On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:50:29 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
RfA should be reduced to a determination of whether the user is trustworthy or not. Their ability to make intelligent decisions should come into it somewhere.
That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance, instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the heading over the top of the !votes.
On 07/04/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:50:29 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
RfA should be reduced to a determination of whether the user is trustworthy or not. Their ability to make intelligent decisions should come into it somewhere.
That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance, instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the heading over the top of the !votes.
-- Sam Blacketer London E15
Or demand justification for opposition in terms of why the user shouldn't have these powers.
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:50:29 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
RfA should be reduced to a determination of whether the user is trustworthy or not. Their ability to make intelligent decisions should come into it somewhere.
That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance, instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the heading over the top of the !votes.
It should be enough for a small number of existing admins (perhaps as many as 10) to say that they have reviewed the person's history, and find no evidence that he has acted in a way that would be harmful to the project. A reasonable and objective level of minimum participation could be warranted, but that should be specified ahead of time so that the individual can know where the goalposts are.
A willingness, need or desire to use the entire range of admin tools or any specific tool should not matter. The important thing is not whether he would use them; it is whether he would abuse them.
Meaningful opposition should be based on fact. Mistrusting a person because you experienced a psychic vision telling you to do so is not particularly strong evidence. Opposing someone because you do not "feel" that he needs the tools, or that you do not know him, or he has a different opinion from yours on matters of profound interest to you are entirely subjective. Opposition should point to specific examples that show where the person has acted in an untrustworthy manner.
Unfortunately, the existing RfA system has developed its own inertia that makes it very difficult to stop without the courageous acts of a few key individuals.
Ec
Sam Blacketer wrote:
That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance, instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the heading over the top of the !votes.
Rehashing an idea I proposed awhile ago, how about a set of standards similar to those at [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] (but [[Wikipedia:Administrator criteria]] instead)? If opposing comments are not relevant to specific points in the criteria, they can be ignored. Not a perfect system, but it might be better than the current system.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
On 08/04/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Blacketer wrote:
That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance, instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the heading over the top of the !votes.
Rehashing an idea I proposed awhile ago, how about a set of standards similar to those at [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] (but [[Wikipedia:Administrator criteria]] instead)? If opposing comments are not relevant to specific points in the criteria, they can be ignored. Not a perfect system, but it might be better than the current system.
FAC requirements have notably raised over the past few years, both consciously and unconsciously. I see no reason such a system for RFA would not be susceptible to the same problem. In fact, the present problem is pretty much requirements creep.
- d.
On 4/8/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Rehashing an idea I proposed awhile ago, how about a set of standards similar to those at [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] (but [[Wikipedia:Administrator criteria]] instead)? If opposing comments are not relevant to specific points in the criteria, they can be ignored. Not a perfect system, but it might be better than the current system.
It might be an advance in helping to weed out which are the frivolous oppose votes and which are not. However, there is the danger that this will become a kind of "painting adminship by numbers" process in which the candidate has to have 100 reports to AIV, 1 featured article, spotted 20 copyright violations, etc. It would have to be, as you see in person specifications in job adverts, which are necessary and which are desirable attributes.