving door.  People can move in and out of adminship much easier than they can currently.  The current desysop process does require global cabal, but how much nicer would it be if we could create a system wherein people were willing to give it up when the community speaks?  Consider this, right now if an admin is blocked, do they still have the ability to unblock themselves?  Yes.  How often do they?  VERY rarely, even when a mistake occurs, most admins will follow procedure and not unblock themselves.  If an admin messes up, then they should be willing to step away from the tools for a week, a month, 3 months.  In my vision, they should then be able to get it back fairly easily (assuming no extreme abuse of priviledges.) Make it easier to give and remove.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If admin taks were unbundled or partially unbundled, it would be easier to remove 'a bundle' rather than the whole mop, to deal with cases where we have a perfectly acceptable admin who just makes mistakes or is too trigger-happy in one particular area. It should be as simple as imposing a topic ban, for instance, and be combined with some mentoring (or something) maybe, to improve performance in that particular area. And it should be no big deal. Topic-banning someone is not the same as blocking them, and 'part-of-bundle-banning' an admin should be perfectly possible, too. This just seems like total common sense to me - it shouldn't have to be an 'all-or-nothing' situation. Pesky ( talk ) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How to implement change in RfA - grandfathering
A significant impediment to any term limit/recall/reconfirmaton proposal is that all the lifetime admins appointed under the old system do not want to risk their admin status under a new scheme, and will vote against it. As a completely unfair, but practical measure, I suggest that all current admins be "grandfathered". That is, they keep their lifetime admin status. We change the name of their role from "Administrator" to "Veteran Administrator" (or similiar - the term "Administrator" would need to be in both the old and the new role names). Admins appointed under the new rules have all the same powers as the old admins, but they are subject to reconfirmation or whatever. Veteran Admins are allowed to cross over to the new scheme, but it is a one-way trip. --Surturz (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but off topic. See RfA reform 2011. Feel free however, to start a discussion on this at WP:RFA/RADICAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions
I have read through much of this project already and have many thoughts - I just wanted to ask a couple of general questions about the upcoming stages. When a proposal is put forward to the community for discussion (I'm right in assuming none have as of yet?): Thanks. Mato (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How will the process work? Will there be several stages to the discussion? Will it start with a vote and/or comments?
 * Will the process be publicised on the WP:RfA homepage?
 * None have as yet. At the moment, they're discussed within the task force until it's decided that they are ready to put before the community. I don't think we're looking for lots of burocracy between concept and community. I envisaged that when something's ready for the community, it'd go to village pump proposals, perhaps also at WP:CENT and a not at WT:RfA. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's probably lack of understanding on my part, but I'm not sure what you mean by: "I don't think we're looking for lots of burocracy between concept and community." Are you saying that once the proposal is put to the community it will be more of a vote-based thing? Mato (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that Wikipedia consensus is reached by  discussion. A debate is assessd, summarised, and closed based on  the quality  of the comments. Quite obviously however, such  comments are often preceded by 'Support' or 'Oppose'  in  bold type; sometimes, the proposers of an RfC will  indeed have separate sections  for  those in  favour and those against  to enter their comments.  If  there is clear numerical majority  in  favour of, or against a proposal, it  certainly  makes the independent  closer's job   much  easier.  I think  what  is meant  by  'less burocracy', is that  by  the time a proposal  is offered to  the broader community, it  will  be concise, and will  have have preempted as much side-tracking  as possible, leaving  a sort  of 'vote-with-short comment' type consensus.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as Kudpung says (and aren't you meant to be on a plane somewhere Kudpung ) - But I was also trying to point out that we don't need a structure within the task force so that it checks a certain number of boxes before going to the community. When it's ready, it's ready. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok that's great, I understand completely :) Thanks. Mato (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was able to snatch  a free WiFi  in  one of the airports. I'm back home in  Thailand now :)  What  Worm  and I  mean is that  if our hopefully  active task force is doing  its job, any  proposals that  we field to  the entire community  via WP:Cent will  have/should have been honed to  perfection, leaving  little room  for side tracking  and turning  it  into a discussion  on  even more alternative solutions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

News update
The news update that was posted to users' talk pages seems to have buried the lead: it says "RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform...", but the final section, "Are you ready to help?" does not answer the question in the heading of the update, "and what you can do now". I realize the basic implied message is to go read WP:RFA2011 and find a place to contribute; nonetheless, an effective communication message needs a concrete call to action. Since the message has gone out already, perhaps the top of WP:RFA2011 can be updated with a list of specific steps and actions that people need to help with to "pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion", as promised by the broadcast message. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can do what the message suggests: Read the threads, get up to date, step in and be of help, rather than stand on the sidelines and heckle ;) WT:RfA is the bar room for doom and gloom.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my tone sounded like heckling, as this is not my intention. I have not been following this project and it is difficult to reconstruct the threads of thought after the fact to understand the current status. I was hoping that whoever was involved with drafting the news update would have a clearer view on what next steps are necessary. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this nifty  little project navigation  aid that  I  built - I  see you  have even copyedited it  yourself :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I endorse isaacl's comments. I too got a large update and call-for-action on my talk page but also found it rather opaque and lacking in clear direction.  Warden (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, that message was utterly vapid. It would take an hour or so to "read all the threads and get up to date". If this project is not organized enough to come up with a synopsis, it's unlikely to be able to organize a movement for a change. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:RFA2011 is a basic summary of the progress this reform has made since its inception. It talks about the changes that have already been made, and the major proposals that are being considered. The point Kudpung is making is that, even with a much more detailed summary than is available, it is still necessary to read (or at least skim) through the myriad pages of discussion. Otherwise, people will end up repeating conversations that we've already had but decided were not appropriate to the reform. This will turn the reform into a circular discussion in which nothing gets decided. Also, there have been so many good ideas brought up in this reform that a summary would inevitably miss some of them. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: There is also a list of the ideas that have been mentioned in the reform at Possible proposals, though most of the suggestions listed there are still in the early stages of development. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 02:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - can we have, somewhere, a list page of what we think's ready to try and roll out (or nearly ready), what still needs to be done on it (if anything), and, ideally, specific tasks which people could add their name to an "I'll help with that" list? I know someone wants me to do something - but I'm not sure what!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 05:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

RFA Questions
Sorry guys, but I'm a bit behind here. I was wondering if any progress has been made on the questions being asked at RFA (especially the incredibly stupid ones, such as "You learn that you only have one more year to live. How does this affect your Wikipedia editing habits? ", and others..) or questions that set the candidate up to fail. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 21:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:RFA2011/QUESTIONS and WT:RFA2011/QUESTIONS. There have been many suggestions to what can be done to improve the way questions are asked, but none of them have been discussed in any great depth. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 03:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How can the WMF help?
Hi folks,

This is obviously an area of interest to me and to the Foundation as a whole. We want to support our contributors as much as possible, and this looks like a no-brainer way for us to offer some assistance. We've got some staff members who are tasked to helping us with issues like this (Steven and Maryana), who can put some of their time towards supporting this effort, though - like most of us - they currently have enough work to fill 60 working hours. We're all in agreement that this is important, though, and they want to help... we just need to know what the best way is for us to help. If you've got ideas for what would be the most effective use of their time, can we begin a discussion here (or you can send them to me, Steven, or Maryana by email)? Let us know how to help, or we're gonna guess, and we might get it wrong. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why I find the proposal inherently wrong
I am a Wikimedian whom has over 6 years of experience (including 2 years of adminship on commons) and very good understanding of policies and guidelines and has no chance of ever becoming an administrator on Wikipedia. It is not like I would delete the main page or delete every article referencing doctor who. So where I come from should come as no surprise to people who know me even just a little.

Admin candidates are more or less expected to be in their best behavior while avoiding controversy of any kind dealing with mundane tasks if possible. Ultimately why RFA fails is that it really doesn't measure the worthiness of people in handling the mop but instead a popularity contest. I can bet $1,000,000 (if I had that kind of money) that anyone can be an administrator - even the most controversial user - if they were to create a sockpuppet account and only focus on non-controversial and mundane tasks such as vandalism reversion while completely avoiding controversial topics or topics you have previously edited. After the 5000th edit apply for adminship and viola - smooth ride. You may even hit 100% approval even though your main account wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell in getting adminship. I do not advocate or even recommend sockpuppet usage but we currently have a culture of utter intolerance to people who make mistakes years (like over half a decade ago). In turn people either "restart" through sockpupetry or they just don't give a damn any more.

As long as adminship is treated and perceived like a trophy no "reform" can fix the situation. But hey, what do I know about wikpiedia. This proposal while well meaning only adds more b'cracy to a broken system, unfortunately.

-- とある白い猫 chi? 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know you at all, but I did take a look at your RfA page and I think I can see where you're coming from. In any case, you make some very interesting points. I totally understand if you just read "RfA reform" and commented on how the concept is inherently wrong, but if you look into the details, you may be surprised.


 * One of the basic principles of this project is that yes, RfA is broken, but it's not realistic to try and "fix" it. As much as we'd all love to, we generally reject the illusion that a sweeping, community-driven project is even capable of fixing RfA. It has also been suggested that adminship, not RfA, is the problem, and that "adminship reform" is key to true RfA reform. I'm honestly not sure, but that is going to need its own project; it's certainly not the established position of this project and it's not an issue we can realistically tackle.


 * Therefore, our focus is on moderate, smaller-scale improvements that will be easy for the community to swallow. We hope that, at best, we can bring gradual reform to RfA and at least, we can make some improvements (which is certainly better than nothing). <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u / t 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A tenet of WP:ALTRFA attempts to address the reality of the above concerns. It is an element of the project to reform, RfA, and your comments are welcome there as well (needed in fact)--My76Strat (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Doing nothing won't fix anything. Certainly removing irrelevant oppose/support votes would be a step in the correct decision but the essence of my argument there remains to be a problem RfA is facing and the proposal has not addressed it yet. I have plenty of RfAs to demonstrate the problem. Or anyone can nominate me for RfA to observe the problem (I know I wont pass so I wont be phased by it like some people). Maybe this issue will be addressed gradually as you mentioned, time will tell.
 * In few words I feel sometimes editors whom had problem(s) in the past are more suited to be administrators than editors who had not been involved with conflict of any kind. When people make a mistake, they learn from it. We often see admins resign and leave the project completely with their first major editorial conflict over something that is perhaps stupid if we look back to the matter a few months or years later. In such an event if the person is popular enough you'll see arguments in favor/against in a cabalistic manner (I know it isn't a real cabal at work). I suppose my argument is beyond the rfa reform into the wikipedia culture realm.
 * -- とある白い猫 chi? 10:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I did get rollback privileges without too much effort. I applied for it and it was approved after a review because my past 40k edits have no trace of revert warring or disruption of any kind. That's how adminship should be, IMHO. -- とある白い猫 chi? 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience is very much the reverse of yours. The community is very tolerant of old misbehaviour, providing that the editor has reformed. There is no need to create a clean account and have it behave itself for 12 months as the community regards almost anything from more than 12 months ago as stale. To oppose for any misjudgement that didn't merit a block, you really need multiple fresh examples.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with WSC, any major issues within the past year is fair game, but if someone has been behaving exemplary for more than a year, those issues will be certainly forgotten and forgiven. White Cat(?), you might be a very helpful editor and an asset to this project, or you might be a complete dick who shouldn't be anywhere near adminship for whatever reason, but if you requested adminship right now, that's what people would base their decision on&mdash; not very old past mistakes. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u / t 18:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in conflict is not the problem - it's how you handled it that  is important. The ideal candidate will have demonstrated some skill at conflict resolution. The downside is, that old enemies  from even longer than one year ago who lost those conflicts will come back to haunt you at your RfA. Some even tell lies to get  their revenge. On a purely  off-topic note: I don't support candiates who have a totally unreadable and unpronounceable signature or user name ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do not think I'd ever get the mop. People had been referring to events from 2005 (relevant RfAR) in my last RFA which was in 2008 (IIRC). People neglect to notice/remember the multiple people I was in dispute with were in fact sockpuppets of a now globally blocked (from all wikimedia projects) user (summary of that users activity) whom created sockpuppet accounts on occasions just to be at a constant state of conflict with me. People remember me as that guy whom was always in conflict with everyone when it really was the same now globally blocked person. I have not been in disagreements any more than the next person not counting the disagreements I had with the same users sockpuppet accounts. There is nothing I can do to change peoples views as I tried time and time again. When I talk about it I am labeled as a drama queen or playing the victim. These will be among the oppose reasons on my RfA's forever.
 * Referring to your unrelated note: Sure people could change their signature for a week or two during the rfa and after the successful rfa they'd revert it back. I'd argue that you are making a big deal over nothing when some existing admins have signatures that are simple symbols, mine is at least proper Japanese. ;) That page has advice that has nothing to do with the use or misuse of admin tools and looks like a FAQ for RFA PR. Indeed information listed there is good advice (perhaps) to have a passing candidacy at RFA but RfA should be more about admin tasks and not be a political/PR campaign by the candidate.
 * -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Still off topic,some admins have symbols for signatures,but I  didn't  support their RfA either. Even though  I'm  a linguist  and used to  working  with  several languages with non Roman characters,   Japanese is not  one of them,  and I  can't read it  or pronounce it, so  how do  you  expect  me to  talk about  you  behind your back  on  the telephone or at  meetings?  Kinda 'That  bloke with  the funny  signature that  sometimes contributes to  RfA reform and has a picture of a white cat  on  his user page'? It's even longer than 'WereSpielChequers' -  but  I can pronounce that ;) Nope, for me, admins need to  be communicable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to do as you suggested with my signature but for a different reason. The reason why I have a Japanese username is to express the multi cultural nature of the project. It wouldn't be multi-cultural if I only had a Japanese signature though. So I decided to localize my signature. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a nudge here but the sheer fact that it took a committee of editors and thousands of words over a period of months of discussions to determine that the RFA process is broken. I have also reviewed the proposal and although it appears on the face to be different I am not sure if its an improvement. Its just different. --Kumioko (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite accurate - 2,543 editors have been discussing  the same reason for five years why RfA is a broken process. This project  is designed to find solutions to  specific elements of what  is wrong with  RfA, and not  to  continue the endless chit-chat  about  it. This thread needs closing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I welcome outside opinions, good or bad. But at least read before criticizing. It's abundantly clear that you haven't when you come here and talk about "the proposal". This project's a hub for RfA reform proposals of many different varieties. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u / t 11:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not criticize the proposal itself. The issues I mentioned are the problems I had. -- とある白い猫 chi? 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (that was @ Kumioko) <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u / t 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's good :) I do not want to upset anyone behind this proposal really. I do know how difficult it is to propose anything these days on Wikimedia projects. -- とある白い猫 chi? 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the system not just RFA
This came up in a thread at User_talk:Cla68. It's closely related to this RFC. I've copied two posts here:

>> """::The problem is that the casual and quiet type of editors are those most likely to completely quit or leave one of the all too common wiki fights because they're here just to have fun. Whereas those who are in cabals or pushing their view will stick it out because they have an agenda--this type of editor has way too much influence on wiki and is a major reason why wiki is broken. I recently saw a comment about an RFC on the RFA process, but that RFC misses the point. It's not just RFA that's broken, the whole system is broken and needs a major overhaul. Pumpkin Sky  talk  10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fixing the RfA system is addressing a symptom,  not the underlying problem.  Editing Wikipedia in areas in which established editors have taken over isn't fun for casual editors.  Cla68 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)"""

>> Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, one of the ideas on this page needs to be tried. The current system just doesn't work and needs to be completely done away with.  Think instead, "How can we make this whole thing simple, fun, and free from undue influence from a (relatively) small group of editors?" Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The deafening silence on this (since cla68 posted) tells me wiki is doomed. It's beyond repair. Far too few people recognize the real problem. Pumpkin Sky  talk  09:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's because, whilst you are welcome to that opinion, this project is designed around the theory that RfA can be improved. If you disagree with that concept, this is not the place to state that opinion, as all it does is disrupt the process. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "This page is not for complaining about RfA, or proposing significant changes." Come again? Then there's little purpose to this page and it should be deleted. Pumpkin Sky  talk  17:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, RfA is a big melting pot, with lots of different points of view - If you want to complain about the system or propose significant changes, we have places you can do it the RfA talk page or the large (radical) changes section. There's a big edit notice when you click edit to explain that, and it matches the top of the page. Pyfan and I are co-ordinators of the project and are just trying to stop it from becoming one big bun fight. I fail to see how this is a problem. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, you completely miss the point. As Cla said, RFA is just a sympton. YOu're fixing it til you fix the root problem, the system, therefore it is not "radical", it's TOTALLY germane. Just looking at the history of this page, I see a British IP was twice squelched being called a troll. Fact is he was spot on and ran off because of it. Big surprise. No wonder the project is in the mess that it is. I'll post anywhere I feel like. Pumpkin Sky  talk  17:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (A word to the wise PumpkinSky, just between you and me. You have strayed onto a page reserved for admins and admin wannabees. Despite its name, this project has nothing to do with "reform". This project is an arm of the main cabal, "the admins", and is designed to further strengthen the stranglehold this group has on Wikipedia. Anyone trying to represent the interests of that diminishing and unimportant group of people who actually try to write Wikipedia has no place here. There are other place on Wikipedia, called notice boards, where you are allowed to make some posts. Always bear in mind that the purpose of those boards is not to help the people who are trying to write Wikipedia, but so the admins can see if you represent any threat to their interests. So be a good chappie, and toe the line (you don't have a choice). Your compensation is the knowledge that if you can survive here while making real contributions to Wikipedia, then you will have attained some form of sainthood. You will shortly see that you cannot dissent on this page – your posts and my one will be "disappeared". --Epipelagic (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC))
 * :'( <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  23:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll post anywhere you feel like? Why exactly? Surely if something goes to the root of a problem it's "radical". It's from the latin word meaning "root"! I am unsure why you think this is a bad thing - you've had no replied at this page, perhaps you'll have more luck at the right page? <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said on the radical page, the move is purely housekeeping. I'm a coordinator of this project and I made a proposal on this page that got no replies whatsoever. This page is swamped&mdash; the discussions simply need to be in the right place or they'll probably be ignored. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  18:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the radical page has been more active than this page recently. As Swarm and Worm said, you're more likely to get a response on the radical page. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 23:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WMF
The WMF has today  issue  a very  clear statement  that  they  will  not  be considering  imposing  any  new RfA  system  from  the top  down. They have expressed their concern for the situation, and are happy  to  assist  in  any  way  they  can, provided solutions are developed and supported by the local community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Does this mean the last remaining glimmer of light by which Wikipedia could return to benign ground has now been extinguished? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it just means we have to develop the solutions ourselves. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 23:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We already know it is too late for that. The entrenched interests are too strong. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pending further clarification from Philippe Beaudette, I find myself in sour agreement with Epipelagic, as the 'good old boy' admin corps, most of whom could not face up to an Rfa today, are indeed entrenched interests, as we saw clearly in the vote against WP:CDA in 2010. I don't blame Philippe and/or the WMF for not wanting to impose a complex, lengthy top-down solution to the 'horrible and broken process' because it would be a nightmare to implement, just in terms of procedure alone... unless it is kept blindingly simple.  My suggestion to the WMF and this group of reformers: we just begin to deadmin the whole current active admin group as of Jan. 1, 2012 by alphabetical order, week by week, and start over that way.  The old admins want to run again, fine.  New admin candidates would be welcome to run alongside.  Enough is enough.  Otherwise I don't see much getting done here, and the same stuck situation will continue to make Wikipedia a stagnant pond ruled over by those with a vested interest in keeping things as they are.  Jus  da  fax   00:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That, by itself, won't work either. It is the current concept of what the Wikipedia "administrator" should be that is fatally flawed, and if we start over without changing that, we will finish up again where we are now. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Shortly an admin will arrive and "disappear" these posts on the grounds that they are "offtopic" and "unconstructive" --Epipelagic (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NB:They are "offtopic" and "unconstructive", but I've got better things to do :P <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple idea
A simple suggestion to remove bureaucracy and discuss rather than vote. Feel free to move this somewhere more appropriate if I've posted this in the wrong place.

Forget nominations and voting. Candidates put themselves forward. The community is invited to comment and discuss for a week, but not vote. Discussion is threaded and not bulleted, or in separate support/oppose sections, or with bold "support/oppose". None of that.

At the end of a week, bureaucrats will judge the consensus and close the discussion. A unanimous or near unanimous result can be closed by one bureaucrat. Harder decisions can be taken by a team of 3 bureaucrats, after a chat. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we've had similar suggestions. With  anything  up  to  200 comments by  participants, without  different  sections it would be a nightmare for the 'crat. I've tried assessing  and summarising  other RfCs and discussions that  are not  divided into  sections, and sometimes it  can take as much  as 3 hours. The idea of nominations, especially  when made by  an admin  or a well established user,  is that  confidence in  a pass is already  demonstrated, and it  (usually)  gets the RfA  off to  a good start. I think you'll find from  the research  tables we've produced, that  the vast  majority  of failed RfA were self nominations. The efforts of this project  appear to  have greatly  reduced the number of unlikely  candidates, without  needing  recourse to  changes implemented through software or consensus. The reasons for the overall, and alarming, drop  in  RfA  from  candidates of the right  calibre still  need to  be addressed. We've discussed many  of them, and we should be looking  now at  reaching  task force consensus on  some of them to  launch  them  for approval  or disapproval by  the community. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point on 200 comments being hard to analyse, but that's the bureaucrat's job! He/she should not be vote counting, but weighing the arguments and judging the consensus. This is the role that we select them for and trust them to do. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When can I nominate you  for bureaucrat? :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New data and charts
- are now available at  here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
I created my own RFA reform proposal at User:Moe Epsilon/RFA, feel free to comment on the talk page to make comments or suggestions. Thanks, — <font color="DD0000">Moe <font color="0000FF">ε 12:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)