Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Dank

Discussion
I'll have time to do a more thorough review of the idea later, but any idea of temporary authority to promote editors would require the board to be well vetted by the community. It would need to consist of a substantial number of bureaucrats and admins. It would also need to exist for a while before any authority was given to it. Ryan Vesey Review me!  21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, sigh. I'll tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean no non-admins can be on the board, just so long as there are some (probably a majority). Ryan Vesey Review me!  22:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We won't have any trouble attracting influential and knowledgeable people for the board, even though it will be a lot of work ... if we can convince them that there's a lot of support for what they're trying to do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a rather interesting and certainly worthwhile proposal. I do have two procedural questions, though. Through what facet would this committee be able to implement reform proposals experimentally and from whom would it get authorization/approval to do so? Tyrol5   [Talk]  23:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't need any authority to make recommendations; the trick is getting people to believe that their conclusions are likely to carry weight, and that requires a virtuous circle. We wander around Wikipedia asking people to participate; they come and express their opinions to the board; the board spends a substantial amount of time listening to them, taking their views into account, gathering examples of where what they're suggesting did or didn't work. They decide that they like where this is going, and the process attracts new voters and new candidates. Whatever success the board is having convinces people that they'll be able to persuade people at the end of the 3 months to accept their recommendations, which pulls more people into the process, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But would the committee actually implement select proposals for some predetermined amount of time to assess their feasibility? And, if so, would the authority to temporarily implement the proposals be an understood precondition to its creation? Tyrol5   [Talk]  23:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is a 3-month moratorium on discussions of RFA reform, while the board works on increasing participation by voters and candidates, on helping voters discuss candidates in a productive way, and on producing recommendations on whether to promote. If the process works, that will make it easier to discuss RFA reform after the trial. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly agree with your proposal Dank. I see no reason for an "elected" group of people, so long as a group of people choose to spend a decent amount of time with the project.  I do think that the solution to changing RfA may be waiting to change it until something like this has happened.  I wouldn't be in support for stopping discussions on current proposals, for example, I wouldn't mind discussions and ideas related to my proposal; however, I would support limiting the ideas to discussion with no talk of implementation until after this program.  How would a program like this be created?  Should a new project page exist?  Adminship selection committee  The committee members could discuss editors who they find to be ready or close to ready for adminship, examine their history, and choose some candidates to endorse.  A committee nomination could then be written.  Is this anything close to what you are proposing? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that the number of candidates willing to put in the time will roughly match the slots, in which case it doesn't matter much whether we have an election or not ... except that elections can be a useful tool for generating enthusiasm. We've seen that many times in coordinator elections for WP:Milhist and WP:GOCE; almost everyone has been elected who's ever run for GOCE coord, but the elections have served a useful purpose, I think everyone at GOCE agrees. If there are more candidates than slots ... who should be appointing them? - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Can we work on expanding the proposal?  The proposal should be clear in a couple of things and split into sections.  First a general overview of the committee including the reason it was created.  Second, what are the exact duties of the committee?  Currently I see 3 based on what I believe you have been describing here and at other areas.  The committee will be responsible for reviewing non-admin editors who have potential.  The committee will evaluate those editors and discuss those that it believes are ready for adminship.  After contacting the editors, the committee will form a committee nomination for the editor.  Either a nomination or the discussion section of the RfA should reflect the strengths and weaknesses the committee found in the editor and why they believe the weaknesses are not relevant to the editor's ability to become an administrator.  The committee's second duty appears to be evaluating editors who ran for adminship, but didn't succeed because of the current process.  The committee should review alternate methods of adminship, and create a proposal for why the current method should stay the same, why the current method should coexist with an alternate method, why the current method should be modified, or why the current method should be scrapped and changed.  The committee's final duty appears to be interaction with editors.  Seeking to encourage more editors to participate at RfA so that those editors are likely to support committee proposals in the future.  The committee should also be responsible in actively responding to editors' questions about RfA and responding to suggestions.  Giving editors feedback for any ideas that they may raise.  The third thing that should be listed is the process for electing the committee.  Will an RfC be created to elect the committee?  Will it be done by regulars at WP:RFA?  Fourth, the length of the committee's work should be laid out.  It currently appears that this will be a three month project.  Will this be set in stone, or will the committee be able to exist for longer if it feels that it is necessary.  Finally, an end should be listed.  At the end of this process, will the committee disband?  Will it create an RfC?  Will it request authority to give adminship to all of the editors it discussed?  What will happen after the 3 month time period.  Information should also be stated listing the tools the committee will use.  There is a large amount of statistics available at RfA reform 2011.  Will the committee base their search for editors on Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls?  On that note, the committee could start removing editors who are no longer active from the category.  Will it look at editors active at WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AFD, and other administrative areas?  Hopefully we can create a structured proposal and then get this committee rolling.  It shouldn't be a problem since the committee won't actually be making changes until later. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you specifically don't want a duty of the committee to be attempting to make a change to RfA. I would be fine with that for the first 3 months; however, I feel that the committee should address the ideas if presented by an editor. Ryan Vesey Review me!  02:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Duties? I think there's a wide range of possible duties for the committee; the main point is to address the specific concerns of voters, potential voters, candidates, and potential candidates, with the goal of attracting more voters and candidates and getting more focus out of the existing voters and candidates. However they can do that would be fine.
 * Will an RfC be created to elect the committee? God I hope not. The board will have no formal power so I don't see why we need an RFC. It would be very helpful to talk up the election, though.
 * Will it be done by regulars at WP:RFA? Absolutely not; one thing that keeps candidates away is the sense that whatever Wikipedians they hang with don't trust RFA. We want as many people as possible to vote and to get invested in the process.  An important function of the board is to promote a sense that the RFA process belongs to all Wikipedians. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want to create a larger proposal then so we can get an election and all of that started? I could attempt, but you certainly know what your proposal is much more than I do. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet, I'd like to see more discussion so I know where we're headed. Soon. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dank's proposal is excellent in principle, and it seems similar in many ways to what  the  founders of RFA2011 had in mind when they  created a task force/select  committee. That failed too, partly because some subscribers to the task force (many names removed already) appeared to assume quite wrongly that the RFA2011 project was intended to make it easier for newbs and power seekers to become admins. However, as with all suggestions of a new admin (s)election process it stumbles on the chicken-and-egg metaphor: Who (s)elects the members of the committee/panel/board/council? That's possibly why the most developed of all suggestions (RfA Clerking) by WP:RFA2011 failed to reach RfC stage. And that's why RfA reform keeps going round in circles. Various active members of the RFA2011 project - and others - already  scoured the Wikipedia for potential admin  candidates of the right  experience and calibre, but the results were (almost) always the same: users were not prepared to pilloried for 7 days. I'll take yet another opportunity here to remind us all that that there has only ever been one clear, specific reason why RfA has failed as a process: the lack of standards applied to the voters, and their behaviour. Apart from that, I believe there's nothing really wrong with the current system, but I would probably support Dank's proposal - if I were to be on the panel of course ;) (and in which case I would recuse myself from voting on the actual RfAs). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people assume that either nothing can be done, or that they'll be able to achieve a big change in one step with a brilliant argument. We can probably make incremental improvements to RFA, but only by shaking it up a bit, by experimentation. People need to get used to any proposed change before you're going to get 70% of voters to go along with it. That's why everything that's been proposed so far that needed an RFC to even get started has been dead in the water.
 * Sitting here, I just thought of one tweak that addresses your point, Kudpung. Is there any reason we couldn't allow and even encourage some opposers to start off by asking a question that suggests what they see is a problem, then enter their oppose with no rationale, then email their rationale to the crat email list? I'm not sure that that would accomplish anything, but it might make the process seem less harsh to potential candidates. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)