User:Useight/RFA Subjects/RFA-related projects

Ambitious project (Archive 33)

I have recently endeavored to undertake an ambitious project of my own. I have read through all of the successful adminship archives for the month of October and took count of the major support and oppose entries. I have compiled all of the recurring phrases and such into a list and am preparing to count them. If anyone is interested they may go here to see what I have done. Anyone is invited to help. I still have unsuccessful nominations to sort through. You don't have to do what I did and take on a whole month. You may do just one admin's nomination. Please go to the above page and comment about what I'm doing right or wrong. Thanks! Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 21:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, that is some project you are working on... Please go ahead it might be useful for future candidates. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA Summary (Archive 43)

I find myself missing out on RFAs that I would care to comment on because the page is just so large that I don't bother to look through it. Because of this, I decided to create a bot to generate RFA summaries. So, once an hour a page in my userspace will be updated with information on open noms. Stop by if you also find the need for an RFA summary. Dragons flight 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope the bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots. --Gurubrahma 12:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't got a flag (Special:Listusers/bot) but the bot flag is for bots that are making edits every few seconds, not every hour. It is intended to stop RC getting clogged up. No risk of that. [[Sam Korn]] 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA Analysis (Archive 57)

I picked up a few hints in the "A minor anomaly?" section above, so I decided to create a tool to deal with the duplicate voter problem. Although not a "Robocrat" by any means, it can find duplicate voters in any RfA you specify. It should support most users' signatures, but if you find any user listed as [Signature not found], please drop me a line. The tool's available at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/rfa.php. (Code will be available shortly, when it's been cleaned up). Cheers, Tangotango 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

At a glance, that looks awesome. Detects the duplicate votes in the RfAs we know about, at least. I think from the gist of the previous "minor anomaly" thread, it would be best if a member of the community tried to run this towards the close of every rfa, and mention the results in the comments for the b'crat to read (or maybe something mathbot-like could do it automatically, just don't call it Robocrat). Of course b'crats might want to think about using it themselves. --W.marsh 15:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... going over NoSeptember's RfA with it [1] doesn't find any double votes. Kimchi.sg 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's because in that RfA, the duplicate votes were basically removed and no longer show up as #'d items in the list? So the script sees them as comments, not votes. --W.marsh 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The two duplicate votes don't register as votes under the tool. (It only looks for valid votes that count towards the tally). — Tangotango 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh's idea about using a bot is a good one. Maybe the robot which updates Wikipedia:RFA summary and which parses the votes anyway could also flag the duplicate votes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I caught both of the duplicate votes in my RfA, and either told the voter or struck the vote myself. I note that Merovingian's vote (#14) did not get picked up by name in my RfA though. NoSeptember ^talk 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, this is a very nice output, useful even without further improvement. :-) NoSeptember ^talk 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seems good, but misses struckout votes. This happens frequently as people change their votes. --Durin 17:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can the vote tally be alphabetized? I was thinking it might be neat if we could summarize each regular voter's voting habits. (that is determining that User X voted support 19 times, oppose 4 times, and neutral 2 times in the month of April) I can see it now: voteritis, a focus on the past habits of voters :-P. NoSeptember ^talk 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That'd make it easy to pick out the Boothys, Ardenns and Massiveegos - or the other way round. And make it easier for insomniacs like me to sleep. :-P Kimchi.sg 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Another error: the tool chokes on CSCWEM 3 [2], saying it has "4 sections". Kimchi.sg 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also in JoshuaZ's RFA [3] it shows that PseudoSudo has voted both Support & Neutral but what happened is when Connel Mackenzie changed his vote from Oppose to Neutral, PseudoSudo copied the vote to the Neutral section & added his sig to the end saying "copied from above". The tool does not register Connel Mackenzie's vote. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! I've fixed the errors that have been reported so far.

1. The error Kimchi.sg reported with CSCWEM's 3rd RfA was due to one of the sections being bolded by a semi-colon instead of the usual three apostrophes. The regex has been updated to handle this.
2. The anomaly Srikeit reported with JoshuaZ's RfA has been fixed with various changes to the signature-finding code. It will now detect multiple timestamps and look for the one that was most likely added by the first user. (It will also ignore timestamps used inline for non-signature purposes)
3. Another problem Srikeit reported (on my talk page) with Xoloz' RfA was due to extra spacing after one of the headers. The code has been updated to handle this.

There are some other known issues.

Durin, I'm interested to find out which RfAs suffer the problem you report. If the new version of the tool still suffers from the same problem, please tell me the details. Also, if anyone finds any other problems or oddities, please feel free to contact me or write here (with a link to the RfA where the error occurs). Thanks. Tangotango 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rectifying the above mentioned errors. I was just checking Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master of Puppets with the tool [4] where quite coincidentally it says that I cast a duplicate vote. It was really Mysekurity's vote who gave the following comment;

• Metallica SupporT :). " Oh, and in response to Srikeit, I believe it might have something to do with this. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)".

Here I think my user page link has triggered the tool to recognize it as a duplicate vote. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your report, Srikeit. I'm still thinking of a way to fix that particular problem - it happens due to you being mentioned in a normal [[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]] link, and the voter using a [[User:My/sig]] style signature, which has less precedence than the User: links. (This is because someone could easily link to a subpage of their (or someone else's) userpage, and sign their name later). I'll have to change the regex/way signatures are found in some way. I'll try and deal with it when I have more time. Meanwhile, I've published the code, which is available at [5], so if anyone can give me a hint as to how to fix it, I'd be very grateful. Cheers, Tangotango 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the issue by treating [[User:XX/sig]] links separately, by prioritizing signature-like links that come at the end, and by lowering the priority of [[User:XX/pagename]]-style links. I'm a bit concerned that some users' signatures might not be caught by this, but I think many of the false detections have been weeded out. If anyone finds any errors, please report them to me. Thanks, Tangotango 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am worried by vote counting. Kim Bruning 10:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not so eager to make "voteritis" (to use NoSeptember's words) easy, either. My RfA analysis tool is intended to help Bureaucrats with finding duplicate votes, and while nothing stops someone from quite easily modifying the code to make a tool that could cause another Wikipedia-related disease, I don't think I will implement this myself. -- Tangotango 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Review (Archive 58)

My apologies if this has been brought up before, or already exists, but what about an administrator review? Within six months, a new admin is brought under review by a pre-selected group of experienced admins/bureaucrats, and they discuss what this user has done since they were sysopped, and whether that user should continue being an admin. They will be reviewed again in six months, and all active admins will be reviewed once a year after that. Emergency reviews can be held as well. I think this would help keep the number of rouge admins to a minimum. Thoughts? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution looking for a problem. Show me evidence that we need to spend our volunteer's time on this proposal. FloNight ^talk 12:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at admin disputes at Rfc and ArbCom, I think you'll see where I'm coming from. Plus there have been concerns over Admin actions in the Userbox debate as well. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 12:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, and handled by ArbCom for the most part. Also, such a body would have to review >900 admins per year. That's a huge body of work for little gain. I agree; this is a solution looking for a problem. --Durin 12:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How would this review have prevented such disputes? We're letting the wedge cases define how we deal with the vast majority of admins whose actions are uncontroversial. In any case, unofficial reviews of individual actions often go on at AN or ANI; I see no need to bureaucratise this. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We didn't elect bureaucrats to be ArbCom members (except those few who we actually did elect to both positions). Keep bureaucrats for the front end job of creating admins, and leave it to ArbCom or Jimbo to uncreate them. NoSeptember ^talk 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...I don't think D-Day suggested 'crats would be in charge of desysoping. Anyway, I'd favour giving them such powers for emergency disputes, but as Essjay and Raul have noted above, it seems it'd be easier to attract Jimbo's, a steward's, or a dev's attention. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the more people who have emergency desysop powers, the more problematic it will be. Even Danny and Jimbo did not perfectly coordinate the Eloquence situation. There is always someone around as it is now. NoSeptember ^talk 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with ArbCom? Is there something about it that doesn't work and I'm completely missing? As far as I can tell, a system of Admin review already exists - people complain, take it to ArbCom, they review it and act accordingly. If ArbCom is somehow broken, then that's a completely different discussion and should be held over there. --Tango 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the complaint is that the arbcom doesn't get a case till long over it's gone over the edge and it takes a blatant act of insanity or massive violation of policies and guidelines before the arbcom or anyone else for that matter acts. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If people have a problem with that, why don't they bring cases to ArbCom sooner? Are ArbCom actually refusing to hear the cases, or are they not being told about them? --Tango 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little of both, for good reasons the arbcom is afraid of accepting cases too early when there are better solutions possible and instead it seems like they're accepting some of them only after the damage has been done. On the other hand people are also reluctant to bring up arbcom cases until all else has failed so the arbcom either doesn't know about it or they more likely know about it due to discussions on AN, AN/I, or any number of another places but can't do anything about it until it's brought up officially as a case. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While there's certainly a perception that that is the case, I think reality is very different. Name me one blatant mop abuser who hasn't been hauled in front of the arbcom. Also, the arbcom can (and often does) issue temporary injunctions during the period of the case which prevent further action(s) being taken, so if a case is accepted, the accused admin will typically be placed on admin action parole or something of the sort for the duration of the case. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the prospect of reviewing the nearly 1,000 admins on Wikipedia every 6 months would be a full-time job. Beyond that, is there really a need? Do you feel there are a sizable amount of inept admins that are running around blocking and deleting out of control? Furthermore, this would start to encourage further encourage people to play politics, which there is enough of already. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, this proposal is to scrap tenure for admins and up- a system which has both considerable benefits and drawbacks (much as in the academic world). I haven't seen a persuasive toting up of the pros and cons in favor of making the switch. --maru (talk) contribs 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the end, this (and most proposeals like it) are probably all created with the same very small set of admin in mind. As much as I call for volountary admin reform, three cases (or five, or pick your own small number) almost certainly isn't enough reason to re-wash every other good, average, or null admin. Working the existing system combined with ArbCom being slightly more willing to slap down is probably all that is required. - brenneman^{L} 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But... I LIKE Rouge admins. Kim Bruning 03:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin roles currently have too much power with few checks and balances. That's why cabals thrive. Admin tenure should be limited to 6 months only. Not more than 2 consecutive tenures should be allowed. Self-nominations are unacceptable. Admins who go on long wikibreaks should be tagged and their privileges reduced. Atleast two nominations must be necessary to enter RfA. Anwar 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some users have dynamic IPs which would mean it's all too easy to vote more than once. Thus no anon IPs should be allowed to vote. Admins have checks and balances, that's what arbitration is for. Most do not abuse their power, for example, Gurubrahma, Nichalp and the numerous other Indian admins have not blocked you for your violation of NPA. Self-noms are good because a user can pick the correct time to become an admin, for example, if they are nominated at a time where they don't think they want to become an admin, they can always self-nom at a more appropriate time. Lastly, there is no policy stating that WP:Admins cannot have a life outside Wiki, so if they want to take a break, they should be allowed to, it's not as if they are going to be abusing their powers while on break. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject on Adminship (Archive 65)

In an effort to boost discussion of alternatives to the present RFA mechanism, I have started a WikiProject on adminship. Membership is open to anyone who supports significant changes to the RFA process. The purpose of having a WikiProject separate from RFA itself is twofold: one, to focus the conversation on alternatives to RFA rather than on whether RFA should change, and two, to provide a discussion forum that is (a) centralized and (b) not affected by the archivings and unrelated discussions which occur here. If you support changes to the adminship process, please consider joining. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that excluding users that do not think change is needed is a mistake. As long as users are willing to stay on topic, all users should be encouraged to participate. FloNight ^talk 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As with other WikiProjects, everyone is welcome to edit. However, many otherwise promising efforts to make changes at RFA have been shouted down before the proposals had matured; I'm trying to avoid that. I think that many people who have historically been critical of any attempt to change RFA might be better convinced by a more fully thought-out proposal with due consideration both to common objections and to transitional effects. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but excluding those people who tend to think RfA does not need improvement will hamstring your development process by muting those voices best able to characterize opposition to suggested changes. Furthermore, by excluding those people from the discussion, when you do bring a suggestion back here it will suffer a great deal under massive rejective scrutiny, even if responses to common objections are well thought out beforehand. I recommend you invite everyone who wants to be involved to help hammer out a way forward. --Durin 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• And right off the bat, I see problems with the project that fail to address significant issues raised in the objections to WP:DFA. There's a presumption without any evidence gathering that RfA currently fails at (1) selecting the best people for the adminship role and (2) ensuring the enculturation of new admins. I submit that the former assertion is so far without basis (and would be disagreed with by a number of people here) and the latter assertion is not the role of WP:RFA, never has been, and is ill-suited to being such. If you want that, start Wikipedia:Newbie admin training school. One of the biggest objections I raised with DFA was no serious attempt at identifying what is wrong with RfA before attempting to find a way forward. This new project fails in the same way. Though, I do like the goal of identifying the goals of RfA. --Durin 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be a proposed policy changed, not a WikiProject. Wikipedia:WikiProjects says WikiProjects are for articles. There's a good reason for this--we should have centralized discussion on Admin policy, not a standing committee for arguing about it. -- SCZenz 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz has a cogent point. Wiki projects are generally for content, although there are probably many examples to the contrary. Themindset 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Per FloNight this is a very bad idea. By all means have a discussion about what you think needs to be changed or improved, but to suggest that only those of a similar mindset are open to membership of this proposed project is promoting the worst kind of cabalism, and is very anti-wiki. I also agree that the scope of a WikiProject should be restricted to article space, and not venture into policy or procedural areas for these very reasons. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to bring Esperanza's Admin coaching into a proper wikiproject--since it has...um...healthier aims than something focusing on just the Adminship request, and not the adminship itself :). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's several issues here: a) There's never enough volunteers as it is an extremely appealing idea ("hey, someone will help me become an admin!!!"); b) How to weed out obviously unacceptable candidates; c) How to make sure the coaching/mentorship does not become focused on the adminship process or unduly glorifies adminship; d) Whether the coach/mentor should be "blamed" for something the candidate did or didn't do, and e) whether that is acceptable or not. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with WikiProject on Adminship. :) I am a bit skeptical of it, but hope some good ideas come out (ideas which will of course need to be discussed with the comunity at large on this talk page before being implemented). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As with all the recurring debate on RFA the comments above don't fill me with much confidence that it'll actually come up with something useful. In order to identify a robust and defensible selection mechanism (RFA currently being neither) then there needs to be a clear, pithy, statement of what Administrators are actually for. That is lacking at present and therefore the guidance is open to interpretation by the candidate and the voters. Until that requirement is nailed down then any discussion of the process is moot. Notwithstanding that if the project actually comes up with a Statement of Need to propose to the wider community then that is a useful step, and should mitigate for the endless tedium of 'RFA is broked' discussion. RFA being broked is merely a symptom of the more fundamental issue.ALR 08:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please consider participating in the WikiProject on Adminship (Archive 68)

Discussion there of alternatives to the RFA we know and love. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

...which still has no effort to determine what is wrong with RfA as it stands now. --Durin 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of things, mostly minor that's true, but that would be nice to change. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of admins growth: Linear. Number of edits growth: Exponential. Projected consequence: Loss of admin control over wikipedia. Suggested solution: Drastic changes need to be made to RFA. Kim Bruning 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ratio of articles to admins has grown only very slowly over the last couple of years. Number of edits per admin is but one measure. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the sky isn't falling. --Durin 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So who's running wikipedia right now then? :-) Kim Bruning 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lance Armstrong, pedalling furiously on a bicycle powered generator in the basement of the Wikimedia Cabal Headquarters. --Durin 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope he won't tire soon. Could we appoint some more people to help him, in some efficient manner? Kim Bruning 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The state the servers have been in recently I'd say he was on strike already.  ;-)

The recent Signpost said that Wikipedia has more admins per article than any other language, I believe. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WIkiProject Requests for adminship? (Archive 76)

Given the fact that there is a lot of material related to RfAs (mainly essays but other things as well like Esperanza) I propose a WikiProject to better maintain the process. We could maintain WP:GRFA and maybe (if it's practical) suggest a formal standard for requests for adminship (similar WP:WIAFA, for example) Perhaps we could go as far as writing a page on how to do an RfA thanks.

Thoughts? -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, but keep in mind that every discussion on the subject has determined that formal standards don't work. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's this: Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship.--Kchase T 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I had in mind. Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiproject on Adminship had a goal of revising the RfA process, not maintaining it status quo. --Durin 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating things like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics, which is simple, factual information, and Esperanza's admin pages into one page would, in my opinion, be rather a bad idea. That material does not have the support of the full community, and should not be presented as if it does. If you have thoughts about RFA or links you want to compile, the best thing is to put them in user space, as NoSeptember has done. Chick Bowen 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cumulative assessment? (Archive 77)

Has anything like a standard portfolio of documented work has ever been considered as a(n optional) part of the RfA process? (Internal search didn't turn up anything related.) It seems like this might curb the "popularity contest" aspect of RfA, and help to focus attention on a candidate's complete body of work, for better or worse. But perhaps this has been considered before... -- Visviva 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people have what amounts to portfolios if you go to their user pages. Bringing my portfolio up to date has been one of my aims for a while. OK, actually making my portfolio has been an aim for a while. :-) In my opinion, it shows the organisation that an admin should show. I'd also recommend looking at someone's user pages and seeing if they look organised. Of course, the candidate could have nicked someone else's page design, but having a neat set of links to important areas is a bonus, IMO. We can't all have user pages like User:Essjay, but we can aspire to that! :-) Carcharoth 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it would only show their positive contributions. If it's organised by them then any arbcom rulings/blocks etc. would not be included. Searching their contributions would still be neccessary to find the proverbial "dirt" on them, however bad that sounds. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 07:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true; I was mostly thinking it would provide a more useful measure of broad-based experience than (for example) edit counts. If a user has done enough to accumulate a presentable body of work covering all the areas in which admins are expected to have experience, and has done so without getting into or causing serious trouble, that is probably a very good sign of adminworthiness. A semi-standard portfolio might also make editor review into a more useful process. It's just a random idea at this point, though; I haven't even made one for myself yet. ;-) -- Visviva 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What helps is if people are honest and point out the bad things as well (kind of like the "have you been involved in any disputes?" question. I would expect a portfolio (or maybe "history" is a better word) to include any RfCs, arbitration cases, etc. It helps to break things up logically and detail contributions to article space, Wikipedia space, talk pages, etc. The edit tools like Wannabe Kate show the articles a user has edited most in each namespace, so that can help. Wikignomes and AWB users should also be honest and say that, say, 10,000 of their 20,000 edits were "just" adding category tags to lots of articles. A real, detailed analysis might show that an impressive looking spread of edits is not that impressive once you take away the "standard" edits. I suppose what this is effectively asking for is for people to start the analysis themselves, and offer it up to RfA so the regulars here (or at places like 'Editor Review') can then dig a little further and give their verdict. Edit summaries help. If you can search for "copyedit", "typo", "vote delete", "comment on..." in the edit summaries, that helps as well. It is actually quite easy to copy one's own contributions list and analyse it yourself in this way, grouping all the edits to one article together, for instance, or all the edits to any AfD page, or linking to a long series of 200 AWB edits (this involves putting the right date and time in the URL to get the last edit up first, and offsetting by 200). This also brings up stability of edits. If someone has made 100s of edits to an article, or series of articles, but none of them have survived to the current version, that could show lack of sourcing, or failure to keep an eye on an article. This is getting more into editor review territory than RfA territory, but it shows the point. Dealing with conflict and proper understanding of policy should obviously remain at the heart of RfA, but demonstrating self-awareness and organisation is also good. Carcharoth 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the use of a portfolio would be. I'll assume people aren't going to lie, but it's all too easy to delude yourself about the importance of your work, and of course there's the issue previously brought up that nothing bad would be included. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between egoism, navel-gazing and organisation, but you do have a point. Carcharoth