Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 146

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 140

←

Archive 144

→

Proposal: make RFA like RFC

I was looking through some old RFA archives, and came across this interesting RFA. It looks like the format of an RFC. I'm putting this proposal in its own section since the above one is a bit "packed" within others. I personally think that having a bureaucrat evaluate a proper discussion, with different ideas is an excellent one. Right now, it's one huge vote/discussion, people get attacked for their comments, it's often difficult to express support with reasoning, it's hard to tell the consensus on a certain view, etc etc. I would have personally thought that an RFC would have been a messy way to do it, but that request looks perfectly fine. I don't know why that style wasn't adopted then, but how about rediscussing that format now? -- how do you turn this on 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that little "experiment" wound up being something of a disaster, which is why the format was immediately abandoned afterward. For what it is worth, regarding this (and above) proposal(s) to modify the RfA system, in case you hadn't been made aware there is a fairly exhaustive effort to analyze and modernize the RfA process ongoing at WP:RfA Review. Shereth 21:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The idea is, after a week (or two), a bureaucrat would read through the discussion. They would decide if there was agreement to make the user an admin. They would do this by reading all the views, those endorsing them, and opposing comments. This would not be like an RFC, just the format. It would have a result at the end. It would give bureaucrats more freedom. -- how do you turn this on 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How exactly was it a disaster? Plenty of people commented on it without an issue at all. -- how do you turn this on 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, did you actually read it? It was a total farce. – iride scent 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. It was after this and Moralis' RFA that basically no one has ever mentioned changing RFA into an AFD or RFC style since. Some things just seem good planned out, but when actually done the results are less than stellar. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did :-) There were indeed many people who didn't like the new format. However, I think that was simply because they didn't like changing the format they were so used to. It isn't much more complicated than before, just that instead of voting for one thing at once, the voting reasons will be split up and consensus of people's feelings will be easier read. I think it's worth trying again. It was well over a year ago, and it's rather obvious the current way isn't working. What do we have to lose? -- how do you turn this on 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A less radical move would be to insitute a period of topical discussions (i.e. "Experience in admin areas", "Civility", "Vandal-fighting") before the !voting period is opened, so that all the issues can get fleshed out, and to minimise drive-by voting and pile-ons. A sort of mini-RfC preceding a straw poll, if you will. Thoughts? the skomorokh 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone seriously believes a format where every passing editor with a grudge posts a list of the candidates alleged flaws and assorted passers-by endorse each one will reduce the drama on RFA, then I have $4 million in Nigerian bonds and I just need your bank details to transfer them. Head on over to RFC/U and see for yourself just how well this system works. – iridescent 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not supposed to reduce drama, it's supposed to get a fairer result. -- how do you turn this on 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this proposal will have any effect on RfA. It's already a process in which "every passing editor with a grudge posts a list of the candidates alleged flaws". La plus ça change, la plus c'est la même chose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now people list the problems they have with the candidate. If people disagree and say so, they're labeled a badgerer. People can agree, by opposing as well. With this new format, people can express their view in a section (e.g. for you, the section could be "Candidate is too young"), and people can oppose or support that particular view. That way we can see better what views have consensus, and which are a minority view and therefore don't. -- how do you turn this on 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the present system is perfect, but that RfC attempt was abandoned for a good reason, I really think it made consensus harder to read, increased drama, and substantially increased the effort involved for everyone. To be honest, I think the current system with less stigma against discussing votes is about the best I can think of. ~ mazca ^t | c 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's high time the pretence of !voting was recognised as belonging to the same mythical family as the Phoenix, the Unicorn, or the Dragon. They never existed, and neither did !voting. Shame that those last two articles are in such poor shape btw. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well working on them would be a lot more fun than arguing on here wouldn't it :-) -- how do you turn this on 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. So why aren't you on the case? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:-) -- how do you turn this on 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Having defined sections is problematic, because trust is trying to get defined and it makes it look like an exam paper format. Historically from observation of past RfA, I believe editors want to be flexible with the standards based on the candidate's background. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think people miss the point of my proposal. What will happen:

Editor creates a section on, say, "Has done good work in XfDs"
People will endorse/oppose it, without a comment (you can either agree or disagree with a statement like that, there's little you can actually add)
Other sections are created about aspects of the candidate's contributions, and the same happens for each of them. They should be comments that you can either agree or disagree with, and not simply state facts (e.g. Has three featured articles wouldn't be suitable, but Three featured articles shows dedication and commitment would be).
After a week, a bureaucrat will close, and read through. There will have been several points brought up, as on the Matt Britt RfA: "Is a good vandal fighter" "Four months experience is not enough" "Hasn't done enough article work" etc. Each one will have endorsements/opposes. If there is consensus on the negative points, the candidate won't be promoted. If there is consensus on the positive points, the candidate will become an admin.

I really ought to create an example version, to show how it would look at the end, and how a bureaucrat should judge it. -- how do you turn this on 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck to the crats in being able to make the call. RfA/Matt Britt resulted in such a trainwreck that consensus could not even be determined by the crats', and ruined an otherwise rather okay candidate. Several editors said that the format was too confusing for them to participate, deterring them from doing so. Incidentally, the candidate passed RfA/Matt Britt 2 when he ran it again in a more conventional format two weeks later. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Which goes to show that had people understood the format, or attempted to understand it (it's not really that difficult), Matt would have passed first time round. -- how do you turn this on 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The real problem

We've come very close to hitting the nail on the head here, something that we've all known is a problem and have refused to discuss: RfA is now a vote precisely because replying to opposers is now considered "badgering." This is the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard of on Wikipedia, and it's appalling, quite frankly. If people are opposing for a crap reason, they'd damn sure get ready to be called out on it. Yes, there is a massive amount of subjectivity in what "crap reason" is, and that's why RfA is a discussion. Rlevse's proposals above are well-intentioned, but the solution is absolutely not to give the crats more discretion in deciding what crap votes are or are not, it's dismissing this ridiculous notion that discussion and requests for clarification at RfA is somehow a bad thing. GlassCobra 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Structuring an RfA as a vote is, as a basic format, not actually a bad way of determining overall consensus. But it needs to be augmented by the ability to discuss others' opinions if you agree or disagree with them. Certainly, incivility and personal attacks against other participants is to be discouraged, but "discuss the content, not the person" is a demonstrated and well-supported part of Wikipedia - discussing the content of peoples' RfA opinions should be encouraged. ~ mazca ^t | c 13:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, there are at least two opposes on my RfA that I would dearly ADORE to call out as "crap reasons". However, to do so would be the kiss of death. All I can do is sit and wait and hope that some like-minded soul reads them and says "WTFFFFF???" and goes about doing what I can't do. There are exceptions to this "don't argue" !rule--for example, I did answer one oppose directly--because it was a good oppose, well-thought-out, yet contradicting everything I know to be true about myself. THAT type of oppose lends itself to a reasoned discussion in civil terms. But wth is a candidate supposed to do with something like "oppose per username" or "I don't like her sig"??? What possible reasoned discussion can come of that? "I oppose because I suspect this candidate likes broccoli" would be 100% as valid, and THAT's the type of situation I believe the 'crats need to prevent. Not just "deal with after the fact" when counting--I mean PREVENT, as in "issue a guideline stating that there are certain classes of !votes which are not helpful in determining admin potential; these !votes will be stricken AS THEY APPEAR, and both the comments themselves and further discussion thereof will be moved to the talk page so as to avoid poisoning the well against the candidate." THAT's the sort of help I think candidates need. We can't argue against the crap ourselves, so we need someone who can keep the crap from crushing our bids. (Or...could we give each candidate a small number--say, 2 or 3--so-called "peremptory challenges"--each of which can be used to wipe out a single !vote with which they do not agree? No idea at all about how that might be practically instituted--just spitballin' on this.) Gladys J Cortez 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a crap shoot, emphasis on crap. I will not forget being opposed on the basis of an accusation that I had reverted an article from one unsourced version to my own unsourced version. When presented with the evidence that I had done no such thing, the opposition rationale changed; I ought not to have disagreed with the opposer apparently. Such a course is bound to lead to failure. As is disagreeing with a high-profile wikifossil in the three months preceding your RfA apparently. RfA is both corrupt and corrupting; perhaps that's why so many are choosing to steer clear of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the same reasons listed here, people look at RfA thinking "not worth it". If we can infer anything from this discussion, it's that the problem is the community, not the process. MF made that pretty clear. My question is, what are we gonna do about it?--Koji Dude ^(C) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As I expressed elsewhere, every other kind of discussion has some kind of policy behind it (AFDs, FACs, GACs, DRVs etc). RFA has no such policy, and users can oppose for whatever reason they like. That's the problem. Should we determine what reasons are and aren't acceptable to vote? I don't think that would be at all feasible. No one would agree on anything. -- how do you turn this on 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The easiet possible thing to do would be to make a robotic Deskana clone and lock him in Jimbo Wales' basement with nothing but a computer and a battery charger (for himself of course) with a thick steel door and reinforced concrete walls, and professional technicians to check in on him every week (120$ an hour at the most), not to forget security cameras in the corners to monitor him for malfunctions and whatnot, and have him be the ultimate decider on what votes are and aren't allowed.--Koji Dude ^(C) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to feed him and walk him, if that makes RfA any better.... Gladys J Cortez 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should settle for the real me :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be such a tease. ;) Gladys J Cortez 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now now, let's stay on topic. :P GlassCobra 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What? And break talk-page tradition?? Heretic. :o Gladys J Cortez 03:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the deeper question is why should editors be asked or allowed to choose administrators in the first place? It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to come up with a generally acceptable profile (or profiles) of what an administrator should look like (recent blocks, activity in certain areas, length of service, and so on). Coupled with a practical process for removing the sysop bit from the cold dead hands of an incompetent administrator, all drama would be removed, along with the rather tiresome "Support. He's my mate" votes. I do realise though that this a completely unrealistic idea. As someone said elsewhere, wikipedia fossilised about two years ago; very little can be changed now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the proposal would effectively turn admins into politicians. If an admin makes a "controversial" (usually meaning difficult), there will be loud people clamoring for pounds of flesh. See the recall debacles (minus Elonka's and Mercury's, I guess) for examples. —kur ykh 23:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin candidates are already politicians; kissing babies, raising support on IRC and in other places, and doing other things they're told will lead their ultimate goal. Oh, did I mention making campaign promises that they have absolutely no intention of keeping? Evidence available on request. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They weren't politicians until recently, when the climate turned them into such. And I should be clearer: I'm using "politician" to mean perpetually kissing people's asses without getting anything substantial done. —kur ykh 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I'm saying that there are far too many candidates, many of them children, who go through a few hoops and spend time in a few circuses to build what they've been told is a profile that is likely to lead to sucess at RfA. I'm not suggesting that administrators are politicians; once promoted they're invulnerable, so why should they care what you or I think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(re to Gladys) "We can't argue against the crap ourselves" is exactly the problem mindset; I know that you're an RfA candidate, so you can't speak to this at the moment, but this is indicative of precisely what the problem is, as I mentioned above. Anyone, including the candidate themselves, should be able to initiate discussion with opposers (and supporters, obviously) without fear of ridiculous "Oppose per badgering" votes. Again, the solution isn't to give more discretion to the 'crats on what votes shouldn't count (except the aforementioned "per badger"), but to figure out how to turn RfA back into a discussion. Would anyone object to my canvassing a few users that I've noticed utilizing this logic to come and participate here? GlassCobra 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure...might generate more heat than light, but then again it might provide valuable insight.

WARNING: TL;DR tangent approaching...As for "how to turn RfA back into a discussion"...I'm not sure whether the attitudes we see in RfA are the whole problem, or whether they're just a symptom of something larger. From my own observations, it seems like the core editors--the ones who create and maintain content--are dissatisfied with the way the administrative matters--blocks, unblocks, topic bans, dispute resolution, and ArbCom, just for a few examples--are handled, and by extension, angry with the people who make the admin decisions. It seems like there's a class system evolving at WP, and the tone of RfA is mirrored in almost every situation where the "workers" feel wronged by the "management". Watching a block/unblock discussion at AN or AN/I, you'll see it's every bit as miserable as an RfA--except the vitriol there is more-diffuse, spread over a group of people instead of focused on the character of one individual. Carrying this metaphor to a really ridiculous level, maybe editors attack admin candidates for the same reason that blue-collar workers resent the guy who rises through the ranks into management--it's seen as evidence that the person is "going over to the other side", becoming one of the oppressors instead of staying with the oppressed. (/random sociological speculation and OR. I will now push the "Shut UP, Gladys!" button and back slowly away from the keyboard.)Gladys J Cortez 03:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sad to say, but I think you've got it about right Gladys. Administrators aren't trusted, and therefore by definition the RfA process has failed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disapointing that it has now come to administrators as a whole group "not being trusted". Malleus does, however, at least have the option of removing one admin if they are untrustworthy. Pedro : Chat 08:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd agree that administrators, as a group, are not trusted. It does seem, however, that every editor has a different view of what adminship really means. It ranges from people who view it as a leader or manager role, to those who view it as a set of tools, or a well-done badge for a good article writer, or more of a diplomatic position, or indeed a cabal of users with more power than they can handle. Just as these differing views (and I've no doubt missed many) have different views about the position itself, as a result they will also have different views at RfA. These differences therefore mean that some peoples' RfA positions will not inherently make very much sense to others. And what's the best solution, on a collaborative project, when another reasonable person's view differs from your own? Discussion. To be honest, if people were encouraged to enquire about and request elaboration of others views, the end result would be both a clearer consensus and, hopefully, everyone better understanding why a particular RfA did, or did not, succeed. To come back to the point of administrator trust, a good reason some people will not trust a given administrator is if they were supported, and promoted, for reasons that do not make a great deal of sense to those editors. And discussion can be treated not only as a way to change opinions that you disagree with, but also to better understand them. (I think Gladys's tl;dr disease is contagious) ~ mazca ^t|c 09:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My distrust is a philosophical one. To paraphrase something Jonathan Swift once said: "Principally I hate and detest that animal called administrator; although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you love Peter :) Pedro : Chat 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Counter proposal, AFD style format (yes I know it's been tried)

Have read with interest the above proposals for RFC like RFAs and a separate discussion only phase. My idea is to combine the discussion and !vote phases in a format similar to AFD. Unlike the Moralis RFA, the default questions would even be eliminated. It would work like this...

One editor nominates another editor by creating the RFA page and then informing the nominee of the nomination. The nom would only include an opening statement by the nominator. The nominee either accepts the nomination by transcluding the page or declines it by blanking it. (it then is deleted) Self noms would of course create the page themselves and transclude it. (it then is deleted) After it's transcluded, the nominee and/or a co nominator may add a statement of his own. After this we go straight to the discussion.

There would be 4 standard "bolded" comments "Support". "Oppose", "Neutral" or "Question". The first three would work like they do now but would not have their own sections. The "Question" comment would obviously be for questions which like now could be general questions like "what admin work will you participate in?" or specific questions like "Can you explain this edit here? The comments would appear in chronological order just like an AFD. There would be no percentages or tallies. The closing crat would make his decision on the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments just like an admin should when closing an AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I can see with that format is that AfD's dont normally have 50-100 people commenting on them. I can see it getting confusing, questions getting lost and the closing 'crat ending up with a headache, nevermind the users involved. Ironho lds 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like the original RFA process, which evolved into what it is now to accommodate the growing participation. Majorly has repeatedly worked to have the tally's removed, but consensus is to keep. It's helpful. The percentages are also helpful, but 'crat discretion can, and has, differ from what the percentage may suggest is the expected outcome. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tadakuni just closed as successful on 72% support, so 'crat discretion is alive and well. – iride scent 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But it's all too rare that happens. I do however, disagree with an AFD process. As pointed out, often there are over 100 participants in an RFA. Even our best b'crats would have a tough time determining a consensus with over 100 people that would normally be a percentage of, say 75%. -- how do you turn this on 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It would really put the emphasis onto the strength of arguments, which is positive. AfDs get RfA big on occasion but they do sometimes take hours to close. Getting more bureaucrats through RfB is a major chore; the workload of bureaucrats would be greatly increased, and we might find ourselves with a shortage of them in short order. Darkspots (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it would be moved away from a vote, to strength of argument. If the opposes had true merit, then it wouldn't matter if there were only 20%, their arguments would stand out as meaningful. Likewise, if the opposes were all of the "Oppose because I don't like redheads" then it wouldn't matter if there were 40% because the crats would be looking at STRENGTH of argument, not number of !votes. This is what happens elsewhere. At FAC, there could be 90% support, but if the 10% have strong enough reasons to opposing passing, guess what, it fails. Likewise, at AFD, it is possible for the closing admin to delete (or keep) an article despite the NUMBER of !votes being in the opposite direction---if the closing admin determines that one side has valid reasons for their position and the other side doesn't. It would put much more emphasis on strength of the rationale for the !votes. As for crats not being able to do it, in theory they should be doing that now... only we've set up a system wherein they can be lazy---but not only has that laziness been allowed, it is expected. Under the current format, we aren't asking the crats to use their descretion or evaluate the strength of !vote if the vote percentage is greater than 80% or less than 70%. That means this is a vote pure and simple.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Should RFAs go into thread mode?

Reading the real problem, above, I realized something: As far as I can tell, it isn't really made clear (outside of a few vague mentions about the process involving discussion) how far you're supposed to go into threaded format on RFA, and how much you're encouraged to comment on other people's "votes" within the RFA (it also doesn't make clear whether people other than the nominee should comment.) Some people have objected to this practice or reacted in a nasty fashion to being questioned, but it does tend to happen. Since it's reached the point where people are opposing RFAs over it, shouldn't this really be settled one way or the other, and guidelines for discussions in mid-RFA added to the page? I think some things are obvious (if something goes into an overly-long thread that threatens to take over the page, it should be taken to talk for practical reasons); but I think the page would benefit from having a "feel free to comment on other people's positions, as long as your comments are relevant and non-redundant; try to avoid excessive..." yadda yadda. I don't know exactly what the guidelines would be, I'm just saying it might be time to try and hammer some out (whether they're "comment" or "don't comment" or whatever), since it seems to come up a lot. --Aquillion (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority has to feel comfortable with it. Some editors feel like the process is broken because they felt badgered by the responses their opinions have led them to, or caused a good deal of drama. I think we do already have rather free reign when it comes to calling out on any of the given support/oppose that seems beyond reasonable thought. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - edit to Template:RfA

As a follow up on #Change from vote (permalink), where there was some support and no objection (that I could see), I went ahead and made the edit.

How long do you think it will last? :-) Giggy (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not very, considering it is a vote. Or is it not? Who knows -- how do you turn this on 13:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While this may well be worth pursuing, before we go to that extreme, let's see how User:Ironholds's experimental RFA, see Wikipedia:BN#Per_the_RfA_discussion, pans out. For that we'll need a mesh of the current and proposed format. Also keep in mind that AFDs don't get anywhere near the amount of participants that RFAs do. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure staring up Ironfolds' RfA while you guys are (evidently) unclear on how long it will go for is the best idea. Giggy (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Seems like a good idea in practice, though.) Giggy (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, as far as I'm concerned. For me, there's a massive difference between "it's not a vote" and "let's have completely unstructured discussion", which is what your change basically does. "Support" and "Oppose" sections can be considered ways of separating and categorising a debate whether or not it's being counted in the manner of a true vote. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read Balloonman's original post? I won't repeat it, but essentially; if it works for every other process on WP, why not this one? Giggy (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did. But look at all these other processes - An RfC is not unstructured discussion, it's endorsement of views - and we've already tried that at RfA, and it was not very good. An AfD is indeed not structured like an RfA, but equally we rarely have more than about 20 people participating on one - and when we do, it becomes extremely difficult to read the consensus. As I've said in various other posts on this page, encouraging discussion is good but it needs to be done within an easily-summarised structure, and the current support/oppose/neutral is vastly superior to anything else I can think of when you're dealing with 100+ participants. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. One issue is indeed the number of people participating in an RfA; hopefully if we do things this way we'd have less people feel the need to voice an opinion. If the consensus in the discussion is clear, what do an extra 80 "I agree that Bob should be a sysop because xyz" add, when x, y, and z don't change? (I know this could be fixed in the current RfA process but maybe a change in layout will give the much needed change a kick up the backside.)

So it may be a bit rocky at the start but I think (hope?) it'll be for the better in the long run. And if not (ie. the participant numbers don't drop), it's still not really that different to the current system. You have people voting Support per Kurt (or did, until recently), Oppose because to cancel out silly supports, and Neutral because this fence is giving me a wedgy. In close RfAs, the crat reads all this stuff anyway, just as they would without section headers (right?). So the only difference is that it doesn't give the false impression that we're voting. Giggy (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Nobody's passed the kool aid yet ;-)

I don't think there is a true/sufficient consensus for such a change. Therefore I would strongly suggest undoing it. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Kim's 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) comment; it's merely a formatting change, if RfA isn't a vote (and it isn't). So it's no big deal. That's why we have WP:BRD. Giggy (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say it's just a format change. A bad one in my opinion that will just create a mess but is unlikely to change attitudes. It was tried before with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis which was generally agreed to have been a bit of a disaster. WJBscribe (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just undid Giggy's change because of the reasons explained above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a gander at something completely unstructured, which I'm sure you agree is not how the last "RFC-RFA" worked. I also personally doubt it will work, but the wiki will still be here tomorrow regardless of RfA. --Izno (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed structure

I suggest it be structured topically using sections (or bolded titles if necessary). So you might have something like this:

Example discussion structure

Experience in admin areas

Canidate has only X edits to WP:AIV but mentions it in Q.1. User1

Reply. User2

Comment. User1

I'm concerned with some of the speedy tagging, for example x, y, z. User3

Controversial statement

Candidate's userpage states that she is opposed to Protestants editing articles on Northern Ireland; can she be trusted to act neutrally with the tools? User4

Drama. Users 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11-23

Article work

The candidate has written X FA's and has had y DYKs. This speaks well for her ability to understand what Wikipedia is about. User 9

Caveat. User 10

How about that for a structure? I think it superior to "Arbitrary break 27". the skomorokh 14:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

Giggy's edit to the templated lasted for an hour and 35 minutes. D.M.N. (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. I like votes. I don't like reading through a few screens of unsorted, threaded mess that will end up in a lot of people repeating what everyone else has said due to the fact that they can't tell if somebody said it already or not. I remember Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis and it was a complete disaster. I'd be surprised if anyone could make head or tail of it. naerii 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A different RfA model

I'm just bouncing ideas around in my head in the following piece of text, because there is so much angst in regards to the current RfA model. Many people have remarked that the current RfA model is flawed because of the way it is structured; others assert we are in need of an attitude change. I think the idea I've developed might be able to solve both, with minor drawbacks. Maybe. Picture, if you will, the draft model I am considering:

At RfA, there is no voting. In a candidacy, Wikipedians are given several days to come forward with evidence, positive and negative, demonstrating whether the user should or should not be an admin, but they will not vote per se. After this time, a special committee, a committee that will have been elected by the community, will examine the evidence presented by the community and come to a decision on whether the user should be promoted or not.

Okay, radical change, yes. Pros and Cons:

Pros - the issues of general mess, over-participation are solved and the model brings necessity for the presentation of solid evidence rather than unsubstantiated "voting" (or !voting, for those who prefer the term). It also allows the decision-making process confined to a select few people specialised for the task. Immediate reaction is that confining the decision-making to a small body smells of oligarchy, but remember that the "oligarchy" has been elected by you and me. In addition, consider: who is more likely to make a mistake? A few dedicated Wikipedians picked for the decision-making task, or the entire community? After all, the whole community still gets to provide evidence in the first days, and, naturally, the RfACom's decision need be based upon this evidence in the interests of full disclosure.
Cons - The community cannot participate in the traditional s/o/n format. Okay, ostensibly a drawback, but I'd argue it'd be to everyone's ultimate benefit if we allowed the community to present solid evidence and diffs rather than just place emboldened "votes". We'd lose 95% of the hate-mongering, the drive-by pile-ons, baseless opposition and supporting, friend/enemy participation. And, admittedly, the community as a whole doesn't make the final call. But we certainly have influence, and, at any rate, the trusted few on the committee that the community delegates to the task would be required to base their decision on the evidence given, for sure.

As I said, it is just an idea, and it was one that came to me rather spontaneously. The community may not care for the notion one little bit. I just thought I'd throw it into the ring to see what we all think of it. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a very significant number of folks who will be using the words "Cabal" and Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? in their replies. I'm not saying that would be right or wrong of them to do; I'm just describing what would happen if the idea got wide attention. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, who watches us, the community? This is very similar to ArbCom, and the latter is a group that has existed for years on numerous wikis. At any rate, this is hardly a "cabal"; we choose exactly who is in the RfACom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does this proposal not surprise me? the skomorokh 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has happened yet; I am producing an idea for the community's attention. This is the way we come to a better result; ideas are put forward. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's open, it sounds like WP:RFAR; where editors are given workshop space. If it's closed, it sounds like Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008; For best imagination, substitute "committee" with b'crats, "Checkuser" with adminship. And for the latter, the method is likely to suffer from a kind of backlash that is likely to go beyond the Wiki; In the old days of the mailing list this would work, but given the amount of public scrutiny and the size of the community we have today makes it difficult (not impossible though). - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll stick my head over the parapet and say this is IMO an awful idea. Arbcom is a far more dysfunctional process than even the most wretched RFAs. Look at the length of time Arbcom takes to make decisions; by the time Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war is finished, for example, the election will probably be over and done. Besides, I can guarantee nobody will be happy with whoever's appointed to a hypothetical RFA Star Chamber; everyone failing an RFA will be screaming "abuse of process"; and I, for one, would be extremely distrusting of the motivation of anyone volunteering to serve on it. – iride scent 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ew, just say no to more groups of unnacountable superusers. naerii 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the model suggested by Anonymous Dissident will not work. The RfA process is flawed – I've seen candidates with 10k edits failing and candidates with 3k edits succeeding. We need a model than the current model. AdjustShift (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Quality and not quantity are what matter (in the ideal wiki world). As for "it's flawed" - we know it's flawed, that's why AD came up with an idea. You do not back up your assertion that "it won't work" - please clarify. :) --Izno (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Naerii is dead-on. Wikipedia does not need anymore esoteric committees. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about this before, but concluded that I don't like the idea for the reasons above... but also because I don't think a "committee" can really monitor the RfA process comprehensively. A lot of people will !vote after doing minimal or no research into potential candidates, but how much time does it take to properly vet a candidate? If you elect a "team" of editors to do the review, the expectation would be that they individually become familiar with each and every candidate. This would be effectively impossible... there simply isn't enough time to evaluate every candidate in a timely manner. We don't expect crats to vet the candidates--- they are expected to evaluate the !votes and determine consensus brought forth. If the expectation isn't to have them vet the candidates, then they are doing nothing more than the current crats are expected to do.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Enforce the WMF Non-Discrimination policy

I've been having a think about the Foundation's Non-Discrimination policy, and it appears to apply to all users across all projects, as well as members of staff. You can find a copy of the policy here. To quote it in full:

The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer. (my emhphasis)

This would mean that recent opposes based on age, religion etc. would not be given a second thought, as they would be against Foundation policy. Question is, does Foundation policy trump any WP-based policy, or is it the other way around? Additionally, does it apply to internal WP processes? I would err on the side of Foundation Policy covering both, but I'm interested to hear thoughts. Gazi moff 10:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Foundation policies takes precedence (unless they decide to delegate it to local projects, such as Stewards policy), and for good reason : Many a time they are there to interpret sensitive and legal issues, and to prevent any exposure to liability. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. While I certainly agree that being able to sign up to be a user should not be subject to any kind of discrimination, I do not consider myself to be an employee of the WMF as an admin. (maybe if they paid us...>_>) This policy should not apply to WP internal process. GlassCobra 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see that the Wikimedia Foundation does not discriminate on the basis of age. Can someone just remind me how many 10-year-olds it employs? Or 12-year-olds? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily employed, but they don't discriminate on who can register accounts (and become admins/bureaucrats etc). -- how do you turn this on 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, can anyone tell me how many 15 year old checkusers the foundation approves? Protonk (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't to the point, checkuser is a completely different area. Besides, until last year, anyone of any age could gain checkuser right. -- how do you turn this on 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. If we are trying to apply our interpretation of the WMF discrimination policy we should at least discuss why the foundation felt it was appropriate to have an age requirement for checkusers. I agree the two are different but it has to be discussed, as they obviously "discriminate" based on age for that position. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Because that is a legal restriction (potential privacy concerns, especially regarding Checkuser, should be handled by a legal adult, which under US law is at or above the age of 18), not a foundation policy restriction. —kur ykh 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a restriction placed upon the foundation or one they impose themselves? Protonk (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there may be a practical consideration here. If you accept that we have to verify the ID of checkusers (and I'd hope that we could all agree on that) then the implication in some countries is that you are likely to exclude under 18s as they will have fewer forms of ID, and for privacy reasons access to data on them will be less widely available. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Europe birth certificates, for instance, aren't issued only to those aged 18 and over. Neither are passports, come to that. (For US readers a passport is a document required to permit travel between two countries.) Fewer forms of ID doesn't mean no forms of ID, so why not put your red herring back in the sea? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As an American, I can tell you most of us know what a passport is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to concede for the sake of argument that anyone who can find Wikipedia knows what a passport is. However my point is that not everyone has one, nor necessarily a driving licence. Here in the UK there can be real difficulties doing ID checks on under 18s, not least because as you can't market credit to them the credit reference agencies have less incentive to collect data on them, and as they can't vote they aren't on the electoral roll (our UK voting list). Hence my point that in some countries verifying under 18s ID will be less easy than verifying adults. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 18:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Here's the thing. I acknowledge that there may be some technical or legal reasons why checkusers are 18+. My point wasn't to simply show that the WMF exercises a policy that is in apparent contravention to their anti-discrimination policy (Just as their presumed requirement for new hires to have a college degree probably excludes 12 year olds on average). My point was to show that the age discrimination policies at the foundation do not always result in clear, explicit rules. When we are implementing those foundation policies as editors (with no verifiable legal credentials or right to represent the foundation), we should be very careful. Part of that care involves only implementing constraints when absolutely necessary. In this case, I don't think it is at all necessary. If someone asks an editor "are you over 18?" (or some variation of that), the response should always be: "I don't want to answer that question." That should and will result in most editors praising the candidate, rather than castigating them. In that case, making that suggestion (or giving the hint that crats will discount "candidate is 12" votes) is a community solution to a community problem. We don't need to bring in a foundation policy as a bludgeon. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees". Admins aren't employees, and we're not limiting anyone's ability to edit based on age. There's nothing in the discrimination policy stating that it can't discriminate for additional privileges, such as adminship, CU, oversight, or steward. There is no policy violation here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, the WMF specifically requires that checkusers and oversighters are over 18. As most "age-discrimination" issues in terms of adminship have come from people auto-opposing under-18s, I certainly can't see that the discrimination policy applies any differently if members of the community wish to use that as a standard. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet the perennial discussion related to age and the attempt to use this as justification rears its ugly head again. Age Descrimination is typically related to descrimination against older adults, where it runs into legal issues, not against minors who have limits placed on them throughout every culture, in every age, and every endeavor. I guarantee you that the person who made that policy, did not intend to imply The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer for a 9 year old.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Change attitudes rather than process?

Whilst I recognise the flaws in our current system, no one has yet to come up with one magically better - especially if attitudes remain unchanged despite the introduction of a new format. Might I suggest trying to change attitudes around our current process - which people seem to agree worked well enough a few years ago - rather than making process changes just in case they help? If we look for sound candidates to nominate, making it clear that we feel more candidates need to pass RfA, that can have an effect on RfA standards - which do not exist in a vacuum. This approach worked well in Feb 2007, when there was a general belief that more administrators needed to be appointed, and this view was echoed strongly by RfA participants. Something that has been worrying me is that people seem to be looking for a reason to oppose, and opposing once they find it. I do not think adminship so special that onlry "perfect" candidates should be being appointed - someone who can learn from mistakes is often a safer choice than someone who appears never to have made any.

In response to questions about whether we have enough admins, for me the answer is clearly "no". The workload of admin tasks seems to be increasing whilst the number of people dealing with it is stagnating. That is inevitably going to lead to lower quality admin performance and burnout. I would much rather we had twice the number of admins we do now, and everyone spent twice as long on each action they take as they do now in order to make sure it is correct, properly explained etc. WJBscribe (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree. There are certain people I see on the oppose side all the time, and I find that extremely troublesome. Especially since the admin backlog is so big. (I have attempted to do a few non-admin chores to help in this respect, but it's not really enough). I've also had people come to my talk page asking me not to nominate people for the reason that I am "too new". I disagree that I shouldn't be allowed to nominate people. If we're getting to a situation where six people are promoted in an entire month, I think anyone should be allowed to nominate, regardless of how old their account is. -- how do you turn this on 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can nominate however new they are. It is no doubt true that a newer user's nomination carries less weight - simply because the community is not yet familiar with that person and has no opinion of their judgment. That said, RfA comments need to be based on the candidate not the nominator. Good candidates should not fail due to who nominated them, and neither should bad candidates be promoted off the back of the nominator's reputations. We can all get it wrong - I have severely regretted a nomination, and also found myself in retrospect wrong to have opposed some candidates. Ultimately though it is better for you to nominate a candidate than for no one to do so. WJBscribe (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree a newer user's nomination is likely to not be as "influencial" as, say, a bureaucrat's. However, at the time of nomination I had been here over 2 months, had written a GA, and had over 2000 edits. My legitimacy shouldn't have even been questioned (and I was basically accused of being a meatpuppet on my talk page). -- how do you turn this on 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice misrepresentation of facts.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. You did say that newer nominators would get questioned, and possibly accused of meatpuppetry, did you not? -- how do you turn this on 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. There is a difference between trying to explain what some people may think when they see a newbie noming a candidate and accusing you of being a meatpuppet. People who have been around for a while have seen numerous meatpuppets noming their friends... these are usually killed rather quickly... but it is a thought people may give if/when they see a newbie noming somebody. Raising the question is not the same as reaching a conclusion. And of course, I was trying to follow-up on some constructive criticism and show you how some might interpret the act... but you choose to take offense instead. But to insinuate that the comment I made "basically accused [you] of being a meatpuppet" is perposterous and in point of fact insulting. Just because somebody asks the question does not equate to reaching that conclusion, therein lies your mischaracterization.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's only as insulting as implying that I am a meatpuppet. Sorry if you were insulted. -- how do you turn this on 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I never insinuated that you were... I was just trying to show you what people might think and when they see a newbie noming somebody.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can nominate, but who nominates clearly has an impact as you very well know. A person who has established a solid reputation for vetting candidates will grease the wheel for a potential candidate. A person who has never nominated a person or has a reputation for nominating candidate likely to fail or with expectations so low that they "support" everybody, will garner increased scrutiny for said candidates. Anybody can, but not everybody should. As I suggested to How do you turn this on, a co-nom is a perfect opportunity for somebody new. If a person is a solid candidate, then they should have no problem finding another person to co-nom with. I personally think 2 noms is the ideal... IMHO, it looks better than a single nom, it says that two people have vetted the candidate and found them worthy. I can say that for 90%+ of the people whom I've approached about running, they have a score of people lining up to co-nom. To me, this is a definite sign that the person is a viable candidate. If they don't get that "line of co-noms" then I sometimes wonder about my assessment. Being a co-nom is a great way to help a new person contribute and develop their own voice without adversely affecting a potential candidate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to co-nominate. To be quite honest, I barely read the nomination at all. It's not that important. What's important is the candidate's contributions. -- how do you turn this on 11:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There you and I will have to completely disagree. Strong noms do have an impact, while weak ones can hurt. Should it be that way? Probably not. Is it that way? Definitely. A strong nom can shape the way people view a candidate. It is often the first impression the RfA community has of the candidate and it impacts they way they are regarded. It is also the opportunity to address and come forward with any perceived weaknesses. You say that you work with youth, does that include teaching them how to dress for interviews? How to write Resumes/Cover letters? The nom is the cover letter/resume. Sometimes it takes a good cover letter/resume to get in the door. Escpecially when dealing with non-traditional candidates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I said I worked with youth? Where was that? -- how do you turn this on 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was young people, which could mean 20 somethings as well as youth, I read it as Youth in the context---if that was a misreading, then I apologize. But either way, whether you work with youth or young people, the point is still valid. The nom is often people's first impression of a candidate. A good strong nom from a known commodoty will be seen positively, a poor weak nom from an unknown commodoty can hurt.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the people I work with are much too young to be thinking about a resume :-) -- how do you turn this on 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My level of respect just went up a notch... teacher?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not too young to be administrators though, apparently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Actually, no, I think I'd agree with you here. Kids who haven't reached double figures are extremely unlikely to be at all suitable for adminship. I very much doubt there are more than a handful of editors who are younger than about 10, let alone ones wanting to be admins. I think 13 is a reasonable cutoff point (though of course there are exceptional users). -- how do you turn this on 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying in principal and in a theoretical sense. The problem is that a widespread and general change of attitude in a community as diversely opinionated and structured as that of the English Wikipedia is not something that comes easily, as we have seen. In fact, it may not come at all, because, if one considers it, there is no collective mindset to be changed. As a whole, we agree on very few things in regards to RfA, and instead we have a sea of individual ideas and philosophical takes on the matter. Sure, there are some things where we have shaky agreement, but instilling the importance of promoting more admins in this community via verbal appeal and the invocation of statistics (two things we have recently seen a lot of recently), is just as hard as instilling a general idea into the entire public would be; we are just as divided. I don't mean to preach hopelessness here; this is not my intent. I think we need to come up with more initiatives than calls to action and idle chat when it comes to solving this problem, especially since the problem of an overall mentality shift is anything but simple or pragmatic. I don't know what to suggest; perhaps the community will begin to lower its standards or become more accepting of people who offer themselves when true issues start occurring in administrative regions, when our maintenance body becomes dangerously deficient. These are my thoughts, anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with WJBscribe, as I expressed back in May, specifically to WJB as it was (Q6), that an attitude shift would be helpful, specifically in regards to self-noms, questions, SNOW's, and most importantly, ensuring that the process is completely imbued of civility and courteousness, and does not contain the rancor into which discussions here often devolve. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN, RFA section. I think the most effective way to improve RFAs and get more people to run an RFA is to reduce the drama all too often brutal nature of it. I know three people who would make great admins but they won't run for those reasons. Now I'll go think more about how to best do this. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(after a lot of edit conflicts) I'm in perfect agreement with WJBscribe. Not the process itself is the problem, but the attitudes around it. Therefore there is no sense in changing the process. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apologies for butting in on this conversation midway. I agree wholeheartedly and had been wracking my brain for a way to say it. The problem appears to be that many talented editors are discouraged from the process: either by criticism at RfA or by viewing other's RfAs and deciding against nominations. And we need to encourage editors; not discourage. We need to encourage editors to do what they do best: article writing; vandal fighting; copyvios; and mediating. All of these skills are needed by the community, and all should be encouraged at RfA; however, an editor lacking a particular skill should not be discouraged. Rather, we should promote these editors and approach them when their expertise is needed.

The prevailing attitude encourages editors to become involved in processes alien to their skillset. Yesterday I encountered a situation wehre an article, littered with copyvios, was pushed through DYK and GA. This is a problem. And I suspect the root cause is that RfA, which does set the standard for appreciation, encourages editors to accumulate GA/DYK/FA/etc when we could really use an editor who merely used his own talents to their fullest. Rather than search for the perfect editor with perfect experience --and oppose those who lack experience in one particular area--why do we not cultivate and encourage those whose contributions may be only in what they are good at? In other words, if you are an article-writer: we need you. If you are a vandal fighter: we need you too. If you are a mediator: Ok, here's an area where you could help. Let's appreciate what skills our editors to bring to the table, and recognize that as sufficient. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, in response to your comment about how RfA participants seem to be looking for reasons to oppose candidates, take a look at User:Haza-w/ABF. It's not perfectly written by any means, but it makes the same point. I also entirely agree with your argument. RfA used to work well, and I believe that there is consensus to that effect. Deductively, if that process has remained unchanged and yet problems with the process have appeared, then that is down to some factor other than the process itself. Perhaps growth in the number of administrators has led to a perception that promoting users to adminship is now no longer as necessary as it was. If that is the case, then your proposal of making clear the sentiment that we need to increase the promotion figures might work. If the determining factor is more complex, then it might not. However, I would like to see it happen, both because it probably needs to and because I perceive no harm in trying. (Question: Does anyone know if there are up-to-date versions of User:NoSeptember/admin graphs and User:NoSeptember/Admin stats? It would be interesting to see whether the growth in the users-to-admins ratio has continued.) haz (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Laz, I think we go through cycles, I've recently nomed several people who were primarily article writers, who passed and I think will be net positives to the project as admins. That being said, I recently told a strong article writer that the tone around RfA is shifting and that I'm not sure if (all of) those candidates would pass if they ran today. In other words, while I think he will be a good admin, I've encouraged him to get experience elsewhere because the expectation have shifted. A while ago if you didn't have a ton of experience at XfD's, you might not as well apply for RfA. I think right now people realize that there are other ways to show policy knowledge, but I've noticed that the expectation for XfD experience is on the rise again. While I like WJB's ideal, it will never last because of the cyclical nature of RfA's. Even if we were to shift the expectation, it would be a short term fix, that would go full circle.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman: I am not an RfA expert, but I do sense that what you say is correct. That over time, expectations and needs shift from differing extremes. On second thought, perhaps it is part of our natural response to "real" needs? I would have no way of validating this, but might there be a connection between tangigble needs (i.e. a rash of backlogs at AIV, lack of AfD input) that push the trend? Does the cyclical nature of RfA mirror other cycles on Wikipedia? Just an idea. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is so much a reaction to real needs, but rather a response to perceived patterns. If there is a rush of "article builders" then some people start saying, "Where are all of these article builders coming from, we need more people interested in X." If there is a rush of vandal fighters, some people start saying, "I'm not comfortable with all of the vandal fighters that are passing." Once you start seeing these comments, you can see the trends start to change. Of course, I can't offer empirical evidence to prove that, but it's based on over a years worth of watching and observing the RfA process and noticing various trends. Let's make it a little more obvious, if you look at trends of just passing/failing RfA's. I've noticed that WHEN you run can have an effect---I want to tie it to phases of the moon---but I'll notice periods where everybody (even decent candidates) fail followed by a period where everybody (including weaker ones) pass. I honestly wonder if some people have a notion that in order to be taken seriously they have to support a certain percentage of candidates and oppose a certain percentage of candidates. These people will support several RfA's in a row, then suddenly realize "Wow, I've supported the last 8 RfA's, I need to oppose." Again, I won't name names, but I've seen some who I think !vote in that manner (Just as there are some whose support is a given regardless of the candidates background and prior to Kurt's being banned, some who will oppose everybody.) BTW, now is the time to run... between last month when so many failed and the current discussions, the environment is prime for people passing. I would not want to run around the elections (Between the elections/Halloween and the cyclical nature of the beast, people who run in 3-4 weeks will probably find a tougher process than those who run right now.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. Personally, I rarely support/oppose on RfAs unless I really have something to say (in most cases, consensus seems to form fairly quickly). I only think I've opposed one RfA; but, I felt the objection was serious. I would likely support the editor in the future; even nom him. It does seem like now is a good time to put one's hat in the ring. I've also noticed that the questions seem to be lessening, FWIW. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll be assailed and reviled for pulling out a WP:SPADE, but I think this conversation needs a bit of focus and light... We need to look farther back in the chain of cause and effect, to find the root cause of all this acrimony that is allegedly on the rise. I think the incidence of strenuous and prolonged Opposes is a consequence or backlash against a trend that I haven't noticed mentioned in this thread... it is an effect, not a cause. I suspect that at some point in the history of RfAs a growing perception was formed among the community of !voters (or some segment thereof, at least) that there is a noticeable segment of the RfA nominees who want adminship for the sake of adminship; whose sole goal in Wikipedia life, from the very first time they log on, is to be admins... and it shows in their every edit. This desire does not reflect a desire to serve Wikipedia, but rather a juvenile need for approval and attention. That is a fairly common and innocent stage in the stage of human emotional development/maturation... However innocent this may be, this sort of nominee is using Wikipedia to gain self-esteem and satisfy approval needs. Some people would say these nominees are the problem; some people would say they are harmless but the backlash against them is the problem. I won't point fingers in either direction. I just want to point out the possibility that the dynamic between professional admin-wannabes and those who oppose them may be the place where we need to focus our deliberations.
Proving this idea, however, would involve a truly exhaustive (and exhausting) sifting through the reasons presented for Oppose. Find the acrimonious RfAs (sometime several for a single editor), and see if there is any reference (however vague) to this concept. Does it show up every time? Most of the time? if it does, then should we treat that as a significant finding? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We should treat amateur psychology by pseudonymous editors just like we treat any other assumption of bad faith, reject it. I know that was curt and blunt, but I don't mean you precisely (or at all, actually). I disagree that a significant number of candidates come here because they need the bit for personal fulfillment. Even if that were the case, we would have few operative means to distinguish "good" candidates from those looking to further their own ends. Even more, if we were to find a means to to do, why couldn't we just oppose because their edits didn't "benefit wikipedia"? If it is clear from their first edit that they are clamoring for adminship, we should be able to oppose on the basis of those edits, not on the basis of some vague and assumed motivation. Let's face facts. Opposes that poison the well, treat the candidate like crap, or allow no way to "win" hurt the RfA process. Candidates that nominate themselves or accept nomination too early and then leave in a huff or explode when things don't go swimmingly hurt RfA. Changing community standards impact RfA but may or may not hurt it. The specter of being unable to recall admins may hurt RfA (or it may not). The list can go on. It is a long list, filled with distinct elements with complex causes and no clear solution. IMO, the best route out of here is pragmatism and incrementalism. We should make small changes that help RfA and avoid sweeping philosophical changes. We should demand the involvement of the bureaucrats in the process. We should undertake in experiments. But we shouldn't preoccupy ourselves with attempts to find some deep seated singular cause, because it doesn't exist. And if it did, we couldn't do anything about it. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to change the attitude; too many unqualified candidates get through, and opposing a candidate is harder than it should be. I was concerned about Archtransit from the minute he appeared on my talk page (which was early on), but I didn't oppose his RfA because I had no "diffs" or "proof"; just a really bad gut feel from his rush to FAC and his attitude while there. When I raised this after his desysopping, a 'crat or admin told me I should have "opposed per gut", because my gut was on that one all along. (Now I do oppose more often.) "Oppose per gut" would not go over really well in the current RfA environment, where opposers are hounded if they don't have diffs and proof. Poor admin decisions lead to a cycle that requires increasingly more admin attention, sucking up resources and discouraging good editors from wanting to join that "club". I witnessed yet another downward admin spiral sucking up time this week, and finally decided to try to avoid noticeboards when I need help with an issue, rather to approach a mature admin who won't cause the situation to escalate or deteriorate further, requiring even more time and resources and distraction from editing. In an environment where IRC and Myspacey editing means being an admin on Wiki is cherished among inexperienced or immature editors, too much burden is on the !voters to demonstrate why the candidate shouldn't have the tools, and there isn't enough 'crat oversight of the decision process. These factors make it nastier because we can't just "oppose per gut"; we have to make a case. It's absurd that it really is a "vote" when nothing else on Wiki is a vote. RFA could take a page from the WP:FAC instructions to keep the unqualified candidates from squeaking by:

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

That's why FAC works: the candidate has to demonstrate that it meets the criteria, and one solid Oppose outweighs a dozen fan Supports. If valid and actionable opposes aren't resolved, the article doesn't get the star. Yet we let admins through based on a vote even when significant issues are raised by the Opposers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal falls flat on one point: RfA can't function like FAC. On FAC, you can fix the indicated problem and all is well; on RfA, you need a track record of consistent, or at least maintained improvement. FAC has set criteria for passage; RfA does not have such a yardstick, nor will it ever will. Your proposal would guarantee that all admin nominations will sink based on one perceived flaw, even if that one flaw is debatable. —kur ykh 06:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that article-based criteria wouldn't translate literally or directly to editor actions. My point is that 'crats should be deciding, regardless of the vote, that some opposes are significantly serious that a candidate shouldn't pass. There should be a level at which, even if the votes are there, a 'crat can decide not to pass a candidate, as we can at FAC, if the issues are actionable valid and serious. 'Crats do not exercise this authority at RfA except to pass marginal candidates at the lower percentage rates. RfA is a vote, and that makes little sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, with all due respect--You say that in FAC, one good "oppose" can counteract ten fannish "supports"--well, that's actually not far from the truth at RfA either, since the appearance of a concerning diff generally results in a raft of !vote changing and/or a pile-on to the negative side. But to get back to your point: In the absence of other concerning diffs, do you think an "oppose per gut" should counteract ten "support per xxxx"? In other words: is "oppose per gut" that "one good oppose" that a 'crat should find actionable? With Archtransit, it's easy to say "yes, it should have been"--because we already know the outcome. But what about an "oppose per gut" in the case of someone like, say, Thingg? Should "oppose per gut" be enough to shut down a promising RfA like that one? It seems to me like the same thing is going on at FAC and RfA--the article/the candidate has to meet the criteria, and proof has to be obtained that there are no significant flaws, before the article/the candidate can be accepted. The difference is, articles are a known--you know an article isn't going to go rogue--so it's easier to offer proof of an article's suitability rather than that of a human.Gladys J Cortez 08:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen a 'crat overrule an RFA vote except to pass marginal candidates. There is no trusted person empowered by the community sitting at the head of the table to say, nah, this one isn't quite there yet even though s/he has 85% support, as there is at FAC, where one solid oppose can outweigh a dozen fan supports (no, "oppose per gut" isn't a solid support, but currently, it's not wise at all unless you want to be badgered). So what do we choose 'crats for if we don't give them the power to decide that some candidates aren't ready and shouldn't make it no matter how much IRC fan support they can rack up, and how many GANs they have had passed by their IRC buddies? If we choose them, why haven't we empowered them to do more to moderate RfA and really weigh the evidence and make decisions? If we take care of this issue, by allowing trusted representatives (crats) of the community to apply some judgement within the criteria (as at FAC), the downward spiraling cycle requiring additional intervention at ANI every time an admin does something goofy might be less, and the badgering of opposers could be contained at RfA. The difference is you can vote stack via IRC at RfA, but you can't vote stack at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough it sounds as though you and I are actually on the same page--I'd like the 'crats to be empowered to scratch INDIVIDUAL RfA votes, whereas it sounds like you're saying you'd like them to be empowered to use discretion as to the results of the conversation in the aggregate (in other words, scratch the CANDIDATE regardless of the !vote totals.) The only thing I can see as even a remote possibility of harm there would be if personalities/politics got involved--you know, a 'crat with a grudge or something. (Hm...what would happen in a case like that? We can deadmin an admin, but in the case of abuse of power, can a 'crat be de'cratted?) However, that scenario is so unlikely as to border on the impossible. Personally I think 'crats DO need to intervene more at RfA, whether on the macro- or the micro-level. (And how IRC-naive am I? The whole notion of RfA vote-stacking just never occurred to me. Heh--no wonder I'm borderline! (That's a JOKE, folks--I realize the current crop of 90%-plus candidates got there honorably. No harm intended.))Gladys J Cortez 10:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, because RfA has many more participants than FAC and because many of them continue to watch the debate develop, what tends to happen is that if/when a serious objection is raised late in the process, you get a tidal wave of switching from support to oppose, as well as the late-comers chiming in with fresh opposes to boot. The scenario you present therefore is pretty well handled by the current process, because I find it unlikely that a Crat would consider an objection very serious and weighty if the community did not. What tends to happen is that it's a more marginal concern and in the Crat's discretionary range, where you'll find some RfAs with quite high support %s being closed as no consensus for promotion because the Crat deems the opposes to be very weighty. Somewhere, there's a wonderful chart thingy which plots all RfAs against their final %s and shows which failed and which succeeded, which is a great way to see the seemingly anomalous results both ways. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree... I've only seen a handful of RfA's that appeared to be well on their way towards passing fail due to vote stacking---and usually, it was because a candidate meltdown or nominator misconduct rather than the strength of an !vote. I've used this scenario a number of times. If a person is running for admin. A solid oppose reason appears early in the process (eg first 10-15 !votes) then the oppose has a strong chance of dooming the candidate. If the candidate, however, has over 20-25 !supports, then the solid oppose probably won't effect the final outcome.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominator misconduct? Why should the actions of the nominator have any bearing whatsoever on the nominee? Any person who uses another person's actions as an excuse to oppose somebody is not fit to be voting on RFAs. -- how do you turn this on 14:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one example was when the nominator changed course part way through the RfA and joined the Oppose camp. I think that kind of thing is bound to have at least some effect, don't you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably. -- how do you turn this on 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I also consider over vigorous defense of the candidate to be part of nom misconduct. Eg where the nom is fighting so hard to get his/her candidate to pass, that people start looking for reasons to oppose and come armed with better and better reasons to oppose.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Dweller. Well, a good timesink occurs when people who have never sat in the FAC director/delegate chair suggest ways of changing the process without being aware of all of the factors involved, so I should probably stop with the possibly bone-headed ideas about RFA since I scarcely participate here. But I hope that my comments at least stimulate some thought. FAC works. We have two things that RfA doesn't have: a routine way of allowing the community to remove the star from articles that are no longer worthy (FAR), and people entrusted by the community to overrule vote stacking and fan support when actionable valid issues are raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I happen to know that it hasn't always been that way... and that eventhough you've earned the trust and respect of the community, there are numerous times where people bitch and moan about yours or Raul's decisions and create a stink because their FAC failed despite overwhelming support. Over the years I've seen several gripes of you and Raul "abusing your power." Those who know you know better, but they still exist. Now, an FAC deals with an article. Yes, articles can be very personal, especially when somebody has poured their heart and soul into it... but how much more personal is an RfA? Part of the challenge of an RfA is that it can be seen as a personal affirmation/inditement. Which means that when/if a crat went against consensus (even if it appeared to be vote stacked) you are even more likely to run into hurt feelings and possible charges of abuse of power.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think bureaucrats should be given more leeway (as Sandy is at FAC, and to an extent admins are at XFD). We need to rid ourselves of percentages and votes, and have a proper discussion about an admin. And yes, one important (negative) point, that isn't addressed by the candidate should be enough to prevent a pass. But as I mentioned elsewhere: how are we to decide criteria? What is a negative point? On AFDs we use deletion policies; on FAC we have WIAFA. On RFA we have nothing but people's opinions, and bureaucrats having complete leeway at this time would simply mean implementing their opinion. Until we have some sort of criteria admins must meet, bureaucrats cannot have complete leeway, as much as I'd like them to, simply because I don't trust that their opinions are above everyone elses. Also, if bureaucrats were to have complete leeway, we'd have to have limited terms on them. We have some bureaucrats elected in 2004 who haven't ever performed a bureaucrat action; I wouldn't trust them to close a close RFA one bit, and yet we still have them on the list doing nothing much at all. -- how do you turn this on 11:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a reconfirmation process (like stewards/meta-admin does) for b'crats; the community has rejected it overwhelmingly as recently as last year. It would be safe to say that crats that were promoted before the Carnildo discretion are grandfathered in; before that running for crat was also previously considered to be "no big deal".

This also means that unless the community decides to reboot b'cratship, any new processes will have to suit the current group of crats for it to actually work. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I agree with Scribe. Two of the biggest issues with RFA right now are: 1/ The lack of a real recall process for abusive admins; one that people can trust will work, and that they can do without draining days of their lives pulling together. 2/ Chronic opposers and the sheep that pile-on per them. There are some bitter people on this project who have been on the receiving end of some RFA abuse and now they're hell bent on bringing down anyone they can. It's obvious in looking over the RFAs from recent months, and it's terribly unfortunate. It seems to be a "if I can't have admin, no one can" sort of mentality. And it's these people that prevent qualified candidates from running and, at times, possibly causing them to fail needlessly when they do.

Also, it would help to have admins and/or 'crats clerk the RFAs more, re/moving irrelevant questions and stupid comments, because another high ranking issue is the circus RFAs have a tendency to turn into. Clerking could nip all that early to prevent ridiculous messes. Limit questions to candidate-specific questions, none of the "go search through successful RFAs for the answer to this one" sort of questions. Keep it simple, clean and to the point. We're only answering two questions. 1/ Does the candidate have the desired experience to help determine 2? 2/ Can the candidate be trusted not to abuse the tools or the position? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; there is a current proposal right now to remove problematic administrators. Chronic opposers are also a problem. I personally find chronic opposers a bigger problem when they appear to be opposing simply to spite (as you say, "if I can't be admin, no one can") What's even weirder is some chronic opposers don't even want to be admins themselves, and have never experienced or seen "admin abuse", but simply have strict standards. Why, I don't know. And your suggestion that people help clerk the page actually happens already. Bcrats and other editors will remove irrelevant stuff to the talk page. One problem though is the use of questions. There was a big argument recently about whether age questions are appropriate. Who is to decide what makes an appropriate question? -- how do you turn this on 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion at BN about removing inappropriate comments (sooner) and other actions the Crats could take. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Obvious troll questions, like "Why are bananas yellow?", for example, should go. Any trick questions, like "Is Jimbo the sole founder or the co-founder of Wikipedia?" should also go, as one's opinion on this, or cluefulness to get the intent and answer "correctly", have nothing to do with adminship. Blanket questions asked across all RFAs should be discouraged if it's a knowledge or judgment question, considering they can just go look for the answer. Make them specific to the candidate. Like "Should you issue cool down blocks." Get over it already, people. We get it. If you look at a user's contribs and see they spend most of their time at AFD and there are no noticeable shows of poor judgment, then it's stupid to ask an AFD related question. If, however, you notice they have little experience with, say, AIV, it would be logical to ask a question regarding warnings and blocks for vandals. And be original with it. Write up your own scenario so they're forced to use their own judgment and knowledge to answer it. That's what I'm talking about. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even like those scenarios... the only time I see value in a question is when it is to the effect of, "You did X, why?" Or "I'm not sure you understand policy X based upon these edits, can you elaborate?" Basically, I want there to be a reason for the question that is derived from somebody having actually looked at the candidates contributions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

110% agree with Jenna. 'Crats should be empowered to evaluate the questions and the opposes and filter out the inane, the trollish, the personally-motivated, and the ridiculous--and to remove them as they appear or discount them in the end, whichever would be less disruptive to the discussion. To me, the oppose that most-completely illustrates the ridiculousness of the current situation is this: "Oppose per contrived personality." (Yes, it's from my own RfA, but if I saw it elsewhere it would make me just as insane.) I mean, SERIOUSLY. If a candidate is on the borderline, should they be held back from adminship because someone THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW thinks they have a "contrived" personality (for which, BTW, they provide no evidence--because they HAVE no evidence, because for something that utterly subjective there IS no such thing as "evidence"!) Especially in borderline scenarios, this kind of oppose can be enough to tip the scales, and that just doesn't seem right. Gladys J Cortez 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jenna on this one. It's why I recommend the two-phase approach to RfA that Ironholds is going to trial - we need to find a fair way to handle early strong opposes that allows them to be assessed and responded on wihout pile-on opposes who may mean well but who don't return to an RfA, even if the opposing rationale has been challenged, explained or even been found to be false. By having a fixed breakpoint with a debate beforehand and a !vote afterwards, you provide a suitable mechanism for weighing up the pros and cons of a candidate fairly before any !voting takes place. You also give the candidate the ability to reply much more effectively. I'm sorry that Balloonman doesn't aggree on this - and I can understand that anything that piles more questions on a candidate or lengthens an alreay tortuous process has to be thought through very carefully beforehand, but I truly think that we need to be honest with ourselves here too. Debate, then !vote. Not the two in parallel. Otherwise, you have an effort to distort the debate when the vote doesn't head the way you want it to go, with badgering of !votes, tenuous or tendicious !votes and so on.

I do think we need an effective desyspo process as well. Hopefully making it easier to desysop someone will make it easier to do the reverse. But what shape that process should take, I'm not so sure. The only things I can come up with only serve to increase the political leaning of the role.Gazi moff 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1/ Does the candidate have the desired experience to help determine 2? 2/ Can the candidate be trusted not to abuse the tools or the position? Exactly - Jenna has hit the nail on the head. If someone is not going to abuse the tools either through deliberate intent or lack of WP:CLUE then they should have the bit. That's pretty much exactly what my net positive rationale is about. Pedro : Chat 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

One question that should be asked is "Will this editor make a good admin?" That's all I ask. -- how do you turn this on 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't matter, as the conversation has moved on, but I'm pretty sure this is the chart that Dweller was talking about. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, but I do like looking at that one, it's very pretty. The one I'm referring to, if indeed it really exists, plots % support against I'm not sure what (perhaps number of RfAs with that level of support) and allows one to see which RfA is each one and spotlights those that are anomalous mathematically. Is that vague enough? Maybe it exists, maybe it was done in a certain way and maybe I've been drinking too much coffee. --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)