- Some people will tell me I'm wrong, but one fable I heard to explain the "Carnildo affair," where user:Carnildo was appointed an administrator despite having polled 60% approval on his fourth RFA and despite very vocal dissent from "respected Wikipedians" as well as disrespected ones, was that it occurred because "RFA is broken."
- You see, RFA promotes some unworthy people, and there are no reliable procedures for getting rid of them, and it fails to promote some worthy people. We all agree with that, I think.
- RFA is distorted by the IRC lensing effect, where someone chummy and non-threatening on IRC all day can get huge landslides of approval without having (believe it or not) more than a few hundred Wikipedia edits and no article edits. The IRC lensing effect can work the other way, too, when long time and tireless IRC personalities can voice a dark view of a candidate and see an avalanche of "oppose" votes come in. Whenever you see pro or con votes in the 100's, that person has spent some time on IRC, even if he or she had no desire to influence the vote at all. (This is not an accusation or a blame laying. This is an observation.)
- RFA is influenced by "RFA week conversions," where people who flaunt process regularly suddenly fly right, speak nicely, and advocate policies for a week or two before the RFA opens.
- RFA is influenced by edit counters and by editors who rack up hundreds of edits by putting a tag on every article or talk page warring or doing RC patrol a few days.
- RFA seems to require saints, as a single "fuck" in an edit can derail a perfect editor's chances, and grudges last an eternity.
- "Consensus" is a word with nearly no definition, but it has been held to be 75-80% approval on RFA, and it doesn't take much to drop such a percentage.
- Because Carnildo kept failing the RFA's (and he kept failing for his own fault in my opinion, but others disagree), the bureaucrats, with the persuasion of two current ArbCom members and two former ArbCom members, decided that they never needed votes in the first place, that who got the buttons was at their discretion anyway. Therefore, despite never having defied the community before, they were going to "fix" the "broken" RFA by just deciding to give out the powers anyway.
- This has made a great, great many people angry. Just ask people how they feel about it, and see if you don't consider the number of angry people a great number or not. If you don't, might I suggest some accounting texts for you?
Therefore if "RFA is broken" is the problem, why not ask the community to fix RFA instead of appropriating more power in fewer hands and reducing the level of debate? Why not have a derby?
Here is my proposal: I would like for each person who has the time, energy, and wit to come up with a whole or partial solution to the assumed premise that "RFA is broken." Let's let this run for a week or so (an eternity in Wikipedia time, I know). No one bashes any other idea. No one takes credit for any. No debate at this juncture. At the end of the week or so, let's just vote for the ones we like best. Of the various ideas, the top 3-5 will be chosen and presented to the general community for a vote. We ask people to choose which of them they like best: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or status quo. If we get consensus on any, that's how we go. If we get majorities, we eliminate the low-finishers and vote again. If we get a majority, even a simple majority, for status quo, then we answer back to the 'crats: "No, RFA is not broken: some people just don't need to be promoted, despite your 'better judgment.'"
I will offer proposals myself, yes, as I agree that RFA is ailing, though I hardly think the Carnildo case was a symptom of that disease. Geogre 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)