 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This is a proposal to adjust Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by adding a discussion period before voting begins.
The current system contains the following steps:
- Candidate is nominated and answers the standard questions.
- Candidate transcludes his RFA onto the main RFA page.
- Voting is open for 7 days. Simultaneously, people ask questions to the candidate.
- After 7 days, a bureaucrat closes the RFA.
The new system would separate step 3 into two steps:
- Candidate is nominated and answers the standard questions.
- Candidate transcludes his RFA onto the main RFA page.
- People ask questions to the candidate and discuss in the "discussion" section for at least two days (48 hours). Voting is not allowed. (A template at the top of the RFA will say that voting is not yet open. The "Support," "Oppose," and "Neutral" sections will be <!-- commented out -->.) After this time has passed, the candidate may open the voting whenever he/she wants to.
- Voting is open for 7 days.
- After 7 days, a bureaucrat closes the RFA.
This proposal would make RFA similar to ArbCom elections. In the 2007 ArbCom elections, there was a period of questions before the voting began (see one example of "questions for the candidate"). Unlike ArbCom elections, RFA is not a simple vote, but the confirmation process would benefit from a preliminary discussion.
Sometimes an RFA begins with nearly unanimous support before a critical issue is raised. Notable examples include Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2. In both cases, the critical issue was raised during the first day of discussion. Under the existing system, the support votes before the issue was raised counted, and the oppose votes before the candidate could respond to the challenge also counted. Under the new proposal, no votes would be cast until the community had time to ask questions, and the candidate could answer those questions. Voting would not open until after the candidate answered all the questions, or chose not to answer some questions (for example, if there are too many questions).
As an ancillary benefit, candidates who would definitely fail based on the snowball clause would be able to withdraw with dignity, before a single "vote" has been cast.
It can be argued that adding a discussion period lengthens the process. However, the difference between 7 days and 10 days should not be considered significant. Adding another step to the process may be considered instruction creep, but the additional step is intended to make the RFA process more fair and equitable. Instruction creep should be avoided only if there is no benefit to making the change.
Unless there are strong objections, a live RFA under the proposed system can be started as an experimental format. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt for examples of previous experimental formats.) If the community prefers the proposed system, it can be implemented across the board.
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship, a basically identical and rejected version of this proposal.
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This is a proposal to adjust Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by adding a discussion period before voting begins.
The current system contains the following steps:
- Candidate is nominated and answers the standard questions.
- Candidate transcludes his RFA onto the main RFA page.
- Voting is open for 7 days. Simultaneously, people ask questions to the candidate.
- After 7 days, a bureaucrat closes the RFA.
The new system would separate step 3 into two steps:
- Candidate is nominated and answers the standard questions.
- Candidate transcludes his RFA onto the main RFA page.
- People ask questions to the candidate and discuss in the "discussion" section for at least two days (48 hours). Voting is not allowed. (A template at the top of the RFA will say that voting is not yet open. The "Support," "Oppose," and "Neutral" sections will be <!-- commented out -->.) After this time has passed, the candidate may open the voting whenever he/she wants to.
- Voting is open for 7 days.
- After 7 days, a bureaucrat closes the RFA.
This proposal would make RFA similar to ArbCom elections. In the 2007 ArbCom elections, there was a period of questions before the voting began (see one example of "questions for the candidate"). Unlike ArbCom elections, RFA is not a simple vote, but the confirmation process would benefit from a preliminary discussion.
Sometimes an RFA begins with nearly unanimous support before a critical issue is raised. Notable examples include Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2. In both cases, the critical issue was raised during the first day of discussion. Under the existing system, the support votes before the issue was raised counted, and the oppose votes before the candidate could respond to the challenge also counted. Under the new proposal, no votes would be cast until the community had time to ask questions, and the candidate could answer those questions. Voting would not open until after the candidate answered all the questions, or chose not to answer some questions (for example, if there are too many questions).
As an ancillary benefit, candidates who would definitely fail based on the snowball clause would be able to withdraw with dignity, before a single "vote" has been cast.
It can be argued that adding a discussion period lengthens the process. However, the difference between 7 days and 10 days should not be considered significant. Adding another step to the process may be considered instruction creep, but the additional step is intended to make the RFA process more fair and equitable. Instruction creep should be avoided only if there is no benefit to making the change.
Unless there are strong objections, a live RFA under the proposed system can be started as an experimental format. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt for examples of previous experimental formats.) If the community prefers the proposed system, it can be implemented across the board.
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship, a basically identical and rejected version of this proposal.