Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship

message: All the old pages have been archived here. Please take a look to see the developing ideas, and also what went wrong. I am about to archive this page and we're going to do something!!! — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Okay we're starting from scratch.
Here's what we need to figure out before we start writing anything:
*We've pretty much settled on the xx day discussion, xx day voting period.
**How long will each be?
**Will the discussion be a plain talk-page like discussion or more of a narrative?
*What are we going to put on what pages, so that it's not a stinking dump like WP:RFA is?
*How can we reduce the workload for Bureaucrats?
*Suffrage
*The name -- Discussions for Adminship may have been a bad idea.
*Attempt to fix issues with RfA (some of which are listed below)
*Minimize Instruction creep
(Items in italics added 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a large workload for bureaucrats? People don't seem to think so. Maybe this is a post-Cecropia phenomenon. If there's a large bureaucrat workload and we need more bureaucrats, I've certainly shown that I'm willing to do the job. Andre (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm mainly concerned about is that there's so many instructions; one has to have 5 tabs open to promote a candidate. Although it's not that much, it adds up. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am personally in favour of preserving the RfA-style system for voting (which is what I think we're doing), but adding a period for discussion beforehand. I think that the discussion should be talk-page-like, but that when discussion concludes, the bureaucrat should summarise the salient points for either side. Whether others should be allowed to edit the summary is a good question, but I'm kind of inclined against it -- instead they should ask the 'crat to modify it. This is instruction creep and more work for 'crats, though, so it's a downside. (It's also something for Durin to thwack us on the head with for unnecessarily complicating the adminship process. :p) We should just stick to the RfA name, since I don't see the need to change the title. Johnleemk | Talk 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was essentially what we were aiming for, but we need to work out the details. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the thing. We're trying to minimize instruction creep so that it's even less than the current RfA. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay... 

message: I know wikipedia is all about consensus, but you'll probably succeed most at creating this proposed process by starting it out concrete, and letting us hammer away at it, and seeing if it can survive consensus.  Just my experience, --Urthogie 22:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: If a nominee has ever been involved in a "controversial issue", then it will sink their RFA, and possibly any to follow. Example: people caught up in the userbox issue. What we need is time for discussion, followed by time for voting, and voting should not include any comments; that's what the "discussion" section would be for. Alphax τεχ 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no comments on the "voting" or poll section, then it's not leveraging consensus anymore. At which point -granted- it'd still not be *entirely* pointless (I'll concede that much), but it'd definately be a lot less useful. Kim Bruning 08:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we need discussion seperated from voting 

message: While I appreciate the cruft cleanup, the fact is that anything short of driving home several key points again and again gives DFA's detractors a chance to snigger and say, "See, DfA is wrong!" Two of the most common objections WRT DfA are "RfA isn't broken" and "You're using theoretical possibilities/one-in-a-million cases; show us some examples". I think we at least ought to provide examples, because they will come up at a future point in time; they already have many times before. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevage's recent edit