Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Task force

< BACK to Task Force

Attracting more participation
We need to keep prodding the task members without seeming to be badgering them. Coords and task force members can do this by advancing the project and providing other task force members with material to discuss and develop. We can also discuss methods to invite more users to contribute constructively and positively to the project along the lines of: By this, it is not meant to attract people who will negatively criticise it, or just repeat again what the issues are. We know what the problems are with RfA, and that's why we are here already. One of the the best sources  for  participants to invite is among those who vote regularly  at  RfA  who have voiced dissatisfaction in the system at one time or another, or who are, or have been active at voluntary clerking, i.e. making rebuttals at  inappropriate !votes and comments, or removing  long threads to the talk page,etc. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned with the present situation at RfA and are interested in reform of the system, you are invited to contribute to the reform project  at  WP:RFA2011. If  you have time and are inclined, you  may  also  wish  to  consider joining  the task force.

Task force pruning
This project is aimed at users who are clearly in favour of finding solutions to prevent drama at RfA. In the light of recent events and an unbroken 3-year history of participation at RfA that is not compliant with the objectives of this project, I am considering removing Keepscases from the task force. Unless there are truly compelling reasons for retaining his name on the list, I shall remove it in 7 days.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a shame; I understand, but ..... no hope, I suppose, of 'bringing him around / re-educating'? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 04:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. I don't think that's a good idea. There's a significant minority who not only don't mind Keepsakes pov, but they actively agree with it. Unless he is actively disrupting the task force/project, I think that having an opposing point of view is something we should encourage. I'm afraid that I don't see Keepscases history of participation quite as disruptive as you do, and would be happy to discuss it, but removing him seems unneccessary and WP:CABALesque.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I always felt that  the purpose of this task force is to collaborate and examine possibilities for genuine reform with  a view to  making  some concrete proposals to  the broader community. That  would be the moment  where detractors can have their say - and sure enough, there will  be plenty of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you there, and if Keepscases was detracting (rather than having an opposite opinion), then I'd agree with his removal. Similarly, if Epipelagic were to add his name, he clearly has a point to make and would not be helpful coming up with a solution. But opposing opinions can help solutions, and until Keepscases actively does something which is unhelpful to this project, I don't see that he should be removed.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One editor has now completely  retired from  Wikipedias a direct result of the latest  Keepscases issue, and with it, their participation on  the task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you are blaming Keepscases? IE have you had private discussion with the retired editor? "I can't to do it, all the fighting, the bickering, I just can't deal with it at this moment. I'll be back though -- one day" does imply to me that the issue was a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Since Tofu's last post was on your page, I'm assuming you two were friends, and that there's a possibility you're not being completely objective here.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Also, if you do have rapport with him still, send him my best, and let him know I look forwad to his return   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong actually,  even though  I  have been a teacher for the best  part  of the last  30  years, I  don't  usually  develop  friendships with my  pupils, and certainly  not  virtual ones, and there was no very  recent  contact  with Tofu. AFAIK he is very  busy  preparing  for the up coming  end of term exams. No, in fact he was an editor whom I  have been mentoring for a while, and who  might  have stood a very fair chance of proving that some of the younger contributors to  Wikipedia are a lot more mature than many of the adults. I have no  need to pursue the contact now that he has retired. Nevertheless, I  am very  sorry  to see him go, and even more disappointed in  a community that  allows these hateful discussions to  have such  an effect on  people - especially  when users are yelling  at  us from  all corners to treat  our younger members with  'kid' gloves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I have offended you with the suggestion of friendship. I'm certainly sympathetic to your mentoring younger members of our community, I'm currently helping 4-5 myself. I too hate to see a good editor leave, and I've seen a half a dozen good editors leave over the RfA process, which is one of my motivations to help fix it. However, I'm not willing to punish one editor just because another one has dramatically left. He says he'll be back, and I hope he will.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense taken whatsoever, I  was merely  stating  a fact so that we keep  the perspective. Nor was I for a moment  suggesting  that  we punish anyone for his retirement. I'm  just  amused and concerned that  one user continues to  be allowed a stage and a spotlight  to  himself for participation  that  clearly  does not lend a serious edge to  the Wikipedia, and for which other users can expect  a block or a topic ban. This discussion may  be about people expressing  their religious or political beliefs in  their user pages -  but  it  was precipitated  by  using  a RfA as a soapbox for POV pushing, and  making irrelevant  !votes just  to  make the WP:POINT. I  see that  as clearly  disruptive, and the kind  of drama that  we have begun  this project  to avoid,  and which  is preventing  candidates of the right  calibre from  coming  forward. I know Tofu as well as one can through  the anonymity  of collaborative Internet  work, and unfortunately when he says he might be back, although  I  very  much  hope he will, to  be truthful, I'm  not  overly  optimistic that  it  will  be for any time yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding a neutral vote (which is designed to effectively be a comment on the RfA, as it doesn't affect the outcome), based on the the opinion about a wikiproject, of which the nominator is a member is definitely disruptive. It is certainly pointy, and while I don't have a problem with his questions, nor do I blame him for Tofu leaving, I would support a topic ban from RfA related areas (and perhaps taking it to WP:AN might be a good idea). Until that point, where the community feels he is not helpful to RfA, I still believe it's inappropriate to remove him from this project. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I think Keepscases has been a net negative to RfA, removing them from this taskforce would probably cause even more problems. You don't just want a taskforce with smooth internal discussion; you want a taskforce whose output will be trusted by the rest of en.wikipedia. That goal is harder to achieve if bystanders can (and they gleefully will) point out that a dissenter was muffled. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)