Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Discussion (Tranches of candidates): i should only speak for myself |
|||
Line 113:
A few editors brought this up previously and I though it was a good point and that is to separate Q&A, discussion and !voting. I suppose there are multiple ways this could occur, but I imagine a 3-3-3 approach: editors have three days to submit questions, at the end of which no more questions are accepted; the candidate has three days to respond to the submitted questions; 72 hours later, (!)voting commences. Make this true voting in which editors are limited to registering ''support'', ''oppose'' or ''neutral'' without comment. Throughout the entire nine-day process, discussion occurs on the Talk page, versus the (!)voting space. Limit watchlist notices to the start of the (!)voting period. By time-limiting Q&A we limit the back-and-forth that seems to be the onus of the "deeply unpleasant" atmosphere. By moving discussion out of view of (!)voting, we preserve the opportunity for discourse but, perhaps, limit the number of drive-by comments by requiring an extra step to access it.<br/>I'm not set on this specific formula but I think any approach that modifies processes rather than creates new systems (e.g. limits on subject of discussion, creating panels of moderators, etc.) will be more likely to see implementation and better preserve the spirit of our current approach. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 01:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
:Issue addressed: 1
==Idea: Administrator probationary period==
Make the first 180 days of administrator tenure a probationary period. During this period, the administrator will be subject to a compulsory recall process using a to-be-determined formula. If the administrator is not recalled within 180 days, the probation is lifted and the current status quo with respect to recall processes (it's voluntary) resumes.<br/>
As I read it, the recurring issue that's been identified by mandatory recall opponents is the potential for gaming of the system in which admins operating in contentious areas build-up a laundry list of enemies and then get railroaded into a bad faith desysop. While this largely seems to be a hypothetical issue, in cases where it does manifest I'm sure it would rarely or never be faced by very new admins; those within the first six months of their appointment. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 01:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
:Issue addressed: 6
| |||