Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Ancient sins, again :o(

First, my apologies for not having been much involved here for a while. Due to real-life issues (full-time caring for a frail, elderly parent with rapidly-progressing dementia, among others), I haven't felt much able to do anything requiring any deep thought, and have been predominantly just gnoming around in new page patrol.

However, I'm incredibly disappointed to note that, yet again, an ancient sin way past its use-by date is being used as a "reason" to oppose a candidate. The sin was committed as a teenager, the candidate is now an adult and has done excellent work and turned over an obvious new leaf. We really must have some official cut-off point for the use of old sins as a reason to oppose.

What we have, in this case, is the exact equivalent of a teenager having borrowed friends' cars to drive without a licence. And not having had a crash, killed anyone, etc. - just the basic breach of community trust involved with driving without a licence. In real life, that teenager would have been banned from driving for a year, maximum, and had points there on the licence for three years after that. By now, even those points on the licence would have been removed. There is no way that they would be considered to be unfit ever to be trusted to be given a licence to drive. Even a no-licence teenage-driver who'd actually seriously injured someone would be likely to be given more than a three-year driving ban. And here, we are, three years on, and that's what's happening. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Even worse that that, though, is that for pointing out that this is unjust and shouldn't be used, is that it's now suggested that instead of being concerned about the wrongness of this, I am (and others are) simply part of some IRC-based cabal to push this candidate through. "Oppose re IRC" being the relevant edit summary. I find that quite shocking, actually. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 3:26 pm, Today (UTC+7)

(restored - sorry about that) BTW, NPP is a good place to be at the moment - all hands on deck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! us wrinklies, eh?! I've been neglecting NPP for the past few days, for the first bit of creative writing (and a new GA!) that I've done for ages.

I've respectfully requested the editor concerned (see above) to strike their comment. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another dramafest. It looks as if this RfA is a magnet for voters' smoke and mirrors. No wonder we're not getting many candidates.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And oh-so-easy to avoid, if we had a "no sins more than a year old" deadline, or something! High time it was done. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd wholly disagree with that. As a completely strawman argument, are you saying that any of our long term abuse peeps could stop, wait a year, then run? It depends on the severity and the incident - any deadlines are should be taken on a case by case basis Worm^TT · (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I over-simplified things! Would depend also on levels of openness, regret, apology, and severity. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as we have RfA in the format that we currently do, people should be able to oppose for whatever reason they deem fit - the rest of the community will react if it's a stupid reason (as they are here, he's got 90 odd votes, even though it's got 5 days to go). I don't think telling people they can't vote in a certain way is the right way forward. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If by voting in a certain way means citing rules we do not have, and using lies, deceit, and disengeuous conjecture, then, I think it's essential that their votes be exposed as fraudulent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfA voting

Please see recent comments at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts

Thought I might share some thoughts on your RfA reform idea. Overall, I like it - but there are afew points I think that merit discussion.

1. Admins being the only people who can elect/ratify/nominate candidates? Does this not make adminship more of a clique than it already is? In what way could a long term, clueful editor who is in good standing not make a nomination? I can think of half a dozen editors that are not interested in being admins, but I'd trust their judgement on suggesting one.
2. Minimum qualification should be kept low, if synthesizing - Say 5 editors were looking at edit count, 3 said 8k, 2 said 3k, I'd suggest going for the lower, not the middle, nor the majority.
3. History of Oppose and Support should not affect your right to vote, unless there is an issue with rationales.
4. Your RFA SPA makes me think of one voter and one voter only, is it necessary to specify this, especially if you focus more on rationales?
5. Perhaps there should be a system that all replies to votes should be on the talk page (with a template to match)

Just a couple of thoughts anyway Worm^TT · (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Worm. All very valid points - I did stress that these ideas of mine may even be contradictory. These are among the very points that I hope could be discussed by a task force rather than in a traditional RfC that would be, as per usual, peppered with off-topic comments and general background noise. However, FWIW:

1. You're right of course on voting, reason I put it in there was to get comments just like yours that would rule it out as quickly as possible. I think however there should be some minimum quals for nominators and voters.
2. personally I think going for the middle would be best. That's why I fee it's essential to carefully review all those users essays very closely.
3. There are some editors who routinely vote oppose or support (I've check many voting pattern in X tools). That kinda demonstrates to me that they haven't done their own homework.
4. Yes. But again, I feel it needs putting in writing.
5. I don't thing flip-flopping between pages would make the process easier.

Would you consider working on a task force? --Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that admin only nominations would be a bad idea. Though I think that a rule that accounts with less than 1500 edits can't self nominate would be useful and gentler to newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that this was created today, so thought I might get you while it was fresh in your mind. I'd say working out what the minimum requirements are should be something for a task force to agree. I'm not keen on setting it too high, as there are some very clueful editors who would do alright. NickPenguin for example, fails most RfA criteria and it's going to be a close one. Boing, WSC and myself all moved our votes based on his clueful approach.

As for how voters vote, SPA or specific history, I think we could manage that much better through requirements for rationale, be it "sourced" or reasonable reasons. I don't think it should be a requirement to trawl through loads of edits to get an impression of character - for example, I base much of my vote on how an editor behaves on talk pages and how much time they've spent in the Wikipedia space, which means I'd miss bad speedy tags.

You're right about the flip flopping, but I'm more concerned about the limitting discussion. Discussion will show how the candidate handles questions, especially follow up questions. However, if it stays on the page, it gives an impression of badgering, which can cause issue.

As for a task force, I'd be more than happy to join in, I've already said as much to Dank. I'm keeping an eye on WT:RfA, and will jump on any point I'd be useful. Having said that, I'm an outside observer, having never run the gauntlet! Worm^TT · (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The page was created today in my user space, but the content was written several days ago. --Kudpung (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me pop in here with some thoughts too.

• Minimum qualifications for candidacy - one of the most obvious things that needs to be implemented.
• Apply for a 'right to vote', in the same way as 'autopatroler', 'rollbacker', 'reviewer', etc. - Very interesting. Set (minimum) criteria to be an RfA voter is a good idea, but should this be a "simply meeting the requirements" thing or a technical user right?
• No uncommented oppose !votes: Yes.
• Things such as removal of personal attacks and incivility should be as broad as possible. I think any all admins should be strongly encouraged to remove personal attacks and uncivil comments.

Anyway, I'd like to share my thoughts on every point, but I'll refrain. The specifics would have to be decided by a task force anyway (in which I'd be happy to take part in), but overall I entirely agree with the goals of this particular proposal. Swarm ^X 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'neutral' section. Some people do offer a lot of good advice in it for the candidate. In a very close call, perhaps the crat might consider the comments in their evaluation. If I were a crat I probably would, unless there is an existing rule against it. Kudpung (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd include some thoughts as well. There's still plenty of room for expansion, but a synopsis can be gleaned. I kind of called it the SGM's approach. Have a look and see if anything sounds reasonable you can also add comments there if you wish. My76Strat (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator note:Recent comment by M move to the bottom of the page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Minimum qualifications

I agree with minimum qualifications for candidacy, and for the most part there aren't very many uncommented opposes. I don't agree we need a userright for the RfA !vote; that pretty much is equivalent to having the ArbCom do it. I have no comment on any other !voting requirements. I agree with removing personal attacks, but incivility gets tricky if they include a legitimate reason to support/oppose mixed with their civility. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input (I've moved your post in answer to a very old thread to here for it to be easier to find and be regarded as more recent.) It's true that uncommented 'oppose' !votes are fairly rare - those that are, are usually from the same editors. I don't think there have been any suggestions here to make voting a user right per se, there do however appear to be compelling reasons to introduce a minimum number of edits and a minimum period of registration for users to be able to vote. Some other Wikipeias operate such conditions. Research has shown that a fairly significant number of votes are from very new users - some who appear to have registered with the sole purposed of voting on one RfA, while a disturbing number have been identified as sockpuppets, while many others have been later blocked for various reasons. Comprehensive details on voting patterns can be found at WP:RFA2011/VOTING, where you may also wish to express your thoughts on voting in more detail on its talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The nature of RFA

I think this is a point that causes a lot of bad noise at RFA. Candidates expect RFA to be a review of their previous efforts and nothing more. They often don't seem to realize that there is a secondary process occurring at the same time, namely that how they behave during their RFA is also an important determining factor. I am not saying this is wrong, in fact I think it is as it should be, but perhaps we should try to make it more clear to the candidate. Admins deal with hostility and criticism from the moment they begin using their tools. How they react to being criticized at RFA is often used as an indicator of how they will react to the inevitable, and often totally unfair, criticism of their admin actions. Admins are expected to be able to keep their cool. We don't always manage it, I've certainly had some fine moments where I said or did something I regretted later, but generally if you become openly hostile or throw a fit during your RFA the community is going to react by denying you the bit. I don't want to encourage gaming RFA, but I think we should make it more clear that it's not just your previous edits and talk comments, you are being tested right then and there to see how you respond.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I'm not sure how much it'll help. A lot of the time when candidates are uncivil, they are simply too angry to think about what they should say. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea too; I'm not personally in favour of destruct-testing candidates during RfA, as I don;t think it gives an entirely true picture. Most people (no, I haven't done any studies or have any sources, lol!) are likely to be far more emotionally involved with their own RfA than they would be in any 'standard Admin-action hostility', so I think we get a really exaggerated and out-of-kilter picture of what someone's likely to do when wielding the mop, based on their stress levels and pai9n-responses during the RfA. But if they were clearly told that destruct-testing was part of the process, it might make it easier for them not to dive headlong into the traps. Pesky (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am currently in the middle of yet another reason I shall probably never run for admin. Tendentious editors with big egos drive me through the wall. Why would anyone in their right mind seek out more of the same on purpose? (grin) But to the point, trying to deal with these people presents a good question: How WOULD I behave with tools? WOULD the ways I have tried to deal with very obnoxious people without tools be held against me? I happen to have a lot of respect for User:Lar, but my god he takes it in the shorts over his admin actions, which I have found in most cases to be apt, spot-on, unbiased, appropriate, and fair. I'd like to think I'd emulate his style, blunt, to the point, firm about the rules, no favorites even with friends. (Heck, I used to be a substitute teacher, I once gave a kid detention before the tardy bell!) But even though I've never been blocked or faced any sort of WP sanctions, and have won all three of the ANIs someone filed on me, the fact that having had them filed at all makes me think I'd be doomed to have my past and present actions reviewed at an RfA! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who is out to get you will cheat and lie through their back teeth on your RfA. Other editors will not bother to check up and will willingly add unresearched pile-ons. Other voters probably have a chip on their shoulder in RL and are possibly obnoxious characters there too. They come to WP to get it off their chest with impunity while hiding behind the anonymity that Internet forums offer. A short review of their editing history seems to bear this theory out. The voter profile table has shown some very interesting results - especially concerning those who have an axe to grind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who is out to get you will cheat and lie through their back teeth ....." everywhere they see you! Some bar-stewards are just like that. And the RL issues spilling over into WikiLand just happens, and probably always will. Most people (again, no sources .....) aren't capable of totally compartmentalising their life and reactions. But the real problem, which Kudpung has put very nicely, is the 'pile-on-voters' who just pile on without even doing the research for themselves. It's that ole lynch mob mentality .... how could we stop that from happening? There must be some way to challenge those who've not actually done thorough research for themselves and just run with the nasty-pack? Pesky (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If THAT can be figured out, can we also apply it to American politics? Much needed there! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This goes back to the minimum voter criteria proposal not too long ago. If you could somehow eliminate uneducated pile-on voting, then RFA can be fixed. I think that's one of the paramount reasons suitable editors do not seek administrative tools. I think it's mostly because many editors (inexperienced and otherwise) do not have the level of maturity necessary to fairly evaluate a candidate based solely upon his/her merits and demerits. RFA has turned into a sort of free-for-all, like a running of the bulls during which some amount of editors (the bulls), though not all, will chase after the candidate, seeking any possible reason to oppose (even if it's an uneducated "per above"). I realize the bulls analogy is a poor one at best, given that RFA is not a recreational activity, but I think my point still holds true regardless. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd go a step further and say undereducated pile-on opposes are an issue. In my last RfA, everyone latched onto one of two incidents (one me baiting a troll in order to get him to run through his IPs, the second me blowing my top due to a situation that had real-world ramifications for an editor) that took place within the two months prior to my run. That's the main reason I can't read it anymore without seeing red - everyone focused on a small aspect rather than the overall picture. The problem is, everyone has some issue in their past if they wanna run for RfA, and if they don't, I wouldn't be two-faced if they got opposed for not taking a chance. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple (to say nothing of Malleus Fatorum opposing for incivility and then taking that opportunity to rail on Young Earth Creationists, but I digress).

...I'm sorry if it seems like I'm ranting; I'm just quite bitter because I feel I got shafted by everyone involved in the RfA process. I'm not going to say whether or not it worked or failed (as I am in no state of mind to bring that up when mentioning my second RfA torques me off), but I would say that, at least in the RfA of today, due diligence and civility are out the window in favor of extreme-short-term history (I understand short-term, but realistically two months isn't that long a time) and snarking on the candidate's fur color and whose shirts he wears. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Coordination note: Above post copied to WT:RFA2011/VOTING. Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The poisonous atmosphere (again) - courage and topic bans required

(Coordination note: This thread has been copied to WT:RFA2011/VOTING. Please continue the discussion there.)

Moved content

As far as I can see, there really is only one way to deal with the "poisonous atmosphere" at RfA, and that's to decide on an acceptable standard of behaviour with respect to civility at RfA - and in my view this should be a higher standard of behaviour than, for example, users' talk pages - and to stand firm and enforce it. This means people having the guts to say when something is badly wrong with a voter's behaviour on a regular basis, follow it through, and, where appropriate, have a (for example) three-month topic ban (RfA) imposed. There is currently no effective deterrent for bad behaviour, and whenever there is no effective deterrent for any unwanted behaviour, you're going to get the unwanted behaviour. It's how humans work. And, yes, you're going to get a few people whingeing about "Civility Police" - louts, yobs and vandals threatened with the possibility of ASBO's are always going to mouth off about the presence of police. All Wikipedia's various forms of vandals mouth off about it when they're taken to task - nothing new there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Corollary: and, if they come back to RfA after a topic ban and cross that borderline again, their vote is struck (discounted), topic-ban again, with an extra month tacked on for good measure. Three such bans and it becomes a permanent topic ban. Something along those lines would rapidly clean up the atmosphere. Moral: if you want to be allowed to play at RfA, you have to stay scrupulously civil. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 'nother one: I'm sure many of us are aware of persistent offenders - pro-active move would be a collection of all relevant diffs pointing to a pattern of uncivil behaviour over there, (like Kudpung's list in the current case) for the known offenders, and have them ready to present for an immediate vote-strike and topic ban when they do it again. If persistent offenders are aware that evidence is likely to be being collected about them, then if they want their next (and future) !vote(s) to be counted, they will have to behave from now on. This could start on the cure for this problem immediately. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Question: Would it be feasible to bring a case to ArbCom (not on a named individual, but on the over-all subject of cleaning up RfA), with sufficient evidence (if needed!) to get them to rule that from now on the problem of solution to incivility at RfA will be rigorously enforced in this way? If so, better for someone / group of people with higher 'standing' and more street-cred than I have, to do it. If we can get a structure in place which has the instant weight of AE behind it, it would also prevent "fan clubs" from removing topic bans. This might then (conceivably) have the knock-on effect of raising our civility standards right across the wiki; if someone has, for example, an AE-weight topic ban for incivility at RfA, they would have an incentive to be more civil everywhere. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Standards vs. promotions

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I'll go ahead anyways. I was thinking about how RfA has changed over the time I've been part of the project and I came up with somewhat of a conclusion, for lack of a better term. RfA standards have risen a lot of the years; six years ago, 1000 or so edits would have been a pass, then a few months + ~3000 edits passed in 2007, and nowadays, standards in terms of both tenure and edits are much higher. At the same time, promotions have been down over the time. That brings me to my "conclusion": the drop in successful RfAs is only a function of the required standards, and tinkering with the process would have no effect—RfA has been, is, and will be a slimepit. More precisely, the reason as to why it's difficult to create new admins is because the standards have risen in such a way that the user base is unable to catch up. In 2005, there were less editors, the project was younger, so few users would have made tens of thousands of edits. The "magic" figure of 3000 (or 4000 or 5000) by 2007 was easily attainable. By now, the tenure requirement would probably average over a year, and the number of edits would be past the 10,000 range. Much less editors can reach those numbers! So, while it's possible that more of the user base would at such levels in a few years, it is more likely, in my opinion, based on previous history, that RfA standards would increase and editors would still be behind those standards. The solution? If more admins are sought, the standard must be lowered to such a level that is more attainable. Maxim_(talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maxim. It's nice to see a bureaucrat visiting these pages, and thank you for your thoughtful comments. Yes, standards have indeed risen. However, this is due to the personal criteria applied by those who wish to !vote on RfA, and there is probably little the community can do to change their thinking. Our research here appears to demonstrate that the availability of new and automated tools provides a false quality metric to the edit counts - and this is what the serious !voters look for, among their other criteria.

That said, the clear reason why editors will not come forward is that they are not prepared to spend seven days in the snake pit. We have scoured the Wiki and suggested to many users by email that they might wish to be considered for adminship, and the answer is almost always the same. Mature, experienced, long-term users even more so, because they will have accumulated enemies through having warned or blocked editors for infringements, CSD'd articles, or held opposing views on various discussions. Those detractors will invariably register 'oppose' !votes at RfA. Other !voters who regularly participate and often oppose candidates, appear in fact to registering a demonstration against adminship in principle. As you know from your closures of RfA, it is not possible to simply discount such !votes. My own RfA was a classic example of nastiness and unfounded opposition, but it passed due to an overwhelming support from the high end of the community. It's no understatement to say that admins are the most hated user group! Being an admin can be a thankless task, and I'm sure those editors who have the tools will readily admit that adminship really is no big deal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Most users who've had trouble in the past easily could be admins, even if they have caused trouble. All we'd need to deal with such a trouble admin is desysop and block.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many people believe it's not easy enough to desysop someone, and that's another reason why they oppose. However, I don't think that was quite what I was referring to, but FWIW, I wouldn't !vote for anyone who has a regular history of snark, for example, and there are plenty of admins for whom I wouldn't give the time of day, or who wouldn't stand a snowball's at today's standards. Calling a candidate an 'obtuse jerk' on an RfA takes the biscuit I'm afraid, however incompetent the candidate may be, and those are just the kind of people we don't want - either as admins, or !voters on RfA, or anywhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's only due to the low number of bureaucrats. Sure, there are people who've been trolling in the past and may have a long pattern of it, and that's not what we want. However, my idea here is that we don't need all candidates to be absolutely perfect.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe we have enouh 'crats, but if they feel overburdened, they can make a case for more. Nobody is perfect, but there is no excuse for incivility, bullying, POV pushing, and slipshod work - these are real-life character traits that an admin flag won't change. In earlier times when 3,000 edits and 3 months were enough to get the tools, there was not enough contribution to the project to see what these people are really like. There are plenty of admins like these, and these are the reasons why the standards have been raised by !voters and nominators. They are certainly the reasons why I use a clear set of criteria; notwithsanding, my criteria are of course flexible and are not applied to the letter. Generally, the editors who have published their criteria seem to know what they are doing - except perhaps those who have simply copied my own criteria verbatim to their user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Incivility, bullying, and other extremely bad behavior is not acceptable, but I think things far less than that should be tolerable.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This diff from today (its last paragraph) says it all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I might sound extremely old and bitter for this, but you are very wrong Maxim, to an extent. While the criteria for a new users's request for adminship might be declined suggests a correlation between time, edits and popularity/population of Wikipedia, the problem is a lot of editors are not new to Wikipedia anymore. The chances of an editor passing a request for adminship having previously been there once (or even going through the process for the full seven days without withdrawing) is probably very, very low. Editors who have been on Wikipedia for years and continue to come back and contribute positively are the ones who aren't going back or going to RFA to begin with. These are the editors who are best known by the community for their edits and their tendencies of how they will use the adminship tools if they had them (and probably the reason they don't have them now). New administrators who never had an adminship request before that are 4-6 months old and have 5-6,000 edits are a wildcard to say the least. No one knows them enough to go to an RFA and oppose them in hoards when all they do is the maintenance and article writing (unless they accumulated that edit count over a few years time). I'm going to use my personal experience at RFA, and I only do so because I am the best example that I have for this. Back in 2005 and 2006 I had about 16,000 edits with an account registered between 6-9 months old pending which request. I've had four old adminiship requests where I was nominated by others (I'm excluding the first self-nom when I was a couple of months old and too new) and all of them were squandered horribly to the point I closed them prematurely just to avoid the further torment of having people I knew and didn't know go on there and judge me. I had websites from vandals dedicated to disparaging me and going on my current request for adminship and showing links to edits where I had an episodes of being bipolar and editing Wikipedia and making one, albeit, very stupid edit. I'm blown away in retrospect that a former administrator that I never knew on Wikipedia prior to my requests for adminiship, User:Freestylefrappe, created sockpuppets on my RFAs to do the same as the known vandals. Even worse are the established editors on the last RFA I ever had, which oppose !votes ranged from not reading enough Deepak Chopra to possibly not being experienced enough with templates, to my own friends calling me a child and saying leaving Wikipedia was immature under the circumstances of the horrible RFAs prior, then opposing me. I haven't accepted another request since that request in 2006 despite many, many offers being extended to me including a petition of numerous editors who told me they would support me if I was nominated again. All of this was before my account was a year old, and now I have been here for over six years. If I ran today, God willing, who knows what kind of crap would happen. If there was that many people who hated me in less than a year, I can only imagine how many do in six years. I recently saw an RFA of someone who used to be an administrator when I checked the page for the first time in a year, and they were still holding things against him from back in 2008 and older. It really put into perspective of how being an administrator really is "a big deal" despite efforts of users who try and downplay it, and how unforgiving the Wikipedia community really is. I, personally, might never see another RFA again. I probably couldn't handle putting myself through the scrutiny of people who weren't even registered on Wikipedia when I made a controversial edit to accurately assess whether I am capable of a delete, protect and block button. I know I can't be alone in users who feel this way. — Moe ε 12:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we've been running this project, we've discussed just about every reason why RfA is rotten, done a lot of analytics of names and voting pattens, candidates, and criteria, and come up with the same conclusions every time. We've discussed dozens of serious suggestions, and some that are just too fanciful or fabulous to ever get introduced. I'll try to make a bulleted summary here:

RfA is dead because of the voters.

• Among the voters there are some regular participants whose only goal appears to be to disrupt the system, for two reasons, 1) because they just like to cause drama, or 2) they intensely dislike the notion of adminship in general. These groups break down into the following:
• Those who are excellent content editors but are just too damn uncivil to become admins
• Those who tried for adminship and failed
• Those who enjoy schadenfreude and are just hellbent on wrecking anyone's chances of passing
• Trolls

The next categories are:

• Those who are too new/young/immature to even understand what adminship is all about, but they think it's cool to get involved in meta stuff because it gives them a power they can't get easily on their favourite web forum. We see this at NPP, AfD, and the silly debates they start on the VP. They also mess with ANI, and tinker with SPI where theoretically, only people with admin level experience should be offering their opinions.
• The naïve do-gooders who see potential evil in every candidate
• Those who have an axe to grind against the candidate. They are the ones who tell lies, use fake diffs, or take things deliberately out of context - all in the hope that the 'pile-on' voters won't do their own checking up.
• Those who enjoy schadenfreude, find an insignifiant chink in the candidate's armour and stick the knife in

Those are the facts, and we have enough material here to prove it.

The next issues are the ones of criteria, and they contain a lot of irony:

• A candidate who hasn't been around very long hasn't got enough experience for the voters to judge, however good their work and civility appear to be
• A candidate who has the maturity and tenure is expected to have experience in sem-admin areas, where the longer they have been around, they will have accumulated detractors among users whom they have justifiably CSD'd, warned, or reported - a vote is a vote, and there's nothing the closing 'crat can do about it; only in the closest of end counts can or would a 'crat evaluate a consensus in the way we do when we close most other kinds of discussions.

The criteria are indeed stiffer than they were 5 years ago, but that's a sign of Wikipedia's learning curve and progress. Analogy: When I got my driver's licence, all I had to do was drive around a city block for ten minute with an examiner, and answer three or four silly questions such as, what do you do when you see a red traffic light, and which way should you drive round a roundabout. Today's kids have to sit a complex written exam, and then they only get a trial licence for the first six months, and if they screw up, they have to go take the exam again. Rules and regulations in everyday life get harder all the time, because of the lawmakers' past experience. I'm a teacher, and nowadays you're not even allowed to look at kid sharply when he misbehaves. Some teachers get exposed as pedos, so nowadays we're all suspected as being potential child molesters and have to prove we're not before we get our ticket to teach, and hang on another 2 years post grad work. 40 years ago, a good set of A-levels, no degree, and 2 years at teacher training school was enough.

However, the irony is, the En.Wiki doesn't have any criteria; the criteria are set anew for every single RfA depending on who turns out to vote. Those who apply (more or less) a personal set of criteria and vote seriously, generally base their criteria on the minima they would set for themselves if they ran for office - and the scope of those individual criteria is wide. Another irony is that among those who signed up for the task force here, some did so because they though the goal of this project is to lower the standard and make it easier for them to become sysops, and again some who think it's cool to get involved in meta stuff - and we had a classic example two days ago of one of them who nearly wrecked the project - all in good faith, of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the most disconcerting aspect is that of Wikipedia's way of obtaining consensus on anything. First, we have to convince the people out there that RfA needs changing for the better, and secondly getting them to agree on the changes. It's a long process, and even our so-called task force is now so big they can't agree on anything. So it's down to three or for regulars here who do all the work, and only to be accused of cabalism, and being a clan of power hungry admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, there is only one kind of solution (other than a really long time from now) for which I would ever touch another RFA for myself, and that would be a reform of who is a !voter. The irony you speak of is exactly what needs to be directly addressed. Maybe no one has suggested it (or maybe it has many times), but a consensus of bureaucrats is more promising than a single bureaucrat having to decide this. We have over thirty active bureaucrats, which would more than suffice for an actual !vote. Thinking off the top of my head, the ideal situation for requests for adminship, is to keep it ideally the same but with more consensus and less !voting.

The ideal request for adminiship nomination would first and foremost, after the nominator has said their piece, address the statistics of the editor. I'm not talking about edit count and number of past requests, though those would be included. I'm talking about real statistics, which are not hard to grab. Wikipedia is nothing more than a collection of edits and logs which can be statistically broken down to determine what has happened over time. All of these things can be accounted for statistically given the right bot: The number of edits an editor has made (broken down by namespace), the number of blocks they have received, the number of non-admin closures to Xfds, the number of files uploaded, number of deleted edits (broken down as to why), number of Xfds participated in, number of sockpuppet investigations against them/participated in, any confirmed alternate accounts (legitimate or otherwise), number of WP:AN/I and related page threads they have participated in (and the number of edits to said pages), all previous adminship requests, statistics on their account like longevity, etc.

After all the statistics of the editor were gathered, in my personal opinion, all we need is single section below that (arbitrary breaks pending) with discussion of any questionable behaviors or concerns editors have of the nominee or a show of support for the nomination. Taking away the support/oppose/neutral sections and having a single section would make this issue of a !vote obsolete. Maybe I would be forcing a lot of responsibility on the bureaucrats, who would actually have to read the entire request for adminship and determine whether the areas of concern are enough not to promote them, but I think someone in their power needs to use it in consensus with users who have the same power they do as well. Finally, and this is the most important part, the only !vote is whether the request for adminship passed or not, by the bureaucrats. To be frank, bureaucrats have this power for a reason, and to make one bureaucrat make this decision is silly when we could easily have the input of many. I'm not saying that one bureaucrat alone is going to have/had bad judgement. I'm saying that all the bureaucrats who participate at RFA together have the same power to promote or not promote and that a more thorough look through the statistics of the editor, along with the troublesome edits/concerns of editors and whether those concerns are accounted for should be decided by bureaucrats themselves. A number like (70 support, 20 oppose, 2 neutral) shouldn't dictate who should become an administrator, legitimate concerns of or support for their editing should decide that. As it is, if there is one area of concern with a nominee, thirty editors coming on after the issue was resolved can easily just put "per editor X and my standards" and not give a second thought, and their request be denied for no good reason. With the only !vote mattering coming from bureaucrats (and the only people who can promote being bureaucrats anyways), scenarios of "I don't like them" can be avoided with a simple vote of bureaucrats.

Of course, this would be in a perfect world of process on Wikipedia, which will never happen. — Moe ε 02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Very similar solutions have all been discussed on this project already - probably on the sub page at WP:RFA/RADICAL, but if not it's somewhere else here. In a nutshell, out active 'crats are not quite as active as we may believe, and a recent comment I made was that if RfA were comment based without the voting element, with a participation of anything up to 200 users, it would take a 'crat hours to assee it. Nevertheless, all the stats you mention are available (or can easily be made available), but they can't assess the candidates' character and maturity, which most voters' comments seem to hinge upon. Some voters oppose through pure unresearched conjecture that might even be the complete oppposite to the statistical facts, as we have seen today in a current RfA. Unfortunately, as per my reasoning above, if it were to be a close call, there is no way that we can be sure that a 'crat would discount such a vote. perhaps Maxim could offer his thoughts on this. ‎ Kudpung Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can always list a new "radical" solution to the page and see where it goes if anyone takes off with it. I will however refrain from using the RFA reform 2011 Wikipedia namespace and use my own user space if I make such a proposal. — Moe ε 06:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do that? This project is the best place for it (on the right page) and it will get a lot more exposure. Comments and suggestions such as yours are badly needed. If they support a theory that has already been posited, so much the better.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What exposure? Nobody much bothers to look at this page --Epipelagic (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about Epipelagic. The page has been viewed 3,546 times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a proposal I am writing out, and I will most likely link it here and maybe on other related RFA pages for further input and discussion, and just not have it on the WikiProject page. I will allow anyone to edit it or make suggestions on how to improve it, however. — Moe ε 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to revisit my comments, and I don't really have much to add. RfA standards and the atmosphere are part of one continuum. What I understand from Moe and Kudpung's comments is that the atmosphere is very unpleasant; what I could add to that, in broad strokes, is that the atmosphere feeds off the vague and/or unreasonable standards, and those standards feed off the atmosphere. In other words, it's a cycle of positive feedback that has resulted in very few candidates stepping up -- if any! Maxim_(talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Tool apprenticeship

(Coordination note: This thread has been copied to WT:RFA/RADICAL. Please continue the discussion there.)

Moved content

Hi all, just posting a link to my new RfA alternative proposal Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship. I'd really like to get some good feedback from others who have thought a lot about RfA reform. Here's the brief summary: In tool apprenticeship, a user who has an immediate practical need for a particular administrator tool or tools, such as deletion or protection, makes a request to receive that tool. Provided the user is in good standing and has a need, they receive the tool on a trial basis for a limited period (weeks to months). When this period expires, the tool is automatically revoked. After or shortly before the end of their trial, the user can file a request to retain the tool permanently, based on their performance during the trial period, which will be granted if the user substantially used the tool and exercised good judgement. If the request is denied, the user will be given extensive feedback on their usage and may (if their misuse was not too egregious) have the opportunity for another trial period. Over time, a user who performs a variety of tasks may acquire many tools, giving them similar status to current administrators. To centralize discussion, please leave comments and feedback on the proposal's talk page at Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship. Thank you! Dcoetzee 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship on a proposal for access to adminship through apprenticeship. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Bureaucrats are saying

- about policing RfA. Interesting reading for anyone who has 10 minutes to spare, and it may have some influence on how we might address a possible proposal for clerks. Please start any discussion on at WT:RFA2011/VOTING. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting: right or wrong rationales?

IMHO, the unique oppose vote on a recent RfA is made with an inadmissible rationale. Moreover, even AGFing, it could be interpreted as an attempt to disrupt an RfA that in its last hours was destined to be immaculate and will succeed anyway. Whether we have voted for or against the cadidate, this kind of voting is yet another example of what must not be allowed. Please comment at WT:RFA2011/VOTING. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely support you Kudpung, you are absolutely right; that is profoundly shocking behaviour and must not be allowed. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm about 100% sure what oppose you're talking about; I'll bring it up there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Some food for thought/context for discussion

Although things have been relatively quiet lately, I would think it's safe to assume that there are more than a few editors out there that'd be willing to discuss. Below are some takeaways of discussions past that are (in my eye) worthwhile topics of discussion in considering the future of the project, now that several of the suggestions/proposals thus far have had time to sink-in. I'm in no way endorsing any of the below, mind you, but rather recalling some topics of past discussion in considering some possible courses of action.

1. A worthwhile suggestion by User:Balloonman last April. Little came of it, but it was an interesting idea nonetheless.
2. A thought-provoking discussion from last September regarding the mindset of reforming RFA.
3. A proposal almost as old as the project itself that proposes the addition of a 'clerk' role in the RFA process. There was a lot of discussion and development of the idea, but not much past that.
4. In continuing discussion, we must keep our original goals and objectives in mind. Some reading might also be conducive to a productive discussion.
5. A proposal that was never really fully developed (I could dig up discussions, but there's not much substance to them) is the idea of inviting those who have endured an RFA (not just those who have failed) to comment on the process and their experiences. Whether this could be done via an optional questionnaire upon closure of an RFA or an alternative method, I'll leave to discussion.
6. I'm not sure how aware the Wikimedia Foundation is about the declining rate of promotion of administrators and its connection to the RFA process, nor am I aware of their positions. If we could achieve consensus on even small changes and have some WMF-sanctioned effort at minor reform, that'd be a big step forward.
7. Perhaps it's time to send out another newsletter letting project participants know that ideas are welcome and discussion is encouraged. I'm not expecting overnight change, but participation is essential. If we could get even a small fraction of the registered participants to remain active, we could have some good, non-crowded discussion about possible paths forward.

Again, I'm not endorsing any of the above; they're just topics that would (to me, at least) be worthwhile discussion topics as we move forward. We've compiled a lot of good data and this, by far, has been the most extensive attempt at RFA reform. We mustn't stop now; we have many good ideas and there's been a lot of thought-provoking discussion, enough so that we ought to begin thinking about where we're going to go with this effort and what immediate or long-term solutions would be worthwhile to implement. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have taken the liberty of numbering your points above for easy reference. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've done some noble work in taking the trouble to review the contents of this project. Some people suggest that this project is dead. It is not, but much discussion has recently taken place recently at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 214 in which it would appear that the efforts are not appreciated by some, and that the posting of publicly accessible voting data would be considered a personal attack by some who might possibly identify themselves with the behaviour discussed. A rough summary of the second thread in that discussion would be that the community is not entirely adverse to the use of some forms of voting and expression that this project aim to stem are not only acceptable, but are a normal part of the process. That said, without surmising on any closure on existing issues, there appears to be strong support from the community for arguments that people are too sensitive to incivility and personal attacks, and should have a thicker skin. On the points above:

1. Ballonman's suggestion would incur more work for the closing bureaucrats that they may not wish to accept. CT Cooper lists previous discussion on a similar suggestion. The final comment by WFC is not unfounded.
2. See my final comment on that thread.
3. Clerks: Admittedly, this suggestion was not taken to conclusion, admittedly. It remains to be discussed what the criteria for clerking should be, and who should do it. It is however very close to being a possible major RfC proposal. A proposal needs to be drafted here, and with some tweaking it could go live almost immediately.
4. I feel sure that many task force members have not done the necessary reading - at least those who do not have extensive Wikipedia experience or who are already admins. Some people evidently joined the task force in the anticipation that reform would make it easier for them to become admins. Some have since been blocked, while other have retired from the encyclopedia. Apart from the, the goals and objectives remain unchanged. Other users have launched independent proposals, which at least may have had more success if they had drawn on the experience of the research we have done here.
5. See the discussion at WT:RfA (now archived) that I have linked to above. Those of us who are active on reform have the same mental list of editors who may not be participating at RfA in the best interests of the process and Wikipedia, but it appears impossible to address those people in any way at all without out them insinuating that they are being hounded or personally attacked.
6. The Foundation has expressed interest in RfA reform and feels it is necessary. They have insisted however, that while they may be able to offer advice or technical help, they are not able to intervene in a local Wikipedia in order to force reform.
7. Newsletters have proven to be largely ineffective for the reasons stated about about the task force.

Coming back to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 214, the idea of obtaining feedback from passed and failed candidates on their experience at RfA is excellent, and possibly some concrete conclusions could be drawn from it. I recently had an idea (already drafted) for a survey that could be run. However, this poses a challenge because such a survey requires WMF approval and my recent experience with WMF assistance on another survey I proposed has not proven, as yet, three months later, to be wholly effective.

We have received many email replies from users whom we have suggested they may wish to run for adminship. They have all declined and overwhelmingly due to the climate of the RfA process. This month will close with one successful RfA election, and my prognosis is that the year will end with as few as 25 - 35 new admins, and it remains to be seen how long it takes, due to natural wastage, for the backlogs to become critical. Recent proposals (again) to unbundle the tools have, as anticipated, failed yet again. Much of the work of admins is focused on deletion and vandalism, and I hope that if anything finally comes of the new-page patrol survey, and the proposed new patroller control panel at mw:New Page Triage and the new new-user landing page at mw:Article creation workflow, this will somewhat reduce the burden of the admins' workload. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: All but one of the project coords are now on extended Wikileave. I've signed off today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming or closure

It is no longer 2011, so the title of the reform is no longer accurate. We have two options: rename it to 2012 and carry on (even though we seem a bit inactive anyway), or keep the title and stop where we are, accept failure. Or we could drop this and start an entirely new RfA reform 2012. I don't know. Gather your thoughts below. Rcsprinter (message) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Another option would be continue on with the current name since the title is still accurate because it is discussions about RFA reform that was started in 2011. GB fan 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Seem a bit inactive"? Unfortunately real life issues have gotten in the way - but I can tell you that this is still at the forefront of my mind. As GB fan points out, the name points to when the project started (which is reasonable since there are a few other attempts at this). I'm not willing or ready to accept failure yet - I've got a few things up my sleeve that I'm going to be trying to get through over the next few months and that's just me. I'm sure other members of the task force have similar intentions. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

'RFA2011' should be kept, there is no reason to move it. That's when the project was started, and the project work continues. Over 400 pages link to the project main page alone. Far from being inactive or a failure, a brand new and updated set of comprehensive stats on the RfA process is due to be posted to the project very shortly when the database results have been extrapolated and summarised, and some concrete RfC prosals will be made soon based on it. It needs to be understood and accepted that all Wikipedia research and development projects take time (some of us have a RL), and anyone posting here is welcome to become an active participant and assist in speeding it up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely hope this thing gets off the ground. I really do like to help, but I cant let go of my real-life priorities, and has only been silently keeping an eye out on this for many months now. I had really bad experiences at my past RFAs, and I am pretty sure - just like me - there are many out there who genuinely would like to be part of Wikipedia to help out. The adminship process should welcome the applicant, who is actually here to sacrifice their time to help the project. But right now, the applicant is treated as someone who is here to take something away from Wikipedia which anyone can edit.

It really shouldn't be that restrictive. Make it easy to get in, and in case something goes wrong, make it easy to get out. Sadly saying, what's happening now is, in my honest opinion, fueled by politically forces (due to the project's sheer popularity). This is not right. Being an admin is cool, but the already-admins should not be so hard in taking others in. Taking others in is not doing them a favour, but doing the project a favour. Attitudes like "we have enough admins" does not make sense, and you know why. For Wikipedia, the need for volunteers will never end. Improvement and team work is never limited.

I used to be a hell of an active contributor, and I remember when this initiative got off, with great intentions. It is still great and only needs genuinely clean minds to get it off the ground. This plan has not failed and should not be dropped. It just need some genuine thought and dedication. I really admire the people who are keeping this going. Although I am not that active, I am always reachable via email and talkpage. Rehman 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reform"

"Reform" is question-begging. (Compare "tort reform".) Could a NPOV or descriptive name be chosen?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)