Anonymous user
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests (edit)
Revision as of 06:09, 14 May 2013
, 11 years ago→Discussion
imported>LostInRiverview |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 38:
I know this steers away from (part of) the original proposal a little bit but I've noticed some wikis put RfA/RfB nominations onto their own subpage, which makes things less cluttered, allows for more focused and straightforward discussion on a specific RfX (including a dedicated comments section) and ultimately eases workflow enough that we could allow multiple RfX nominations at a time if we wanted to (one could argue it's like the [[Forum:Community discussions|Forum]] to our [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal|CPTP]]). With this, I'm wondering if the community at large would be interested in this at all. Note that at this point, this doesn't contradict my above support for the ''one nom at a time'' regulation, I'm just putting this across as a potential alternative and to see what other's think. {{LabSig}} 22:01, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
:I considered suggesting that, but I didn't want to put forward too many changes at one time. I support the idea, however. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 22:08, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this is going to be another wall of text, because I think there are a few things I need to say about this process. I've been mulling over my thoughts for the past couple days, and I hope that I can state them here in some degree of clarity. Don't expect me to give you a tl;dr at the end... I don't know if I can summarize my concerns or ideas.
First, to resolve the issue of the striking vote - I want to make it clear that my suggesting it here is not a response to Lost Labyrinth's striking of Auror's vote ''per se'', though that action does spur the discussion. The idea of whether LL was justified in striking the vote is actually not relevant, so I chose not to get into reasoning the first time I mentioned it. I was hoping that it wouldn't be brought up here since I agree, it is best left in the past. However, what should be discussed, and what has been I think the elephant in the room has been a discussion of, essentially, who is allowed to strike out votes, under what circumstances, and for what reasons. Again, this has nothing to do with LL's choice to strike out Auror's vote in the particular RfA, but that action (even though it was reversed) does spur a discussion of whether or not actions similar to it should be allowed. But, I believe this whole issue should be a moot point, for reasons which will be clear soon.
There's the concept of strength of argument in a vote, versus simply taking a count of those in favor and opposed. The RfA page does stipulate that at least a 2/3rds majority must support a candidate, but that does not even begin to consider whether the arguments from those supporters are anything more substantive than 'they deserve it' or 'they are a good editor'. This again brings up the sticky wicket of striking out votes, because ultimately someone needs to decide whether some particular argument really is strong enough to justify accepting the vote that is cast.
It occurs to me that no one so far has really been able to solve the issue of relevant versus irrelevant votes. For all the other fixes we can put into place - limiting nominations to one at a time, having nominations on a separate page, having a comments period - none of these address one of the core flaws of the RfA itself. Voting is a flawed system.
Here's the real dilemma. We want a system that reaches a quick and relatively clear result. Our history of trying to find consensus usually is a weird blend of votes and deliberation, with the weight of these experiences being more towards these being votes - we divide ourselves along support/oppose boundaries, we count those persons who support or oppose and tally them up. Straight voting like this would work as a system, if we were not dedicated to also achieving a consensus. That drive towards reaching a consensus muddles the process, since we now need to show that the community in general agrees with an idea or a proposal or, in these situations, a nominee. It's very hard to demonstrate that when you have simply a list of Yes and No.
This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that we don't have a period of discussion, a period of insight into a nominee, or a time where we, the community, can weigh in on a person without it being recorded as a 'support' or 'oppose'. ''We really need this''. Discussions, however, tend to take a long time and usually don't yield a clear outcome. And, by the time some people have had a chance to weigh in and give strong reasons behind their thoughts, other people have become bored and wandered off, and we lose that voice in the discussion.
How on earth do we fix this? I think the best place to start would be to abolish voting on RfAs and RfBs. Yes, you read that correctly. Voting is a divisive system that, by its very nature, destroys any meaningful consensus we could develop. The manner in which we've adapted voting to fit the needs of an RfA or RfB are severely lacking as well, since there's no reasonable way to strike out votes or to monitor the contents of a vote to ensure strength of argument. The only sure-fire way we have to get a consensus on a person is to discuss them, to fully air any issues we may have with them, and get everyone into some general agreement.
Now, it's very difficult to put what I've just suggested into practice, but for the sake of clarity, I'm going to try. What I have drafted below would be an implementation of what I've just described above. Don't think of it as a formal proposal, but rather as a jumping-off point to reaching some kind of agreement on how these issues are handled.
----
;Stage 1 - Nomination/Application
* Users may nominate themselves or be nominated by another user for administratorship. The nominee then has to accept the nomination before discussion can begin.
* If the nominee accepts the nomination, they should also choose two Administrative projects when stating their acceptance.
* After a user applies or accepts a nomination, a bureaucrat should determine whether the user is eligible to apply. If they are eligible, the bureaucrat should initiate a period of discussion.
;Stage 2 - Discussion
* A period of discussion shall last at least five days.
* After the five day period of discussion has elapsed, it shall be determined whether a consensus has been reached. Consensus can only be reached in favor of a nominee, not in opposition to them. If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion clearly shows a lack of consensus, the nomination will be ended and the nominee will not be promoted.
* In cases where a consensus is not clear after the initial discussion period, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion. If this occurs and a clear consensus exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If a consensus still does not exist, the nomination will be ended and the user will not be promoted.
* If discussion continues for ten or more days, and it is determined by ay least two bureaucrats that progress towards consensus is not occurring, the nomination will be ended and the nominee will not be promoted.
;Other rules
* A nominee whose nomination does not lead to a consensus for promotion will not be eligible to be nominated or to request for thirty days.
* A nominee may end a nomination at any time. A nominee that terminates a nomination will not be eligible to be nominated or to request for fifteen days.
* A nominee who has had three failed nominations within any six-month period will be ineligible to be nominated or to request rights for three months, starting at the end of their third failed nomination.
* A nominee who applies for rights and who is ineligible will be automatically denied, and will be ineligible to request rights or to be nominated for an additional fifteen days, beginning after they would have otherwise become eligible. Nominations of ineligible nominees by other users will not result in a penalty against the nominee.
;Guidelines for discussion and consensus
* Points of discussion should be focused on assessing the ability of a nominee to perform their duties. Discussion should avoid sweeping praise or generalizations (e.g. "he/she is a good editor" or "he/she deserves it"), and focus instead on specific reasons why a user is or is not a good fit for the position.
* Users engaged in discussion may contradict the points raised by another user, but should remain respectful at all times. Back-and-forth arguments between two users should be avoided.
* Generally, consensus in a request can be determined by answering these questions:
** Are there major and specific problems raised by multiple users regarding the nominee?
** Is there a lack of agreement between users over whether a nominee is qualified, capable of serving or a good fit for the role?
* If the answer to these questions is 'no', there likely exists a consensus for the nomination.
----
As I stipulated above, this is an idea. Please do keep an open mind and consider the potential in this idea.
I want to stress, before I wrap this up at long last, that ''voting as a means to determine consensus is a flawed system'', as it neither reaches a consensus or adequately serves as a voting mechanism. We try to do two distinct things with the system we have in place now - we try to build agreement between users, while simultaneously trying to count votes. This is not possible, especially if the issues are complex and emotions are running high. If we choose not to go with a solution like the one I've outlined above, then I must insist that we completely drop any pretense of consensus in RfAs or RfBs, and instead transition to a strict voting system, where candidates get only a yes or a no vote and there is no such thing as 'strength of argument'. We can't have both, we can only have one or the other. I think, I hope, and I believe that we want a system of consensus, not simply a manner for voting. If that is the case, we must replace the current RfA and RfB framework. That is the cold hard truth.
- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 06:09, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
| |||