 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A SWOT analysis takes an objective look at the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats to a system, organization, or process. People have complained about Requests for Adminship for years, but very little change has been enacted. It's my hope that by looking at past RFAs and past discussion regarding RFA, we can come to some sort of clear picture of what is working well and what could be improved.
What this might do edit
(in roughly decreasing order of importance/desireability)
- Improve the way/rate/method in which RFA works.
- Create a proposal to synthesize the workable/actionable parts of previous proposals.
- Create an objective summary of several years' worth of discussion, analysis, and hand-wringing over RFA.
- Create a lot of heat and noise.
- Create bad blood.
- Overload the servers.
- Nothing until the heat death of the universe.
What this will not do edit
- Try to force change on Wikipedia's culture at large.
- Call for the resignation of any current admins, or grant the sysop bit to anyone who does not currently have it as of this writing.
- Dismantle RFA.
- Cause the heat death of the universe.
What this should not do edit
- Make assumptions about "what everyone knows".
- Make new proposals based on wholly new ideas.
See also edit
- Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll
- Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archives
- The No September Admin Project
- User:Durin#Admin_stuff
More later... feel free to edit yourself, either here or on the talk page.