Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report HouseBlaster 115 8 1 93 00:50, 23 June 2024 2 days, 9 hours yes report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 15:05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Active administrator stats (2007–present)

Average number of administrators considered active by Rick Bot per month (September 2007 – present):
	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December
2007	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	922	929 (+7)	952 (+23)	993 (+41)
2008	1,011 (+18)	1,016 (+5)	1,006 (-10)	989 (-17)	986 (-3)	990 (+4)	986 (-4)	966 (-20)	974 (+8)	966 (-8)	951 (-15)	951 (0)
2009	942 (-9)	938 (-4)	929 (-9)	918 (-11)	922 (+4)	918 (-4)	916 (-2)	906 (-10)	896 (-10)	880 (-16)	862 (-18)	865 (+3)
2010	882 (+17)	885 (+3)	859 (-26)	843 (-16)	841 (-2)	838 (-2)	817 (-21)	800 (-17)	805 (+5)	796 (-9)	785 (-11)	777 (-8)
2011	765 (-12)	778 (+13)	777 (-1)	771 (-6)	764 (-7)	760 (-4)	765 (+5)	746 (-19)	730 (-16)	723 (-7)	729 (+6)	?

I saw the history of Wikipedia:List of administrators (history) and noticed the bot for number of active administrators being updated daily. Since I've seen a lot of conversation lately about there not being enough administrators, I wanted to see an average of how many administrators we are losing in reality, and this seemed like a good way. I took the daily number provided by the bot, and averaged it for a month from September 2007 up to now. As always, Rick Bot defines "activity" as 30 or more edits during the last two months. Just thought I'd share, it was for my own personal use. — Moe ε 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I did something similar a little while back and created a graph to match :) It's not pretty, I must say. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I avoided the line graph at all costs to avoid the straight downward line we all now RFA is heading (well, it actually looks like more of a worm :p), but that works too for this.— Moe ε 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was painful enough that I didn't really fancy showing it off, but your distinctly red mood chart does that too. The number of admins are headed downwards. But interestingly, so is the number of editors... there are many factors at work here. Worm^TT · (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Interestingly, 2011 is actually progressing at such a slow rate of going downwards that if we promoted a few new administrators those red boxes would probably actually be green. I could be wrong, and I have been before, I believe that once we actually dip into the 600s, it will stagnant to the point where it will just be a natural up and down from new administrators and administrators leaving. I think with the popularity of Wikipedia on the rise back a few years ago, we had more active editors (and a few more administrators as a result). Now the editors who aren't really as interested or busy and unable to come back have reduced the numbers dramatically, for both editors and admins. — Moe ε 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• In this discussion, I respectfully submit that the logic is Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Whilst the number of active administrators has been in decline, this is not unexpected. Less people are becoming sysops, due to the unappealing RFA process. By comparison, the number of active editors is broadly static; and even if it were declining, that too is expected, because the nature of contributing to Wikipedia has changed. Previously, the implicit emphasis was on asking new editors to create articles (it's easy to create a page and write a stub). Today, we have articles on most subjects, and so new editors are asked to refine and expand existing entries (a more difficult task). We could certainly use more admins, but the job isn't as time-intensive as it was, thanks to ClueBot and the other handy reporting and reversion tools. I also heard it said once, although I forget where, that a workload will expand exponentially so as to always match or exceed the size of a bureaucracy. Our admin backlogs are ridiculous in some cases, but conversely they also aren't high-priority; typically, most things that are urgent will get dealt with in a few minutes (and really, how many things are real emergencies?). I don't think we should dismiss the need for new sysops, but I also don't think we should fret endlessly about it. However, for whatever it's worth: as I said above, and as with most adminship-related things, the crux of the problem doesn't seem to be that the userbase is shrinking or unwilling to take on the admin tools - but that the RFA process is about as pleasant as anaesthetic-less toenail removal. AGK [•] 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true: it's not just the number of people seeking adminship that's declining, but the number of people who will go on to become very active editors. You can see that decline (which is most precipitous for the most active editor classes) in the graph below. I think the decline in RfA is simply one visible indicator of this very alarming trend. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

EN Wikipedians who will go on to make x number of edits in their first year, log scale

• Yes— now we're at the point where we could use more admins. What about the future, though? We have an continuously expanding number of articles and a continuously declining number of active admins. If the trend continues, it's not going to be "we could use more admins" but "we desperately need more admins". Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that while the backlogs can be "ridiculous", it's not a big deal. They're not "high-priority". I totally disagree with this. Why should a vandal be allowed to vandalize 15 more pages from the time he's reported at AIV to the time he's blocked, because there are no admins around? Why should a good faith editor have to wait six hours for an uncontroversial but important protected edit request? Why the hell do we allow tagged copyright violations to pile up and sit for hours? I could not disagree more with the "no big deal" attitude when it comes to the admin backlog. Swarm ^X 18:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is it perhaps because the world doesn't end just because something in the wiki isn't right, right now? Seems to me there is much more value in arguing the positive aspects of having more admins. 59.33.45.224 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Maryana - The problem with RfA is the same problem with Wikipedia in general. It boils down to this... Wikipedia is hostile. There have been multiple studies on this and the media has written about it for years. A handful of people have mentioned this fact in threads here and at WP:BN, but they seem to go unnoticed. I Am the Night—Color Me Black springs to mind, though I'm not sure that metaphor would be understood by anybody except for the more elderly... ahem... senior editors here. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Isn't 729 = 723 + 6 ? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• My bad, I got tired by the time I was finishing :P — Moe ε 06:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I won't make any grand proclamations, but I wish more RfAs would go like mine has. I'm not saying all of them will or should, but I must say it's been rather refreshing to see one go smoothly, as opposed to the mess that's occurred at MichaelQSchmidt's in the last day or so. Even though his will clearly pass, that's the kind of ridiculousness that should be (and in this case, rightfully was) dealt with. I was very nervous that something would blow up at my RfA (though I can't think of any skeletons in my closet, I've seen people latch onto things I saw as innocuous and refuse to let go; examples can be provided if necessary), and only seriously calmed down about it after a few days. If I wasn't so concerned about it, I probably would have run when I was initially asked in September (off-wiki). In my case, that was because I wanted to be 100% sure I had enough time to handle any fallout from a major explosion, as I'm not one to be offended if someone tells me I'm a grossly incompetent retard in slightly more civilized language; however, most people can't handle comments like that. It's not so much about eliminating opposes as it is requiring some standard of decency when discussing a candidate. With the blowup at MichaelQSchmidt's RfA, we've proven that there is some limit to what we'll tolerate, but the same type of toxicity exists even without such egregious comments. Potter Stewart's words on obscenity also apply here; eliminating toxicity requires knowing it when we see it. How to go about that is a discussion that probably belongs here, though, so I'll say no more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blade, have you read my essay on RfA voting etiquette? It contains information about both good and bad etiquette on RfA and what one should and should not do when voting in support or in opposition of an RfA candidate. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just as trees take time to bear fruit, it'll be a while before the effects of editor retention reflect on RfA as new editors seeking adminship. Of course if massive deforestation (loss of editors, in this case) continue there'll always be a shortage of fruits (or admins). We can't expect to plant something today and expect it to grow into a tree and bear fruit tomorrow. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Growing good fruit is especially difficult when the soil (Wikipedia) is full of clay (RFA Process). --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• YEAH Hydroxonium re "The problem with RfA is the same problem with Wikipedia in general." I said before here the that RFA isn't the problem wiki is; that RFA is just a symptom and I was pooh-poohed. Glad some others see it my way. I'll even say the wiki model is fundamentally flawed. There are darn few quiet spots on wiki. What's so amazing is that so many put up with wiki crap.PumpkinSky talk 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see there are others who have realized the true nature of the beast, but history shows it is futile. Year after year, people come to this talk page to discuss the fact that RfA is "broken", and to what resolution? I've said it before, and I'll say it again — it's not the process that's broken, it's the mindset of the community that makes this place such a toxic environment. Every single time I come here and watch a candidate submit an ill-fated RfA, I'm compelled to read through the oppose comments. And with every negative analysis, every sarcastic jibe, every trivial oppose, I feel as if it were my request for adminship going up in flames; that it was me being scrutinized; that I'm the one being rejected by the community. When a well-intentioned and experienced Wikipedian applies for adminship and they get opposed for things like "maturity concerns" or "lack of clue", my feelings get hurt as if those comments were directed at me. Does anyone who participates in RfA ever stop to think how they would feel if someone dealt them such harsh words? Sometimes I even find myself cringing at the vitriol I see here. I have absolutely no confidence that I could ever pass an RfA were I to submit one, no matter what sort of experience I acquire beforehand (although I'm still undecided over whether I'd like to be an admin or not). And if I feel discouraged, I imagine many others do as well.

This goes beyond RfA — this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very spirit of WP:CIVIL, the concept of being nice to people. A comment doesn't have to be a personal attack to be uncivil. Incivility is simply the complete and utter disregard for the feelings and dispositions of others. It does not involve bending over backwards trying to be politically correct, nor does it imply that people should spare others difficult introspection at the expense of honest sentiment. But the bare minimum people should be expected to do is to think of everyone else as a fellow human being with opinions and emotions, who deserves better than to be patronized like a less intelligent being, and who should be treated with basic dignity and respect. If this were expected of everyone, these discussions wouldn't be necessary; RfA wouldn't need any "fixing". Master&Expert (Talk) 12:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This was kind of the point that my essay on RfA voting etiquette was trying to address; that the main problem with RfA was the attitudes of voters, both opposers and supporters who berate the opposers. We need to come up with an outline on RfA voting etiquette. I know it will be difficult, if not impossible, to completely enforce, but it's worth a try, and it's better than sitting around and watching perfectly good-faithed candidates fail due to the failure of opposers to assume good faith. I understand that there are some genuine people out there, who oppose for genuine reasons, but RfA has become overrun with those people wishing to use RfA as a venue to bully and insult people that they would leave alone under normal circumstances. Both of my RfAs failed, probably for the best, but the beration I received from my second RfA has made me think twice about running a third time until something is done about the cruel process. My essay has been called a "good start", and I wish to expand this idea; however, I'll need the full support and assistance of the community if I expect this to at least partially succeed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a great start. But as I'm sure you've already realized, it's not just something that can be altered by setting it in stone — altering the toxicity of RfA will be a very gradual process. By that I mean, it'll take years for RfA to fully recover from its current dark phase. It's going to be a commitment on the part of those who want to "fix" RfA. We can do it, but it'll take time and effort. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not years, but it will take a long time for RfA to recover. But as long as good-faithed editors are no longer severely insulted by voters, it's worth the time and effort. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to resolve this problem; I know what it's like to be insulted by RfA voters, and I don't want anything like that to happen to anyone else. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This will be for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment posted recently and am stuck between two positions. On the one hand, I completely agree that the nature of RfA comments are a problem - being called immature, inexperienced, clueless, etc is disheartening to RfA candidates, the majority of whom apply in good faith. On the other hand, many candidates who apply in good faith are immature, inexperienced or clueless, which is a very strong reason to oppose such a candidacy. If a candidate has exhibited immaturity, we do not want them given a position in which that could cause problems. Oppose voters need to express this concern for their votes to be taken considered - they cannot just leave out the reason because it might offend or dishearten the candidate. In some cases, these legitimate oppose votes could be better worded; in many more, I don't think they could. If you have an immature candidate, you can't get around using the word immature on your oppose. Any guidelines would either be too restrictive, not allowing reasonable opposes to be properly voiced, or would be too liberal, allowing people to say what they like. Yes, RfA would be improved if people opposed candidates in a nicer way; however, if we take it too far that way, we make opposing a candidate even harder than it already is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we completely eliminate oppose rationales (although I must point out that at some point the elimination of rationales was offered as a suggestion for improvement), all I'm saying is opposers need to state their opinions in nicer ways. On my second RfA, many users did point out their concerns regarding my maturity and experience in a civilized way, but some, and I'm not going to name names, pointed out their concerns rudely and could've easily worded them to be less demeaning. I wasn't particularly torn after that RfA failed; in fact, it couldn't have been more of a blessing, as it helped me realize my true place here on Wikipedia. However, other candidates that failed the same way I did may not see it that way. We've seen many respectable and qualified admin candidates retire from Wikipedia because of their failed RfAs, and while some have returned, others haven't, and probably never will. Like I said, we won't be able to completely change the mindset of RfA voters, but it's worth a try, and it's better than standing around while qualified candidates get butchered. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see a slightly different problem here: If you're too thin-skinned to make it through criticism at RfA, how were you expecting to hold up to the barrages you draw being an admin? --erachima talk 19:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is not the problem. Admin candidates are expected to be able to deal with criticism calmly, if they start arguing endlessly with every !oppose or start attacking the !opposers, they do not deserve to obtain the privilege. The problem is in the unfair criticism, outright attacks, and criticism that can't be addressed. Things like "sure he's done everything right but I think he's just faking it" or comments that need to be oversighted. Bog-standard robust criticism is part of the position, it is the over-the-top stuff that makes RFA a toxic environment. Franamax (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me, by my observations, I believe the rude comments are possibly a test towards an admin candidate to see how s/he responds to it as stated by User:Franamax. If they are calm, it shows they are able to keep their cool in a demanding or stressful situation. If they get agitated, it shows that the candidate cannot keep their cool and may lose focus or judgement when they lose their cool. If that is the case, I would place an oppose on that candidate as well.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the incivil opposes may be to test candidates, but I don't think that all of the incivil opposes are made to test candidates. Even if it is a test, it's still incivil, and it still should stop. Insulting an RfA candidate is one of the worst ways to test a candidate's civility. And a lot of the time, it's not the candidate's fault that they fail due to an incivil oppose; often, these incivil opposes create pile-ons that fail RfAs. It's not always the candidate's responses to incivil opposes that kill the RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, ideally, oppose rationales should be made civility, kindly & politely. As we have seen, this does not happen. No amount of guidelines or legislation will fix this - people who are rude at RfA are generally the people who have problems with civility anyway. The problem is not going to be fixed with a new policy, but with a new atmosphere and attitude towards RfA. All we can really do is ignore the rudeness (which we should be doing anyway) and get on with it. The only real problem I see is the "I don't like this user" or "this user reported me once" rationale which, though less common, is damaging. I think, however, we trust bureaucrats not to take into account these rationales when closing RfAs - they may be disruptive to the process but do not affect the end result. In the end, there's nothing we can really do, aside from ignore anyone being rude (which a good admin candidate should be doing anyway). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "I don't like them" !votes is indeed not the oppose itself, it is the sometimes hysterical responses which cast a pall over the whole affair - recall the responses to "too many admins already" and "self-nom is prima facie evidence of hunger for power". It would help if the 'crats would establish a list of !oppose reasons (or lack thereof) which they are likely to discount, so fewer editors would feel the need to leap into arguments and rebuttals. I think though you are discounting the problem with the "all-out attack" style !opposes where someone has decided for whatever reason to sink a candidate by any means possible, including attacking their very character. MichaelQSchmidt's first candidacy is a perfect example, IMO that was a case of "ZOMG inclusionist! must destroy!". That is where the serious derailment happens, as reasonable editors just get a bad feeling about the whole brouhaha. It is very difficult (and IMO wrong) to let blatant character attacks stand unchallenged, yet challenging them just raises the noise level, accomplishing what the toxic particpants wanted all along. Perhaps forcible refactoring is going to be needed as an option in those circumstances. Franamax (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I am bothering to comment as nothing ever comes from these discussions, but as an active admin for the last two years I can tell you that despite the decline in number of admins there is no shortage. CSD backlogs have been way down the last few months, almost all AFDs are closed on time, AIV is rarely backlogged, etc. Where backlogs are still a regular problem are generally places that are a bit more backwater, such as WP:STD (no it's not a venereal disease you get from Wikipedia) where a backlog is not critical. This isn't a problem with the number of admins, it is a problem with nobody caring about such areas. Participation in discussions is low, admin involvement is low right along with it. I've adopted WP:UAA/HP as thw backwater that I tend to. Other users and admins pile stuff in there and forget about it. Over the last three months I am pretty much the only person who has brought any of these cases to a close. If you have never participated in a CFD or STD or whatever it's hard to feel like you are the person to be making a close. Although these are admin tasks, nobody ever asks about them at RFA, suggesting the community as a whole doesn't really care too much about these venues either. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

@Franamax It would help if the 'crats would establish a list of !oppose reasons (or lack thereof) which they are likely to discount, so fewer editors would feel the need to leap into arguments and rebuttals. I see it differently. I'm not a 'crat, but were I one, I would not put much weight on the "too many admins" argument, but I do not encourage the 'crats to make such a list. Because if an editor wants to oppose at an RfA because there are too many admins, but has read that such an argument will be discounted, then they will be incented to dream up a different excuse, one which won't be discounted the project is better off if the oppose argument contains that argument, and is discoursed. On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment that some personal comments are hurtful and would like to see those comments reduced, but that isn't a 'crat discussion, it is a community discussion.--SPhilbrickT 21:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment and an perfectly happy to allow the bureaucrats to determine what rationales should and should not be counted when determining the result of an RfA. Any guidelines seems unnecessarily bureaucratic and, as Sphilbrick noted, could cause more problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So if you were a 'crat, you would discount the oppose but would never ever say you had done so? I don't follow that reasoning and it runs counter to our goal of transparency. More to the point, it leaves us stuck in the same cycle of frivolous oppose - earnest rebuttal - nothing says I can't oppose for that reason - 25 people jumping in to say THIS is why RFA is broken - breaking one person's RFA in the process. If everyone knew what a "good" or "bad" !oppose rationale was, fewer people would feel the urge to create drama over !votes that won't count anyway. We have "arguments to avoid" for deletion discussions, admins regularly outline xFD closing rationales, why wouldn't 'crats do the same? They are after all chosen from the pool of admins who make sound and well-explained discussion closes. Not to diss our 'crats, I think they do a great job individually and as a whole - but I think acting as inscrutable oracles in closing RFAs runs counter to transparency and unintentionally causes active harm in some individual cases. As far as inventing other reasons to !oppose, that's fine with me - bring it out onto ground that can be discussed rationally, I have no problem with that. Franamax (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaahhh. We should just have a set system with set requirements and rules about what you can and cannot do in a nomination.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's your opinion, why don't you push that forward on your own? I'll assume you're not trying to trivialize my own comments with a reductio ad absurdum which does not reflect my own views and actually have some ideas on how to improve the RFA environment. After all, you're not just sniping from the sidelines - are you? Franamax (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of that comment was not to offend, be random, or make fun of any body. I say there should be a set of rules of what voters can and cannot do at RfA's what the minimum requirements should be in order to even be nominated as to reduce the amount of WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW. Basically, set basic guidelines that don't restrict voters or nominees but prevents the !voters from creating non-sense questions or support decisions or restrict nominees that just created an account and prevent them from immediately nominating themselves. That is my proposal.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your initial comment was almost indistinguihable from dismissive sarcasm, so it's good to know you are acting in good faith. :) Snows and notnows are handled pretty well IMO, they are not too bruising and we don't want to get in the way of editor aspirations, rather educate them reasonably nicely. Plus it has proved impossible to set generally accepted minimum standards. I'm more concerned with behaviour at the RFAs of established ediors who have a decent shot but have a shit-stirrer or personal enemy come along and attempt to totally derail their candidacy. Set rules won't work in those cases, but some basic guidelines from the 'crats on what they do or do not consider significant opposition would help editors who genuinely believe a good candidate is standing, when they see frivolous (or attacking) opposes, decide what is the best course of action. To rebut or not to rebut - if we all knew that certain types of opposition will be discounted in any event, none of us would feel obliged to jump in with passionate debate on that RFA page. That is why I favour more guidance from the 'crats who will be closing, rather than up-front quidelines on "what is permitted". Franamax (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Somehow, I think that if I were to run for adminship, I will get hammered in the near future.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous Section Continued

I broke up the section because that was beginning to be a bother. I would also have to say though that we shouldn't have RfA's from contributors from account only days old like our most recent one. This user is going offline hence the red signature.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and in response to your comment regarding a set of guidelines about RfA voting, I created a starting point here a while ago. Any comments are welcome. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what sould be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Does and Don'ts.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 15:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I don't think it's ready for a move just yet. In my opinion, there are still some things that need to be worked out, since not everyone is in favor of setting up an RfA voting guideline. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned trusting bureaucrats earlier and I stand by that - they close discussions well and are capable of disregarding certain arguments. If communication is a problem, then I would not be opposed to encouraging 'crats to let people know what kinds of arguments were dismissed when the closed it, providing a longer summary. For example: "I did not take into account the votes based on not liking the user because...". That is more immediate and visible to people, as they do not have to navigate to a guideline page to read them. As I said before, why are people so confident that the editors who make the "I don't like him" votes are going to read a guideline we produce anyway? Generally, those who are likely to make unhelpful oppose votes are the ones who would not be swayed by a guideline. Changing the attitude and education people within the system will be more effective; plus, we will always have to deal with disruptive people, whatever we do. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But some of the most problematic opposes are the legitimate ones that are put in an incivil and unacceptable way. Evidence of this can be seen in my second RfA. I know I've referenced my second RfA many times already, but it's a prime example of what should and what should not be done when opposing an RfA. Many of those opposes were completely legitimate, but they were put in a way that could have damaged my self-esteem. Many other opposes were put kindly, in a sort of "let you down gently" kind of way. In my opinion, editors should be blunt, but not rude, when opposing an RfA or when responding to someone who opposes an RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing a set of guidlelines for voters would be futile. Those who make inappropriate votes or comments are fully aware that they are not playing a clean game, just as every motorist who breaks the speed limit knows full well that he is doing wrong. The difference is that speeding drivers will get warned and eventually banned, while at RfA, blatant PA, incivility, and deceitful rationales, whether aimed at the candidate or at the other voters, is considered some kind of Kavaliersdelikt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Utahraptor, I'm wondering what you think any new policy or guideline will actually achieve? As I and Kudpung have said, users who are uncivil (or worse) at RfA are already violating Wikipedia policies (regarding incivility, even personal attacks some times) - why would they be any more inclined to follow a new guideline? I don't disagree that there is a problem, but I am not convinced that this is the answer. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that another page for miscreants to not read will not help much, unless it is given the force of a policy designation. My suggestion for 'crats to be more explicit is for those others (sometimes including myself) who do actually read things. They would be better able to ignore "bad" votes, knowing that the !vote will be discounted anyway, they would also be able to quiet outbreaks of argument over bad votes by just saying "don't worry about it, doesn't count anyway". That doesn't help with the rudeness part, which is a separate track, but would help to lower the noise level over invalid opposes. Franamax (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect Utahraptor very much, but...

• Any binding rule on how people comment at RfA will be bitterly opposed by people who - not unreasonably - want to be able to comment on a candidate (and on the RfA) however they see best; so it would not be possible to get a consensus to implement this rule.
• Any non-binding rule on how people comment at RfA will be ignored by people who - not unreasonably - want to be able to comment on a candidate (and on the RfA) however they see best; so it wouldn't matter whether there's a consensus to implement this rule.

There may well be ways to improve how RfA works, but ones outside (IE. changes to who needs the mop, how hard it is to remove the mop, &c) are more likely to succeed than ones inside, I feel. bobrayner (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So what about a five-person committee empowered to modify comments? I could easily come up with a list of 5 names, Dank and WSC would be on it. They would have to decide whether to participate or adjudicate, and recuse when "friends" show up, but I think there are enough solid and respected participants here to select a short-list that the entire community could live with. Franamax (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by any suggestion regarding modifying/deleting comments at RfA. Firstly, I think many people will want to be able to comment in any way they please, considering a lot of trust is endowed in a successful RfA candidate. This is especially pertinent with those who may make civil and reasonable comments which are critical and could be interpreted as incivil 0 the line is hard to draw. I am also not convinced that any damage could be reversed by this. If someone runs a discussion off-course, removing the content will not resolve the disruption already caused, nor will it help the candidate who has probably already read the offensive content. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been silent because I've been...thinking. Many times before, the thought of "you won't be able to change people's personality" has crossed my mind, and this thought, combined with everyone's past comments, has made me reconsider the guideline proposal. Now, I'm not sure if it will even slightly work. The best the guideline can do is encourage people to be civil, but there's no way it can actually make them be civil. But I do want to see RfA changed in some way. I hate how people are torn apart by incivil opposers, and how most of them feel so bad as to permanently leave Wikipedia afterward. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to fix RfA, but it doesn't look like we all agree on what should be done. In fact the only thing we can agree on is that something needs to be done. A compromise is probably the best way to fix RfA, one that encompasses concepts from some of the better RfA reform proposals, but how would one go about creating one? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Franamax's 5- person committee is basically a concept that is being discussed at WP:RFA/C, but the question remains: Who would appoint the committee and how?

Unfortunately, there are no bright lines for civility - everyone has their own threshold. Around the site, some genuinely polite good faith comments are often interpreted as being patronizing or condescending. In fact some would consider 'Please stay of my talk page' to be uncivil, while some perceived incivility is retorted in clearly unacceptable tones. There appear to be users who possibly oppose at RfA for questionable reasons - far more sinister than civility issues are the votes that are inappropriate, deceitful, or even founded on untruths or systemic bias. Such voters do not apparently realise that they are the ones who have largely contributed to the process being broken, and they ripost with righteous indignation when challenged. Here, something could be done, and especially as all kinds of unfair commenting and voting can ause unreflected pile-ons that should then also be withdrawn. The 'crats however do not necessary see it within their remit to police the process, and for fear of being labelled a cabal, even admins are also reluctant to intervene. The ball is squarely back in the court of other members of the community - with or without the support of a reform project. Time perhaps to very carefully compile a proposal statement based on some of the suggestions and discussion for clerking, and offer it up for RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility at RfA and everywhere on Wikipedia

/rant When people are rude at a grocery store, they are thrown out. When people are obnoxious at university, they are expelled. When an employee is a dick at work, they are fired. Why is Wikipedia different? Why is WP:CIVIL one of the few policies that's never enforced? Everytime the subject comes up, people say civility blocks don't work or they say we don't need the civility police. It's true that there are no civility police in modern society and that's because everybody enforces civility. Parents enforce it with thier children. Managers enforce it with their employees. Store owners enforce it with thier patrons. Wikipedia, and many online communities, don't enforce civility. This allows the most hostile members to rule those communities. Many of our best users leave because of the hostility here. We enforce WP:VANDAL, yet we don't enforce WP:CIVIL. Which one does more damage over the long term? At what point will we be willing to enforce WP:CIVIL? When there are 1,000 highly active users left? 100? I hope it's before 2 because when there's one person left, there'll be no need to enforce it. /end rant - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the powers that be, especially the early ones who set the standard, failed to enforce it, thereby setting a sad precedent, resulting in things like, as you mention, ogres ruling the roost and easy to get along with editors leaving. Changing institutional behavior once it's ingrained is VERY difficult in any organization, not just this one.PumpkinSky talk 03:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

agree with PS above, but I think another reason is that we can't find a good solid majority who agree on what is and what is not civil. With such a wide variety of backgrounds, upbringings, ages, cultures, etc. within our community, there is the constant debate about what is civility. While I and another 50 year old guy of similar cultures and backgrounds might have a conversation where we tell each other "ahh .. you're full of shit"; and neither of us are offended (although a paserby my bristle at the conversation)... when a 30-something guy tells a 15-year old girl the same thing ... it's quite a different story. Also: we get into the "language" itself; where shit, hell, idiot, piss, troll, vandal, and the omnipresent "fuck" are quick to draw "red-line" attention - I've seen experienced editors (including some admins) use sugar-coated condescending and baiting text to draw an (dare I say?) opponent into a "blunt" retort: and then lower that "civility" hammer. The bottom line is that the community as a whole can not seem to come to a clear consensus as to what civility truly entails. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that the way to enforce civility shouldn't the same way that we enforce other policies? Civility is so subjective, that if you were to block for it, even for a pattern of incivility, then the block will instantly be controversial. We do have a "bright line" of personal attacks which we can and should block for, but general incivility we need a better mechanism to deal with. At the moment, talking to the uncivil editor seems like the most sensible thing to do - and I mean actually talking to them, not dropping a bland "Your comments violate CIVIL" warning, which in itself could be regarded as uncivil. I would then suggest that the uncivil editor is given some time to reflect on the discussion, because the next step that can be taken is RfC/U - a fundamentally flawed process, but the only one we have. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudos Worm, not only do you see the problem, but you also offer a truly viable solution. I am honestly impressed. All too often on WP (as in life) we talk at one another rather than talking to one another. I think a vast majority of editors here would much prefer to see contentious situations dialed-down and settled rather than escalated into the word slug-fests that all too often happen. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the "why" that Hydroxonium poses here, and I forgot to mention it, is "teh clique's" (intentional mis-spelling of the). Editors who have been around a while (especially in the same areas) tend to get to know one another and natural bonds are developed. While some cliques are more formalized than others, it's still only natural for an editor who has worked with another editor productively to come to his/her defense when their "friend" (at least in the online sense) is threatened or chastised. How often have we seen an experienced editor lose patience with either a new user, or an editor who outright refuses to take good advise onboard? Eventually the patience is exhausted, and a "STFU" or "GTH" comment is issued (often with some justification in regards to the later WP:IDHT editors). Then when an admin. issues a block, or another editor issues a warning - they are descended upon by 3, 9, 15 of the sanctioned editor's "friends". Once bitten, twice shy comes into play and people become hesitant to utter the word "civility". again .. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility is a massive problem; it could be solved, if we clamped down. I know there is disagreement about edge-cases, but far too often blatant incivility is tolerated. It needs to stop. It's a voluntary project; volunteers deserve respect. If I volunteered at a local animal shelter, and other workers continually spoke to me in the manner people do here, and if the management ignored the problem, I'd soon quit. I think much of the problem is immaturity. In English libraries, we allow, and indeed we encourage, children. However, if they start running around/shouting, they're disturbing more scholarly library-users, so they get kicked out. Same should apply here.  Chzz  ►  09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)