Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RfA

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

These sorts of RfCs always start with the wrong question

Should the RfA process be in some way, changed, reformed, or restructured? (This is a majority vote. Proposals with the most consensus for support will be picked below if majority vote is yes.)

The problem is that that question is rather like asking, "Should the U.S. government be in some way changed, reformed, or restructured?" You can probably pull a 'yes' from a large proportion of voters (particularly on an RfC that will attract the subset of Wikipedians with a particular interest in changing RfA), but it's not really a useful piece of information in that it doesn't actually identify the problem(s) that any reform plan will try to address.

The failed process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall should serve as a cautionary tale to editors who might try this sort of approach to policy reform.

The opening 'opinion poll' is also somewhat dubious—it's not really an opinion poll at all, but rather a statement of Cyberpower678's personal opinions: a push poll if ever I saw one. It's disappointing because it could be so much more useful. Instead of attempting to assess (and/or manipulate) the 'gut instincts' and guesses of the participants about its various assertions, so many of the claims there could be subjected to – and potentially supported by – fairly rigorous analysis. There are real, genuine, hard numbers available on the number of Wikipedia editors, users, and administrators over time. The participation and success rates of RfAs and various statistics about the activity of successful candidates can be determined.

Constructive changes should be driven by truth, rather than just truthiness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC (relevant discussion copied from original source)

I am planning to launch an RfC for the future of this RfA. I am inviting all editors to create statements and proposals on what can be changed here at RfA. Please do not vote or endorse any statements as the RfC is not officially opened yet. The RfC can be found ~~Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfC~~ (new link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfA, per comments in that section. mabdul 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)).—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence is completely non-neutral and in article space would have ^{[citation needed]} and pov tags added. The result of the RFA was an unsuccessful candidate. Any other interpretation is your personal opinion and as such, I would contend, inappropriate for a RFC. Leaky Caldron 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we really don't need is for people to come in and say that this won't work and that RfA will never change. There is all this talk about how something needs to happen, an RfC is an opportunity to make it happen. But if we begin with an attitude that we are doomed to fail, we won't accomplish anything. AutomaticStrikeout 19:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC) To clarify, I was not to referring to any remarks that have been made yet in this section, I was remembering things I have read in the past that reflect a mentality that this is basically a lost cause. My apologies for any confusion. AutomaticStrikeout 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfA? Giant Snowman 19:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be a better place for it. Ryan Vesey 19:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think either place would be fine. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current location indicates that a user called 'RfC' is standing for admin. Giant Snowman 19:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it now, everything except the title is still exactly the same. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of neutrality Leaky caldron points out is concerning and should definitely be addressed before any of it becomes active. And while the RfA in question got rather ugly in some ways, the bulk of that was also largely not anything that could not have been resolved with some good clerking, something for which there is already provision in current policy and guideline. The more problematic issues with RfA, including the environment that led to that in the first place as well as the fact that next to nobody actually did anything to try to help the situation, are more general. This makes these issues both harder to pin down and also much more difficult to sensationalise, but they perhaps are what would merit a focus of any further extended discussion. -— Isarra ༆ 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why I didn't launch the RfA yet. This community input is great. The RfC is far from ready to go live but it's getting there. I just need community in order to fuel it and get it going. I will address the concerns stated before it goes live.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 01:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many RfC fail because the proposal statement is either too vague, or allows for too much side tracking and alternative proposals within the RfC. Any RfC pertaining to reforms of the RfA process or of the duties and responsibilities of admins themselves is best tailored to one single aspect. There have be many RfAs, both successful and unsuccessful, that have been a platform for incivility, personal attacks, and disingenuous voting, so it's unwise to base an RfC on one single RfA. There have been many RfC proposing change to adminship and its (s)election process, all have failed to reach a consensus. A thorough review of former proposals is preferable before making proposals for change, and probably one of the most comprehensive collections of research and discussion that can be drawn on is here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find using Sigma's RfA as a premise for the RfC very ill-advised. At best it would be a distraction, at worst it may change the focus of the RfC from fixing RfA to rehashing the arguments whether Sigma's RfA was unfairly derailed / uncivil / whatever. Really, I think the way it is done, starting an RfC at this point wouldn't help with anything. At the very least, it needs to be more focused and more editors representing each major view (RfAs are uncivil, opposers are unfairly badgered, RfA is working just fine, etc.) need to be involved in the structuring. Even then I'm sceptical it'll help. wctaiwan (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing this RfC off of Sigma. It was merely a motivational push. I had already announced that I plan to launch an RfC for this months prior to his RfA. As I said, I will be doing some more development towards this RfC before I let it go live. I will remove references to Sigma in that RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, this RfC is set up to fail, and is almost exactly how I would have set one up after reading about how RfCs work, but not actually looking at how RfCs work. There are too many options, which may work for soemthing like ArbCom, who can go away as a small group and decide which ones are the best to use, but not here. Allowing new proposals will mean that lots of little ideas which will be supported by 2 or 3 people will turn up. Having a section for a pure numerical vote will lead to "voting is evil" comments - and how many people are going to say "no, RfA is not broken at all". The question is "how is it broken?" not "is it broken?" Overall, I'm sorry to say that not only is this not going to work, it will perpetuate the issue. Worm^TT(talk) 05:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well my plan wasn't to run just one RfC to address and fix the issues here at RfA. Perhaps the proposals are too premature right now and should be placed in a different RfC. I am thinking this entire thing through. I am alright if it fails, but I'm going to devote my time, efforts, and community inputs from you guys to make this hopefully, the most effective RfC there is.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 14:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are discussions about RFA everywhere; here, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), RFA reform, [Signpost] and various other locations. I cannot see a single RFA here capturing and maintaining enough of the community's attention to arrive at decisive outcomes. Leaky Caldron 14:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA is broken has been a running theme whenever we get the sort of drama that happened with the recent one mentioned at the top of the RfC proposal. Anyone remember ecoleetage_3? Always worth keeping in mind that there are two processes driving an RfA. The first process is the social networking one. Well recognized editors with plenty of virtual friends start strong with lots of positives. The second process is the one in which the candidate is really examined. That's when you start seeing the negatives and, particularly when the social network aspect is strong as it was with Ecoleetage, the RfA tends to fall apart dramatically and it appears that the process is derailed. But, in reality, the process is doing exactly what it is supposed to do and doing it quite well. --regentspark (comment) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]