Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming

It's interesting to note that that in the closed discussion, over 50% of the participants were admins. Nevertheless, this is a monumental attempt at some form of change to the way the admins are (s)elected and it has to be done. I'm well aware of what's involved, but if any serious RfC are to be launched following the brainstormings and next 'phases' , the time will come when some statistical facts will be required to back up any RfC proposal statements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you put quotes around phases. This is following the 2015 process structure in terms of get consensus for what the issues are - that part is done - and then see what solutions may be had to address those issues. It is explicitly designed to be 2 RfCs and the first one is already complete. Some statistics may certainly be helpful in terms of why a particular reform is a good idea or bad - and to the extent that they are needed this brainstorm interregnum can provide the chance to figure out what they are and give someone the chance to collect some of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Naturally everyone has their own perception of how a RfC works best. I'm just saying that for the ones I launched, citing some facts supported by stats worked wonders. That's all. But I'm not running the show and don't even want to. I'm just happy to add my thoughts in the voting and comments sections in case my experience or perspective stimulates some positive steps forward. Your reform project is not a battle ground. It's as you intended: a collection of ideas to see which appeal most to those who would like to see RfA improved. I would like to see it improved. I don't really care how as long as it finally gets done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Status check

We're about to hit the 1 week mark for Brainstorming which had been scheduled for 1 - 2 weeks. There has been some great discussion over the last week. It feels like the pace is starting to slow down which suggests we may be getting close to ready to start Phase 2 - that is actual proposals. In looking at the ideas that have been floated it seems like some are essentially ready to go, others it seems like have been floated and may or may not be proposed after some negative feedback, while in a third category there are ideas that have received some general positive feedback but are not fully formed enough to launch. I'd encourage anyone who is interested in moving a proposal forward to think about drafting some specifics for feedback prior to the launch of Phase 2 as changing now is much easier than once the formal discussion is already under way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but I don't see any of these proposals (including my own!) as having a serious chance of passing, with the possible exception of some form of increased moderation (which may even be counterproductive, per Worm). Here's a thought: in addition to the "throw out RfA and make up something new" proposals for systemic change, we need smaller, more incremental suggestions. As Iridescent often says, Wikipedians are fundamentally (small-c) conservative, and I have a hard time believing that, at least at present, we'll get consensus for uprooting twenty years of RfA. (I realize that phase 1 found consensus for considering alternatives to RfA, but there's a big difference between endorsing change in the abstract and signing onto a specific proposal.) The 2015 RfA worked reasonably well because it focused on more minor changes: things like the discretionary zone, the number of questions, and how the discussion is advertised. We need proposals like these: I don't have any particular ideas at the moment, but something less dramatic is required. While it's fun to dabble in developing complex and innovative proposals, it won't be so fun when phase 2 rejects them all. Another (related) comment: I hope everyone reads these "idle musings". It's a very valid point, even if it's not a very encouraging one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that "Wikipedians are fundamentally (small-c) conservative", so I have to agree with your conclusion that the possibility exists that nothing none of the bigger initiatives will pass. There's an issue here of consent of the governed ... yes, yes, admins aren't governing anyone, but the feeling is more important than the reality here. Many voters are never going to support anything that feels to them like a muzzle on some kind of fundamental right. The only idea I've got to offer is: if any of the proposals turns out to be popular but can't quite pass, then consider rewriting the proposal so that it only applies to a person's 2nd, 3rd, etc. RfAs ... the first RfA might still be unpleasant and non-optimal, but at least voters will feel like they're being offered one opportunity to be heard. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

While some big changes to RfA and even the fundamental definitions of adminship have been proposed, there are others that do not require any major change to either. Splitting discussions, group RfA's, probationary periods or temporary adminship all do not change what level of input the !voters have while possibly changing the experience for the candidate. In addition, there have been major changes to fundamental processes before, e.g., edit-confirmed protection, limiting IP editing, etc. that have been passed by the community. That big changes haven't passed before doesn't mean that they are forever doomed, no matter how long they've been on WP:PERENNIAL. If the proposal makes the case that the circumstances now are different (and I think blue-moon RfA's count as different circumstances), then even the larger proposals may be viable. Lastly, if there are multiple proposals at different scales of change, that might also change the responses. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ I share your concern about the limited number of incremental changes along the kinds at 2015 given that Wikipedians tend to be conservative. The only three that truly match that are a word count limit, re-titling the oppose section, and hiding the support/oppose counters. There are a couple other changes that could be considered incremental: no one needs an RfC to restart an admin finding Wikiproject, granting sysop through ACE or Steward elections (which one can argue about whether or not they're incremental) don't really address the problems at RfA. Beyond that there do appear to be some "medium sized" proposals: for instance a formalized bundling/cohort that otherwise doesn't change RfA. That said I also agree with @Eggishorn that consensus can change and this format does allow for those proposing larger changes to point to specific consensus about the problem - that is they only need to sell the solution as appropriate not that there is a problem worth solving (which is a frequent stumbling block to RfCs proposing changes of any kind). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and I want to be clear that I'm not pessimistic ... I'm mainly saying that it would be a good idea to have a Plan B, in case the changes that people agree to in this phase turn out not to make a significant difference. (It's hard to know the outcome in advance). - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC

I'm not sure how different plan B will look from plan A... There'll be another review at some point in the future, and in the meantime, people may try to work on other initiatives that don't require consensus support. The thing is, volunteer time is limited, so finding people to work on initiatives is hard, particularly for ones not directly related to content. isaacl (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, but I'm talking about a specific Plan B, involving treating first RfAs differently than subsequent RfAs. I think what I'll do is wait until we're about halfway through Phase II before I bring this up again, and then only if it appears it may be needed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost the context along the way... 🤔 I'm not sure if changes to the N-th RfA is going be attractive enough to change support, though, as it will only have a delayed effect in increasing admins, and only on the fraction of candidates that make it to an N-th RfA. isaacl (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

We could start setting some scheduled dates now for new flights/cohorts/groups of candidates. Maybe have a "Volunteer week" each quarter, during which there could be scheduled "open house" dates for different initiatives. Editors representing each initiative would host open discussions to let people know more about the initiatives, and what kind of tasks could use more help. For example, different admins could give a capsule summary of the administrative work they do, and field questions. (If anyone has more time and energy, they can of course organize more elaborate activities.) During the week, there can be an "admin candidate signup" day, when candidates would start their RfAs. I'm not sure how much benefit will result from a volunteer week, but I think the effort invested can be minimized as appropriate such that the benefit/effort ratio is worthwhile. isaacl (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ooh. Great ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is planning on using secret ballot at all, significant work will be needed in advance of the first one. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

If you mean regarding the two-part RfA proposal in the brainstorming session, we can still schedule dates now. If the proposal doesn't pass or does pass but the implementation isn't ready, the usual one-part RfA process can be followed, just like last September. (I don't see a need for a secret ballot for any open house activities.) isaacl (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't share the sentiment that this discussion suggests proposals are not viable. The participation at this page is not representative of the editorial base that reached consensus on the issues in phase 1. There were 122 editors who participated in the phase 1 discussion (xtools data), but only 48 editors have chimed in here (xtools data). Of the 86 editors who contributed more than 1 kilobyte to the phase 1 discussion, only 28 of them have participated in the brainstorming. Looking at the top 25 contributors to phase 1 by size, 59% of that RfC was contributed by 25 editors. Of those 25, 12 have not contributed to this discussion at all, and 53% of this discussion so far has been contributed by editors who were not the top contributors to the phase 1 RfC. The discussion here is important and worthwhile, don't get me wrong, but we should be wary of false consensus. The raw numerical support for issues that found consensus rivals the level of participation in this entire discussion, and we shouldn't forget that just because they haven't all come back to participate in this interlude between phases. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the expressed wariness regarding the proposals to-date is based on the brainstorming conversation. I believe it's based on past experiences with these types of discussions and a feeling that the net benefits of the proposals may not have reached a threshold that can appeal to enough editors. But I do agree that we shouldn't pre-judge the outcome of all proposals. I think there is an increasing number of people willing to try something new, and so some concept may catch on. At the same time, I agree that proposals for incremental changes are welcome. This might mean compromising from what someone might consider to be an ideal solution, but it will help if, using marketing terms, we can package the proposals to move. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If it helps: I really don't know what I'm talking about. I promise not to say anything more about this idea until the halfway point of Phase II, and even then, only on this page (where it won't be seen by most participants), and only if it looks like all of the bigger proposals are in real trouble. I'm hoping as much as anyone that that's not how this plays out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spoke too soon; the Eostrix mess may change things. Now I'll be watching from day one. If the voters seem to be soured on RfA reform and the major options are tanking, I'll point this out and propose the "one standard RfA" option as a response to what's happening, sooner rather than later. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually ... now that the odds that this will be necessary have gone up, I'm leaving myself open to a charge that I'm not being a team player by withholding this idea from the main brainstorming page and inviting comments, so I'll go do that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Delay Phase 2?

Given the latest...incident at RfA, this is likely to end up being precisely the worst possible time in years to push for reform. If the block is ultimately sustained, a once-bitten, twice-shy electorate (!electorate?) is going to be very much loath to minimize scrutiny at RfA or to lower the de facto criteria: if anything, many will argue for increasing both. More broadly, the phase 1 consensus may no longer be valid at all if the pendulum swings decisively from the "RfA is too hard" to the "RfA is too easy" side. I hope not, and perhaps I'm overreacting. But a shell-shocked community can hardly be relied upon not to overreact, and it would be unwise to ignore that prospect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone keeps their head down and edits quietly, it's always going to be hard to tell if they're a returning editor, or someone planning to go rogue in future. I don't think the current proposals would significantly help or hinder the ability to detect such editors. I suspect the greater impact will be in the RfA discussions where commenters may become more wary of candidates. isaacl (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of socks at RfA and admin reforms... see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/RFA reform. JavaHurricane 06:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think one important takeaway is that community scrutiny did not help here. Perhaps that means we focus on the wrong things. —Kusma (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As has been said in the ArbCom block discussion, I doubt community consensus towards anything would have helped. Even ArbCom wasn't unanimous in the decision, and "is this person a sockmaster?" shouldn't generally be a concern at RfA.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks EW for bringing this up. I know you're not the only person to be thinking it. Ultimately I think I agree with what others said that this shouldn't stop what we're doing. I certainly think the community is in a bit of a shock with all this and my thinking on a delay might change as the discussion continues but I expect that shock to wear off and I expect most people to reach a similar conclusion to the ones reached here by those who've posted above: there was (and for reasons I will explain in a second) and is a consensus that there was already too much scrutiny at RfA and a discussion about adding more scrutiny seems to be going nowhere. Further, it seems unlikely that this event would suddenly cause a consensus for the statement, soundly rejected, that there is no problem. Of the 8 statements which have consensus or rough consensus the only one where consensus may have changed because of this event is 2. Level of scrutiny and so far I'm not even seeing that. But even if consensus has changed on that it would simply mean that ideas which focus on different issues will be the ones most likely to gain community approval in Phase 2. What happened with Eostrix is incredibly upsetting and I do not fault anyone for being upset and discomforted by it; I know I am. However, based on what I know of Wikipedians I don't think anyone is suddenly going to say "After Eostrix we have proof that RfA is working well and that it's not a corrosive atmosphere" (to pick 1 statement from Phase 1 that had support). Discussion still continues on a few of the newer brainstorming ideas but as that settles down I would still expect us to be ready to move, productively, into Phase 2 with-in days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any delays are necessary; even with the shock and all, nobody's opinions are probably going to actually change, and ultimately the show must go on.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I support leaving this brainstorming phase open for a full two weeks, but as others have said above, further delays are not something I believe are necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the options here. I get there's only so much that can be done, but there are 34 ideas presented here, and none seem to me like they will both a) obtain consensus; b) have a big impact. There are a couple of good ideas that seem promising, but don't seem refined enough at this point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Proc that there are so many ideas. I quite simply don't have the time to review and comment on all 34. If some have a strong consensus against already, can we eliminate them from the list to bring down the number? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

PR: I have said something similar further up on this page. However, several incremental or medium sized reforms might, together, have just as much impact as a single bigger impact change. So I am not necessarily disagreeing with you - particularly on how some good ideas are not fully refined.

Trains: yes we obviously had a huge number of ideas initially and this might be a problem with Phase 2. As was pointed out earlier in this thread an idea that didn't get a good reception here might not reflect the broader community participation. Do you have any ideas on how we can help manage this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep, perhaps grouping ideas in sections depending on what area they are in to bring in some organization would be helpful? Right now, there's just a ton of ideas thrown out there with little organization. It's hard to even figure out where to start. And off the top of my head, I can see that the proposal "Buy administrators' coffee" can be SNOW closed as oppose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that 34 proposals will be put forth in phase 2 (also, many of the proposals don't need to get a community consensus to proceed; interested parties can just go ahead and work on them). But the problem is there hasn't been a lot of discussion on refining the proposals, so it's hard to get a sanity check on what's more likely to pass. (I have my own opinions, but who can say if they're any more accurate than others?) For example, I think proposing a couple of bundled options regarding scheduled RfAs and two-phase RfAs would be good. But neither proposer of these two ideas commented specifically on the options I proposed, and no one else commented at all. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite the evident good intentions, the sooner the majority of the ideas are closed, the better. I would do that now and clear the decks for the most likely 1 (or 2) to have a slightly longer examination. Some of these were evidently rejected at an earlier stage and have somehow been resurrected. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all we're in brainstorming so I didn't think closing any ideas was appropriate (heck I proposed some ideas that I wouldn't even support in the hopes that a good idea might come from it which did happen with the possible revised wording of Q1). In Phase 1 I certainly moderated some pieces. But which ones do you see as having been rejected @Leaky caldron? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried not to flat out say "this idea will never get consensus" for that reason: there needs to be the freedom to riff on ideas even if they seem implausible, so other ideas might be triggered. I do think some kind of preliminary evaluation phase to winnow down the ideas would be helpful (and this is typical after initial brainstorming is completed). The problem at this point though is I don't see enough participation so far amongst those not making proposals to accomplish this. Maybe some would show up if a preliminary evaluation phase were announced? I'm not sure how to get some people to show up while avoiding the entire community showing up, though. revised after immediate response below was made isaacl (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, Isaacl. The current number of proposals is simply too many for me to deal with unless I dedicate hours to reviewing them all, but I could handle commenting on, say, 15 total proposals. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest that the phase 2 proposal page be drafted and refined before being opened for comments. Perhaps along these lines, the simplest path forward is for Barkeep49 to post a proposal for which ideas (broadly speaking) will be examined further at this time, and then the interested proposing parties can work on a draft. Anyone who feels their proposal should have also been included can start a discussion about it. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable stating retroactively that participation in this brainstorm phase was a prerequisite for Phase 2. One idea that I've been considering with this issue, well before this conversation, is a 1 week "Idea submission period". This could either be ahead of the 30 days of Phase 2 or the first week of Phase 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that concern. I think it's a bad idea though to let proposals through unfiltered to phase 2. If the idea submission period (which I think would be similar to the drafting period I suggested; I think it's important to have the proposals settled before opening discussion) allows for completely new ideas (and I can see some value in this), I think they should be subject to the same preliminary evaluation that I suggested for the current proposals on the table. Apologies for suggesting that you be in the hot seat to evaluate them, but I think it's the simplest way to avoid an extensive community discussion on what goes into the subsequent community discussion (or an extensive community discussion on who should decide what goes into the subsequent community discussion). isaacl (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am certainly willing in my role as facilitator to do some moderation, being in the hot seat isn't exactly a new thing for me. But in line with our project's ethos I think any interested editor should have equal chance of putting forward a proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Historically speaking, the number of participants drops dramatically when it comes to weighing in on specific proposals, and having too many proposals (particularly overlapping ones) exacerbates the problem. Thus I think we need to do what we can to avoid sprawl, even if only through moral suasion. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that an amount of bundling would help here. We could categorize them into how much they restrict the community's freedom to make the whole experience ghastly for the candidates? The ones that really limit that go in one heading (called something like "Big Changes Right Now"), the ones that don't limit it in another place (suggest "The Ostrich Approach To The Problem"), and the ones that are just minor tweaks to the existing process in a third (suggest "Bikeshedder's Corner.") People can decide where they fit on that axis and focus their attention on a smaller number of proposals.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support a more neutrally-worded version of this proposal.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    People have a hard time self-categorizing their proposals in terms of impact in a consistent manner. One obvious categorization method would be to make people pick a primary issue they're addressing and to group that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Now that I'm in less sarcastic mood than previously, if I was in charge of this process I would consider asking the community for input in a sub-RfC at this stage, to establish how dramatic a change the community can stomach. "On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is minor tweaks to our current method and 10 is to discard our current process entirely and offer a choice of new methods, what scale of change would you prefer?" This seems better to me than offering minor tweaks if the community wants dramatic change, or indeed offering dramatic change if the community wants minor tweaks.—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

      @S Marshall if this had been thought of during Phase 1 I could see its potential value - though even there I'm skeptical. I think the final number would be misleading because I think a lot of people are willing to consider larger changes, if they're the right changes. But what is "right" is different for everyone. That said, you obviously close a lot of RfCs - can you give a model for this sub-RfC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

      I think commenters can evaluate for themselves which proposals are major changes and which are minor tweaks, so I don't think we need to categorize them along these lines, or have an intermediate step asking for opinions. I don't think an intermediate RfC would be effective, in any case: seeing specific proposals tends to crystallize people's opinions and so they only become aware at that point of how much change they are willing to see occur. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Barkeep, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to adapt the review structure in the light of this discussion. We might put up a page that says something like:

• During the review, the drafters have identified a need for further guidance from the community.
• The drafters have produced more than thirty ideas which are very disparate in scope and import. The drafters would very much welcome additional ideas at this stage and they continue to solicit your suggestions.
• The drafters wish to develop the best of the ideas into concrete proposals, and wish to concentrate on those ideas which the community feels are both conservative enough to gain consensus and radical enough to have a meaningful impact on the scale of the problem that the community has told us about.
• At phase 1, the community told us that not enough candidates are standing for RfA because they find the atmosphere corrosive. The drafters have identified many ways to make the atmosphere less corrosive, but all of them restrict the community's freedom to comment on the candidate. The drafters would like to gauge the community's appetite for such restrictions.
• During the drafting process an open request for adminship with near-unanimous support was quick-failed when the candidate was blocked by Arbcom. Does this incident affect the community's view of RfA, and if so, in what way?
• Some of the drafters feel that RfA is no longer fit for purpose and would prefer to replace it with an entirely different process which would not involve direct elections. Is the community willing to consider alternatives as radical as this?

Then I'd ping everyone who participated in phase 1.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The last bullet point has already effectively been answered during Phase 1. The community has said that it is open to some other route to admin than RfA; whether any other route will be able to get consensus is something we will only know for specific opinions. As for the rest, while I agree with Wugapodes that a reaction by editors here does not equal a reaction by the broader audience, I also think some ideas will not be put forward after their trial balloon here while other ideas are half formed and unless they get more detail will not be ready to propose during Phase 2. In two part RfCs it is standard to see a fairly substantial drop-off between the number of participants between part 1 and part 2. Adding yet another step is inviting still more drop-off such that I would worry about having enough of a quorum to impose changes of anything beyond more than something modest in scope. That said if you, in your wealth of RfC experience, have a good model/example that could be worth considering. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we're far outside the realm where precedent can show us what to do. I think that admin reform might be the second-longest series of sequential community discussions on the same topic that we've ever had on Wikipedia (for the longest one, see here), and also the second most contentious that hasn't reached Arbcom (for the most contentious that didn't reach Arbcom, see here, which was preceded by this colossal barney in which S Marshall flew right off the handle and seriously went for SlimVirgin's jugular. By God I was so cross with her.) I think what is useful about reviewing those discussions is to see how we invented on the fly things that are now standard Wikipedian practice, such as the multi-admin close for contentious discussions, and things that are no longer standard Wikipedian practice because they no longer work for us, such as WP:DEEPER. This is a community that adapts its processes at need. But this isn't worth pursuing unless someone else agrees with me.—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes community opinion aligns just right to agree on trying some procedure, and it becomes widespread. But I have a hard time predicting what set of conditions will create this alignment. (On a side note: I don't personally feel that multi-admin closes for contentious discussions are standard practice. I think sometimes people suggest it, with a vague idea that it might help, and for many people it's easier to say "sure" than no.) isaacl (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Phase 2 Structure

Incorporating ideas discussed above, specifically on how to make this process manageable for participants, I have thrown up a first draft of Phase 2. My thinking for roll-out is sooner than later we launch the 7 day idea period, noticing this on CENT, AN, RFA and VPR. 7 Days later the RfC tag gets applied and then 7 days after that CENT, AN, RFA, VPR renotified and an MMS sent out to Phase 1 participants (minus those who unsubscribed), and possibly a watchlist notice. In this way the bulk of participants arrive after all the ideas are there and hopefully organized enough to be manageable. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good; it may or may not need a stronger "don't vote for the 7 days before the voting starts" warning. Regarding timing, my recommendation is to start the voting period at 0000GMT Monday Nov 1, the ACE candidate selection starts 6 days after that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the intro and removed the voting/discussion sections from the example (I will add them back with the RfC launch). Minimizing overlap with ACE is a good point and is a further reason to roll out this weekend. Starting on the weekend doesn't strike me as a problem in the way it is for ACE where it needs to be a workday so there is foundation support. There's not really a "first mover" advantage as well so it's not like our weekday (larger) crowd is at a disadvantage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Defining some terms

Future of Wikipedia is unknown but there's reason to believe that this collection of knowledge has been successful because some of the terms have been clearly defined. IMHO we should be thinking generations down the road, not our lifetime. Statistically half of our existing admin corps should be dead in about 20 years, perhaps less. I'll presume this discussion is ongoing because a number of admins and other concerned wikipedians want to see this community-approved admin process improved and clarified. So I'm thinking of RL community-approved training models (sponsorship, school) which have success in RL situations demonstrated over time. By "school", I'm implying curriculum, practicum and pedagogy. By "sponsorship" I'm implying practicum and curriculum, with strong personal tutoring connection added. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia because it's a strictly voluntary effort. If I was paid to edit, in my case it would negatively affect my willingness. "I am" because I edit. I put myself forward for the mop. When I discuss "school" and "sponsorship" I'm implying willingness, and specifically levels of willingness because such levels might wax or wane on a continuum in time. The two institutions I'm suggesting have proven records of accounting for variations and anomalies. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Teaching towards the test" in our meta situation might well make candidates more willing to apply, but less likely to comprehend the underlying subject. But that doesn't mean such training is useless. I was an elementary classroom teacher for a time and developed a non-standard system which I called Test Apprehension Reduction Exercise (which familiarized students with standardized test materials outside the students' experience). Lesson One was to hold a standardized test answer sheet in one's hand, examine it, discuss it, then wad it up and shoot it three-point style into the circular file from distance. The desired lesson outcome was a successful placement of their answer sheet in the trash, even if on the rebound. Lesson Two was drawing all over the answer sheet in crayon. Lesson Three involved drawing pictures on the answer sheet in crayon, but only by filling in ABCDE bubbles on the sheet. By the time my students got the real test, they were unafraid of tools, understood the instructions and were totally skeptical about the tests' importance. They didn't necessarily do that much better (many did), but nobody cried or freaked over the test. Parents liked that. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My point is that exposing candidates to targeted, rigorous and detailed feedback during training/sponsorship might have the effect of toughening candidate skins to the sorts of legitimate (or otherwise) critique often gotten during a formal process. Then you run the online poll. Then further work, then the RfA which doesn't frighten or traumatize the candidate because they've been severely scrutinized before. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)